I have a T-Mobile USA voice only plan..
(goes back to trying to find "headphones that fit"...)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Actively Stop SIM Unlocking
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a T-Mobile USA voice only plan..
(goes back to trying to find "headphones that fit"...)
SLAs cannot override the local laws.
If the local laws state a customer is free to unlock a phone they have bought outright, then any SLA is worthless.
Much to the detriment of the customer, unfortunately: the customer pays full price for a phone and yet is still told what network to use.
If the local laws state a customer is free to unlock a phone they have bought outright, then any SLA is worthless.
Much to the detriment of the customer, unfortunately: the customer pays full price for a phone and yet is still told what network to use.
Amen.
But how did the "AT&T customes need to stop whining" argument pop up in the first place? It seems to me this thread started on the mere fact that people were somehow SHOCKED that Jobs would try to stop phone unlockers.
As an AT&T customer long before the iphone I don't care about people trying to hack their way around the system. But I find it extremely humorous that everone feels they have some god-given right to do so. Until the iPhone starts dispensing food, clothing and shelter only to AT&T customers that argument can't really be made.
It's a phone, a luxury item. People need to stop acting like Jobs is walking around hacking off people's right hands.
Actually, in the States that's not true. Our laws are more concerned with contracts that violate federal laws, but even then, not always. A couple of examples: If my local city laws allow me to paint my house any color I wish without a permit, I may do so. But if I sign a contractual agreement in a community with a homeowner's association, an agreement that I can only paint my house white or blue, then no matter the city law, I signed the contract and I may not paint my house pink. Also we have a federal law that prevents listening in on telephone conversations without a warrant. But if I sign an agreement with my employer that they may if they wish listen in on my telephone conversations at work, then they can, and I have no recourse under the federal wiretap statutes.
In Canada, it's probably different. Apple can forbid exporting of the iPhone to Canada, and if you fly or drive over here and they discover you are Canadian, they can refuse to sell you one. But if you manage to buy one and take it back to Canada, then your country's laws apply. At least as far as SLAs go, I think. There are some international agreements over copyright law that make the country of origin's laws supersede the local laws.
In Canada, it's probably different. Apple can forbid exporting of the iPhone to Canada, and if you fly or drive over here and they discover you are Canadian, they can refuse to sell you one. But if you manage to buy one and take it back to Canada, then your country's laws apply. At least as far as SLAs go, I think. There are some international agreements over copyright law that make the country of origin's laws supersede the local laws.
Stella is right, and this is very important. Have you guys ever read the MS Windows EULA? Or the one for Media Player? It's evil, evil stuff. And half of it is a total violation of consumer rights, 100% unenforceable.
If the law says you can unlock a phone--and here in the US, the DMCA permits that, and elsewhere, they probably have the same type of things--then you can unlock the phone, even if you "promise not to" by some BS terms of service that you agree to implicitly buy buying the phone and plugging it into your computer.
The SLA is only as good as how much it can hold in court. For Apple's part, they have every right to prevent you from future updates by breaking your unlock with their updates, but if you can unlock the phone with its current software, and you are happy with it, you're golden, and more than likely legal.
Deacon,
I think people abroad often have a wildly exaggerated view of Americans' civil rights. They're really pretty limited. Not that we don't enjoy a free society; of course we do. But the basic set of rights for which we receive absolute protection, that list is pretty short.
I think people abroad often have a wildly exaggerated view of Americans' civil rights. They're really pretty limited. Not that we don't enjoy a free society; of course we do. But the basic set of rights for which we receive absolute protection, that list is pretty short.
Some of the terms of SLAs and EULAs are notoriously unenforceable in the States. But just because a law permits something in the States does not mean that you can't give up your rights under that law by signing a contract giving those rights away. Contracts are very powerful in their own right in the States. They are frequently enforced even though they may prohibit doing things that some laws otherwise permit. The concept behind this is that you willingly signed the agreement in exchange for something you perceived to have value, so you must live with the consequences.
Yeah... there's an amusing point. It's good to bear in mind the company Apple. As I recall, Apple used to fly a pirate flag over at 1 Infinite Loop. Being a pirate is cool, depending on what you're doing. Breaking an SLA to unlock a phone--that's very cool, I am impressed and stoked about efforts to do so, and I would do it in a heartbeat if I felt the need to be on a network other than AT&T. But complaining that companies are evil and limiting choice, and blah... Sometimes that's worthwhile, but most of the time it's a tired, dead horse.
True, and I am not very educated about such things. But it seems like I have read that companies are not allowed to sell products with restrictions in their LAs that prevent customers from "reasonable" use of the product. I don't know why I think so, but I believe that license agreements bear different weights than many other contracts, depending on what they say.
Apple seems to have a "these are the terms... take it or leave it" attitude (see Verizon).
M$ has more of a "TAKE IT OR YOU WILL SUFFER!" attitude (see anti-trust rulings).
That's the difference.
Corporations aren't so much evil as they are just soulless by design. They exist purely to make money. As people we expect better, wish to be treated better, but corporations aren't people. It's great when the Vermont Teddy-Bear Company decides to pay all their line workers not only a living wage, but a great wage, and offer free health benefits, free shift meals, and all that. But they don't have to. So long as they pay the minimum wage and follow any applicable labor laws, which are usually fairly few in the States, they can operate as they choose.
I kind of understand the plight of, or at least sympathize with, people who want the iPhone but can't get it in their country. But for people who can get it with an ATT contract but instead beat their chests about it being their right to do whatever they please and enjoy their iPhone as they see fit, that's fine so long as it doesn't affect my right to enjoy the benefits of my iPhone as I see fit, too. And right now it certainly seems I'm being held up in my enjoyment of new features because some people are breaking the locks and using the iPhone on other carriers. That's my only serious argument against unlocking and someone else may choose to use his iPhone: I'm not crossing you up, so you shouldn't be crossing me up.
Frankly, I'm surprised so many posters have taken Steve at face value.
He was in front of the press AND his new UK partner, O2.
I don't see him answering a question on iPhone hacks by saying, "Yeah, you know what? It's not worth the time or effort to break them. Let the kids do as they will. I remember the good ol' days when Woz and I tried to screw over the big corporations of the 70s. As a matter of fact, I'm *excited* to see people hacking the iPhone."
Even if that's exactly what he was thinking, he gave the canned PR response, as well he should have.
He was in front of the press AND his new UK partner, O2.
I don't see him answering a question on iPhone hacks by saying, "Yeah, you know what? It's not worth the time or effort to break them. Let the kids do as they will. I remember the good ol' days when Woz and I tried to screw over the big corporations of the 70s. As a matter of fact, I'm *excited* to see people hacking the iPhone."
Even if that's exactly what he was thinking, he gave the canned PR response, as well he should have.
Am I missing something? Explain how this is a relevant statement? Or are you claiming that Ferrari is infringing your consumer rights by not selling you an F40 for £20? Is the BBC violating your consumer rights by selling you a TV license that doesn't give you access to their programming in Papua New Guinea? If you're sold a contract that says X and Y, how is it an infringement of your consumer rights if the item you've bought does X and Y but not Z? If you want Z, buy a product that gives you Z...
Apple can try to stop it, but they need to realize ... Anything that is made can be broken, so i fix something there is a workaround that, and there always will be and more and more with the technology only getting stronger and stronger
Also, apple sells more iPhones because they can be unlocked then when they are locked .....
Also, apple sells more iPhones because they can be unlocked then when they are locked .....
that is true, and i do also have several unlocked quad-band GSM phones that i use for travel.
the point you're missing i think is that the entire purpose of the iPhone is to consolidate devices. i love having the iPhone so i don't need to take my "gargantuan" 80 gig iPod with me everywhere. when i travel, why then should my owning an iPhone necessitate me carrying around a second phone?!! the countries i visit tend to be in Africa, where i can easily purchase local SIMs and have very cheap discounted rates calling locally and even to the States. should i make calls using AT&T's "discounted" plans from countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Zambia, or Namibia (all countries I visit regularly), those all cost $4.99/minute. now, is carrying a second phone with me worth saving about $4.70/minute? probably. but i would love to have a single phone with a single charger that will work no matter what country i'm in with no matter what SIM i put in it. sure, i've gotta switch SIMs if i wanna hear my AT&T voicemail, but that's a hell of a lot easier (and lighter) than carrying a separate phone and charger just for that.
Well, situations are all different, even within the US. From my own experience, I spend a lot of time up in Los Alamos, NM (I work for a company there, and I am at school in Oklahoma for now). AT&T coverage is awesome here in Norman, and of course in Texas when I visit family. But it's spotty in New Mexico, and in Los Alamos it is "Partner Coverage." Translation: No roaming fees for usage, but If I spend more than 50% of my minutes or 20% of my EDGE data usage on partner networks for 2 months in a row, I get kicked off AT&T. That's really frustrating for me, because I have been a (not particularly loyal) constant customer of AT&T Wireless, then Cingular, for as long as I have owned a phone. There are places in the US with no AT&T coverage, and there are places in the US with "coverage" but really crappy coverage.
Like I said, I do agree that complaining about rights is sometimes worthwhile but often beating a dead horse, but I don't see the problem with piracy in the sense of violating unenforceable, pointless contract terms--at your own risk. I don't think that Apple's really going to put all that much effort into breaking iPhone unlocks. They will probably break them in future updates, but I dunno how much work that is. At some level it becomes counterproductive, because constant updates for fake things can really hurt your reputation with honest, non-technical customers (I would thing). I don't think that the locking down that they are doing is going to slow down their release cycle for updates to the iPhone.
I think it's slowing down the release of this new firmware upgrade. I won't repost my whole reasoning here, but just the fact Jobs had iPhones with the new firmware in London and thus leaked the new features seems to indicate the firmware was stable and had planned to be released by then.
At any rate, if your statement that I quoted is true, then I don't much care. I don't care if doing certain things to/with the iPhone is what some iPhone owners perceive as benefit, so long as it doesn't interfere with what I perceive as benefit. That's the extent of my complaint with the unlocking business -- I'm not even a fan of the whole concept of locking phones to a particular carrier, period.
To save a post, responding to the above African traveler, I did not realize the international roaming rates under ATT special plan, even to more obscure destinations, were so high as $5 per minute. I can see how that doesn't seem reasonable, if you were willing to pay more to roam internationally, it should still be in the realm of affordability. I suspect they price it much like airlines in the past have priced full-fare, no-restriction tickets: they expect that corporations not individuals are paying these expenses, so they subsidize their profits from deeper pockets.
We're talking about hundred of millions of pounds of revenue sharing here. Pounds that will be almost pure profit as the costs of the iPhone will be covered by the sales price, and resellers are no doubt shouldering much of the marketing and sales-related costs. Do you really think Apple are not going to "put that much work in" to protect hundreds of millions of pound's worth of almost pure profit over 18 months? They're a company, not a charity...
For real.. Plus, as developer friendly the iPhone is, software unlocks are going to stay...
Well, I am wondering how the agreements on the iphone can be valid at all, if you don't agree to them while activating on itunes. It seems to me you didn't agree to anything at that point, if you just purchased the phone but activated via other means. I know some of those agreements are supposedly in force as soon as you break the seal on the packaging, but in this case, I don't see any wording on the outside of the packaging to that effect, and you would have to break the seal to get to any documentation inside the box stating that.
If you watch the youtube video, Steve is almost confused by the question, almost as if he only knew people were hacking the iPhone to add apps, and didn't know people were using it to unlock the iPhone. You didn't even get the impression that he knew what the term "unlock" meant. He went like "Oh you mean hacking", which could mean the addition of third-party apps, instead of flat-out unlocking.
Edit: here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgEpgKsLjU
Edit: here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSgEpgKsLjU