Apple to Actively Stop SIM Unlocking

[PDE]

They would have activated their phones properly and wouldn't have the problem. You wouldn't need to use an activation hack if you had signed up with and then canceled the AT&T service.

But if you cancel, you can no longer use the phone part of the iphone without hacking it. Activation is not the same as unlocking. So, basically, you're left with an ipod touch.


If ATT required a 2-year contract, but didn't lock it to their sim there would be fewer protests. But the fact that they not only get your money every month (guaranteed), but also don't allow you to use it with other sims in other countries is what really ticks me off.

 

[drater]

What I want to see is someone do the 2 year contract with ATT, then pay the termination fee of $175. Wouldn't they have to unlock the phone for you then? They said in previous statements that they would be unlocking the phone after a customer has completed his contract, well, the $175 early termination fee would be completing it.

 

[Stella]

At the end of customer contracts with O2, AT&T etc, what are Apple going to do?
1. let the customer unlock their iPhone since they've seen their contract through and free to use any network they wish
2. force them to sign up to another contract order for them to continue using their iPhone

It'll be an interesting time.

 

[indianboy010]

can i just fake activate the phone and use my existing att sim without unlocking.
thx in advance
shivam

please doesn't anyone have an answer cause im going to buy one tomorrow if i can use it
thx

 

[shadowfax]

At the end of customer contracts with O2, AT&T etc, what are Apple going to do?
1. let the customer unlock their iPhone since they've seen their contract through and free to use any network they wish
2. force them to sign up to another contract order for them to continue using their iPhone

It'll be an interesting time.

So the terms of service require a 2 year service agreement with AT&T. I wonder what legal power consumers will have in 2 years against Apple/AT&T when they have completed their "contractual obligations" and are still forced to extend their time with AT&T or brick their phone which they legitimately own.

You're right, it will be interesting. Hopefully consumers can find a legal ground to force apple to unlock the phone from AT&T, even if they don't do it of their own accord. And hopefully by then other carriers will support iPhone features like visual voicemail, which I also hope becomes a cell phone standard.

 

[matticus008]

But if you cancel, you can no longer use the phone part of the iphone without hacking it. Activation is not the same as unlocking. So, basically, you're left with an ipod touch.

Yep. So what?

It's their phone right up until the moment they hand it to you. They said that they're selling you a phone for use with AT&T service. You said "okay, here's my money." If you don't have AT&T service, then you're out of luck when it comes to any expectation about the device's cellular performance. They don't have any obligation not to frustrate your attempts to use it on other networks.

But the fact that they not only get your money every month (guaranteed), but also don't allow you to use it with other sims in other countries is what really ticks me off.

Sure, but you knew that when you bought it, so you've caused your own distress.

 

[sunnyDlite]

SIM cards can identify themselves via the iPhone, I'm sure. iTunes could be modified to lock any iPhone sync'ed, or even just connected to the computer, with a non-approved carrier SIM installed. Being off network won't help with that. But as far as I know the current version of iTunes won't do this.

I use my iPhone as an iPod. I signed up on the goPhone plan to activate legally, and I am going to cancel it, as I intended to stay with Sprint since day one. As long as my ATT sim is in my phone, I don't think it's anyone's business if the service is active or not. Breaking my iPod functionality because I haven't paid my phone bill... that would be WAY too much big brother-ism for me!

 

[big_malk]

please doesn't anyone have an answer cause im going to buy one tomorrow if i can use it
thx

I think so, although I can't guarantee it.
I'm waiting for mine to come from eBay to the UK to use with vodafone, so if I can get mine to work, you'll certainly be able to get your AT&T sim to work. Worst case is you'll have to unlock it fully, but with AT&T visual voice mail would still work I expect.

 

[PDE]

Yep. So what?

It's their phone right up until the moment they hand it to you. They said that they're selling you a phone for use with AT&T service. You said "okay, here's my money." If you don't have AT&T service, then you're out of luck when it comes to any expectation about the device's cellular performance. They don't have any obligation not to frustrate your attempts to use it on other networks.

Sure, but you knew that when you bought it, so you've caused your own distress.

I did know that, but only because I read about this online. I do NOT think that it is clear on the box that it cannot be used abroad without ATT service, nor did any Apple rep along the way mention anything that another SIM could not be used when abroad. The requirement of ATT activation and contract does not, automatically, preclude using other sims for other services, does it?

I'm sorry, but there are people out there who would have no idea that by signing a contract with ATT, they are not allowed to put another sim card in their phones when abroad. No other manufacturer locks their phones when you buy them directly from them and the assumption is that if you buy directly, and pay full price, it's yours to use as you please. Apple is somehow in between and is happy to sell you the iphone as if you're buying directly, but then have lots of conditions and restrictions that are not really disclosed.

 

[shakastange]

When you buy an iPhone from Apple, you DO NOT sign any contract whatsoever. You hand over your cash, you get the phone. A lawyers here could better explain how a contract works but, in my experience with contracts, this is not one that binds you to a specific carrier. Neither are there any terms of how you should use your phone. Many carriers require that you sign up for the contract as part of the phone purchasing process. Again this isn't the case. AT&T only comes in AFTER you already own the phone and you sign onto iTunes.

There is a revenue sharing deal between Apple and ATT but, reports indicate Apple receives revenue only for NEW AT&T customers purchasing the iPhone. If Apple receives 10% from ATT on $50 per month over 2 years, that amounts to only $120. Keep in mind this is for NEW CUSTOMERS only. Many people want the iPhone but will not sign up for whatever reason. I bought one only because the unlock became available. Had it not been for the hackers, this is $400 off the books. Yes we may be in the minority but 10,000 iPhones at $400 a pop is a cool 4 million. Unlocking the phone is not terribly complicated. Even if you cannot do it yourself, everyone knows a tinkerer who is willing.

Apple would've been bothered by these unlocks if the supply of iPhone was constrained and unlockers prevented AT&T customers from buying the phone. The extra revenue would've been lost. But there is enough for everyone and Apple definitely won't complain if some thousands go to people not wanting to go with ATT.

 

[sanford]

My final word on this subject, a fact which I'm sure will make many of you ecstatic: It matters not whether Apple will lose no money to unlocks, or even if they'll make more money selling more iPhones with easy unlocks available. Apple has a contractual obligation to AT&T to keep the iPhone locked to AT&T in the States for the period of time set forth in the contract -- I've heard as long as five years. Should Apple not apply due diligence in maintaining this exclusivity (doing anything and everything to break the unlocks and keep them broken) AT&T almost certainly -- I haven't actually read the contract between Apple and AT&T, but I can make an educated guess -- has a valid legal claim against Apple. Not only could this result in an expensive settlement or significant award at trial to AT&T, it will cost a fortune to defend, and destroying their partnership with the only stateside carrier committed to supporting existing special iPhone features and any futures ones they should care to release would be disastrous for Apple.

Those of you saying it's not worth it for Apple to put much effort into breaking these unlocks are either woefully naive or merely hopeful because you've unlocked an iPhone and don't want it magically turned into a paperweight overnight.

Finally, on a philosophical note, if the talented people behind these unlocks -- some of them formally educated with advanced degrees -- would put half the effort into solving real problems they put into breaking into a proprietary mobile phone that many may want but absolutely no one needs, we might get something of value accomplished in this world. The fact that they focus their energies on the damn iPhone is testament to why messes in this world indefinitely remain messes.

When you buy an iPhone from Apple, you DO NOT sign any contract whatsoever. You hand over your cash, you get the phone. A lawyers here could better explain how a contract works but, in my experience with contracts, this is not one that binds you to a specific carrier. Neither are there any terms of how you should use your phone. Many carriers require that you sign up for the contract as part of the phone purchasing process. Again this isn't the case. AT&T only comes in AFTER you already own the phone and you sign onto iTunes.

There is a revenue sharing deal between Apple and ATT but, reports indicate Apple receives revenue only for NEW AT&T customers purchasing the iPhone. If Apple receives 10% from ATT on $50 per month over 2 years, that amounts to only $120. Keep in mind this is for NEW CUSTOMERS only. Many people want the iPhone but will not sign up for whatever reason. I bought one only because the unlock became available. Had it not been for the hackers, this is $400 off the books. Yes we may be in the minority but 10,000 iPhones at $400 a pop is a cool 4 million. Unlocking the phone is not terribly complicated. Even if you cannot do it yourself, everyone knows a tinkerer who is willing.

Apple would've been bothered by these unlocks if the supply of iPhone was constrained and unlockers prevented AT&T customers from buying the phone. The extra revenue would've been lost. But there is enough for everyone and Apple definitely won't complain if some thousands go to people not wanting to go with ATT.

 

[Fast Shadow]

Just read this whole thread with great interest.

Apparently, I am the devil because I went and bought an iPhone for the specific purpose of running it through the unlocking process, as a technical exercise. I unlocked it successfully following the published instructions, tried it with a T-Mobile SIM, and it worked great. I ended up activating it legitimately and then unlocking it again, so I can use the SIM from my Treo 750w (work phone) in my iPhone, as the iPhone is a lot nicer to carry around when I'm on call.

I feel no particular loyalty to any wireless carrier, but I have been an Apple customer in some shape or form for over 25 years.

I do think the high-and-mighty stance taken by the anti-unlockers is somewhat amusing, because the sort of culture that unlockers and hackers exist within is the culture that Apple was built on. Hating them is hating your roots. This is the same Steve Jobs who used to show up at work barefoot and went out of his way to embarrass and harass IBM people because of how corporate they were.

 

[PDE]

Just read this whole thread with great interest.

Apparently, I am the devil because I went and bought an iPhone for the specific purpose of running it through the unlocking process, as a technical exercise. I unlocked it successfully following the published instructions, tried it with a T-Mobile SIM, and it worked great. I ended up activating it legitimately and then unlocking it again, so I can use the SIM from my Treo 750w (work phone) in my iPhone, as the iPhone is a lot nicer to carry around when I'm on call.

I feel no particular loyalty to any wireless carrier, but I have been an Apple customer in some shape or form for over 25 years.

I do think the high-and-mighty stance taken by the anti-unlockers is somewhat amusing, because the sort of culture that unlockers and hackers exist within is the culture that Apple was built on. Hating them is hating your roots. This is the same Steve Jobs who used to show up at work barefoot and went out of his way to embarrass and harass IBM people because of how corporate they were.

Yes!

 

[cliffjumper68]

looks like all the unlocking people are screwed...

wouldn't be a problem if they had chosen a better network.

 

[cliffjumper68]

Just read this whole thread with great interest.

Apparently, I am the devil because I went and bought an iPhone for the specific purpose of running it through the unlocking process, as a technical exercise. I unlocked it successfully following the published instructions, tried it with a T-Mobile SIM, and it worked great. I ended up activating it legitimately and then unlocking it again, so I can use the SIM from my Treo 750w (work phone) in my iPhone, as the iPhone is a lot nicer to carry around when I'm on call.

I feel no particular loyalty to any wireless carrier, but I have been an Apple customer in some shape or form for over 25 years.

I do think the high-and-mighty stance taken by the anti-unlockers is somewhat amusing, because the sort of culture that unlockers and hackers exist within is the culture that Apple was built on. Hating them is hating your roots. This is the same Steve Jobs who used to show up at work barefoot and went out of his way to embarrass and harass IBM people because of how corporate they were.

You are exactly right! Compare and contrast with the open letter from Steve about DRM and consumer choice. Wish that applied to carriers too.

 

[shadowfax]

Finally, on a philosophical note, if the talented people behind these unlocks -- some of them formally educated with advanced degrees -- would put half the effort into solving real problems they put into breaking into a proprietary mobile phone that many may want but absolutely no one needs, we might get something of value accomplished in this world. The fact that they focus their energies on the damn iPhone is testament to why messes in this world indefinitely remain messes.

Allow me to call a g******n load of total, complete, and ultimate hypocritical b******t. Hackers aren't the reason there isn't positive change in the world. Apple, AT&T, Microsoft, and every other tech corporation are. If leaders of corporations and their investors, people with SO FRICKIN MUCH MONEY and in command of absolutely as much talent as the hackers you defame, invested their companies in system and policies that gave customers freedom rather than locking them into one specific way of doing things, That would actually BE something of value in this world--imagine that, a commercial atmosphere where customers were empowered.

Hackers are no one. How many people do you think do what these people have done with the iPhone? Not one one hundred-thousandth of a percent of the people who could JUST AS WELL enact positive change in the world, but would rather make money being monkeys for corporation/business x, not to even mention the government (which I work for ). Get off their backs, I think they are better for the world than most, whatever you think of what they do.

 

[PDE]

You are exactly right! Compare and contrast with the open letter from Steve about DRM and consumer choice. Wish that applied to carriers too.

Let's face it, for all his genius, Mr. Jobs is not a very pleasant individual and, it seems he's also a hypocrite. Using rhetoric to attract, but consistently applying policies and methods that go against the rhetoric is a recipe for a backlash among customers. If Apple wants to stay ahead, I think it's important to genuinely think different - not just in terms of design, but also in corporate policies and attitudes.

 

[PDE]

Allow me to call a g******n load of total, complete, and ultimate hypocritical b******t. Hackers aren't the reason there isn't positive change in the world. Apple, AT&T, Microsoft, and every other tech corporation are. If leaders of corporations and their investors, people with SO FRICKIN MUCH MONEY and in command of absolutely as much talent as the hackers you defame, invested their companies in system and policies that gave customers freedom rather than locking them into one specific way of doing things, That would actually BE something of value in this world--imagine that, a commercial atmosphere where customers were empowered.

Hackers are no one. How many people do you think do what these people have done with the iPhone? Not one one hundred-thousandth of a percent of the people who could JUST AS WELL enact positive change in the world, but would rather make money being monkeys for corporation/business x, not to even mention the government (which I work for ). Get off their backs, I think they are better for the world than most, whatever you think of what they do.

Again: yes! Agreed 100%.

 

[shadowfax]

Let's face it, for all his genius, Mr. Jobs is not a very pleasant individual and, it seems he's also a hypocrite. Using rhetoric to attract, but consistently applying policies and methods that go against the rhetoric is a recipe for a backlash among customers. If Apple wants to stay ahead, I think it's important to genuinely think different - not just in terms of design, but also in corporate policies and attitudes.

You're probably right, but I tend to think of Jobs as this guy with a vision--a vision for this awesome system of selling music and a totally different cell phone world. But he doesn't own rights to music, and he doesn't own a cell phone company, so he has to get them on board with what he's doing. I am consistently impressed with how he domineers his way through industries that he is new to, but he's not invincible, and he has to make his company money--lots of money. I think he's honest about DRM free, and I think he would prefer not to be carrier locked, but it's something that has to happen for them to take up a position of power in the industry. I think that Jobs and Apple are biding their time.

At least, that's the optimist in me. I realize that they are mostly just out to make a buck.

 

[Clive At Five]

My final word on this subject, a fact which I'm sure will make many of you ecstatic: It matters not whether Apple will lose no money to unlocks, or even if they'll make more money selling more iPhones with easy unlocks available. Apple has a contractual obligation to AT&T to keep the iPhone locked to AT&T in the States for the period of time set forth in the contract -- I've heard as long as five years. Should Apple not apply due diligence in maintaining this exclusivity (doing anything and everything to break the unlocks and keep them broken) AT&T almost certainly -- I haven't actually read the contract between Apple and AT&T, but I can make an educated guess -- has a valid legal claim against Apple. Not only could this result in an expensive settlement or significant award at trial to AT&T, it will cost a fortune to defend, and destroying their partnership with the only stateside carrier committed to supporting existing special iPhone features and any futures ones they should care to release would be disastrous for Apple.

My your story has changed from the beginning of this thread... I quote:

You are most likely quite free to buy an iPhone without accepting the contract terms. You can hang it on the wall. Use it as a coaster. Whatever. But activating it by any other means than the exclusive carrier method, or activating it and then installing software that breaks the lock to the exclusive carrier, that violates the SLA, so that you may not do.

Here you accuse users of breaking SLA. Now you're accusing Apple of breaking contract with AT&T. It sort of sounds you're just fighting to fight.

As for the argument itself, you'd have to read the exact terms of the contract to determine whether or not Apple is charged with the task of maintaining a lock. Let's assume you're right and they are obligated to keep the iPhone closed up tight. I think it's been made obvious that it's in Apple's best interest NOT to be locked into AT&T. They'll sell way more iPhones, and the hardware sales will far outshine the cut they get from AT&T. For this reason, it's obvious that Apple is just saying this to keep up pretences.

However, let's assume Apple does pursue relocking and, moreso, to the best of the ability. No amount of software or firmware updates will ever prevent the iPhone from be unlockable. To the end-users who unlock, there will be no difference if the GUI unlock has 30 steps internally or 1000. All they do is install it on their phone and hit go. Apple is essentially only affecting the hackers.

The real problem is with hardware. All hardware has one thing in common: it can be hacked. Period. There's nothing Apple can do within its power to change that. The best they can do is give unlockers a minor inconvenience. This is precisely what they will do, and it will have little to no impact of the unlocking "industry." Period. And they'll only do it to pacify AT&T.

Those of you saying it's not worth it for Apple to put much effort into breaking these unlocks are either woefully naive or merely hopeful because you've unlocked an iPhone and don't want it magically turned into a paperweight overnight.

False. Read above. I'm neither naive on the subject nor do I own an iPhone. Let's not make an ass out of you and me, now.

Finally, on a philosophical note, if the talented people behind these unlocks -- some of them formally educated with advanced degrees -- would put half the effort into solving real problems they put into breaking into a proprietary mobile phone that many may want but absolutely no one needs, we might get something of value accomplished in this world. The fact that they focus their energies on the damn iPhone is testament to why messes in this world indefinitely remain messes.

This is not philosophical. This a social commentary, and it's in error. Technological prowess of Computer Science gurus does not imply prowess in any other field, nor does it imply the capability of such.

Besides, what could a few CSci geniuses add to the leagues of Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy and Physics geniuses who HAVE been working on solving the world's problems since the beginning of time? You think added a few computer gurus to the equation will make the world a better place. While there's no doubt he's a young genius with much potential, I doubt anyone would elect George Hotz (Geohot) for president. Hacking an iPhone is one thing. Having the skills and knowledge required to run a nation is another.

In summary, let's drop the holier-than-thou attitude and accept that unlocking is legal, constitutional, and unpreventable by Apple, nevermind the fact that it's in their best interest to do so.

-Clive

 

[sanford]

Well I thought I was through with this, but I want to address this as it pertains to me (I should really turn off e-mail notifications for these forums).

The foregoing assumes unlocking and/or hacking is holding up this next firmware update and possibly future updates.

I do not think you are the devil. I question the ethical prudence of information technology professionals and academics releasing these unlocks to the general public, but not particularly the people who use the unlocks.

It is this simple: I write long, long documents requiring lots of revisions. For years I wrote drafts on a manual typewriter or longhand, even though I already had a Mac for final typescripts. I finally determined that my process of using manual instruments before the Mac was merely keeping tradition for the sake of keeping it; I was not improving my work and indeed I was only holding it up. So for hours on end I sit in front of a Mac. I'm not a computer hobbyist. Beyond the fact I enjoy my career, I don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer all day long. I'm glad some people do or we wouldn't have these tools available to us in such refined form.

I bought an iPhone so that I could take care of things that are either necessary to my work, or extremely convenient for work or personal reasons, without spending yet more time in front of my Mac. So that I could do these via an uncomplicated user experience, as is the reason I use a Mac (funny enough, my hard drive died yesterday and although it cost me a lot of time to fix things, once I had installed everything again and restored my backed up information, I restarted my Mac and it was like the failure never even happened, again proving for me the value of a Mac). Checking e-mail, paying bills, checking reference material, those sorts of things are my primary iPhone use, along with the phone and the calendar.

I want this firmware update for the WiFi Music Store because I use the iTunes Store quite a bit due to the dismal selection in local record stores -- there's only one decent shop left, and it's hit or miss -- when I don't want to wait a few days to receive new music in the mail from an online store. I want the ability to preview and buy new music while sitting on my sofa in comfort, not balancing a laptop on my knees, or parked at my desk, not staring into that one big bright eye of my Mac even more. That's it.

Therefore end-user unlockers are not devils, they are serious annoyances -- again assuming that attempts to stop the unlocking are holding up the release of the firmware that includes the WiFi Music Store, which I can't prove but it is not an unreasonable supposition. (Also, potentially, Apple trying to make sure that iPhone hackers will not find a way to fool the iPhone into thinking it is on WiFi when it is on EDGE, so that the WiFi Store will function ever EDGE.)

I am not upset that you didn't have to enter into a contract with AT&T as I did. Or that you perhaps pay less for similar services. I don't care. I don't care that you do with your iPhone as you see fit according to the guidance of your own ethics and desires. But I care when the fulfillment of your desires interferes with the fulfillment of my desires, as I own my iPhone, too, and have as much right to the enjoyment of it as you do -- including access to timely feature updates from Apple, updates which may be artificially delayed due to what you are doing with your iPhone. Because what I am doing with my iPhone affects you not at all.

And that is it. It's that simple. If you were starving and needed food, I'd feel ethically bound to look out for you if I at all had the means. But I in no way feel I should have any care to look out for your interests in using a *mobile phone* in a manner not intended by the phone's manufacturer and contracted carrier.

Just read this whole thread with great interest.

Apparently, I am the devil because I went and bought an iPhone for the specific purpose of running it through the unlocking process, as a technical exercise. I unlocked it successfully following the published instructions, tried it with a T-Mobile SIM, and it worked great. I ended up activating it legitimately and then unlocking it again, so I can use the SIM from my Treo 750w (work phone) in my iPhone, as the iPhone is a lot nicer to carry around when I'm on call.

I feel no particular loyalty to any wireless carrier, but I have been an Apple customer in some shape or form for over 25 years.

I do think the high-and-mighty stance taken by the anti-unlockers is somewhat amusing, because the sort of culture that unlockers and hackers exist within is the culture that Apple was built on. Hating them is hating your roots. This is the same Steve Jobs who used to show up at work barefoot and went out of his way to embarrass and harass IBM people because of how corporate they were.

 

[shadowfax]

sanford, to be a little tongue in cheek (at a certain member of this board who is not you)--you should have known that when Apple announced the most popular, talked about phone in history, and then said it would be locked to one carrier in each country it was sold in, that it was inevitable--INEVITABLE like poor people in China stealing windows, and iPod rip-offs all over East Asia, that PEOPLE WOULD TRY to unlock it. It's been in the news since day one, maybe even before that.

So why get upset about something that you know is going to happen? You shouldn't have bought the phone if you couldn't deal with things that you KNEW were the case before you bought it!

Ok, that's stupid .

But seriously, I am in the same boat as you (except that I use AppTapp to have MobileFinder and an IM client installed on my phone). I signed a contract with AT&T, and I am sticking with them, and have no interest in unlocking my phone till my contract ends or I go overseas, whichever happens first. And I am ALSO greatly looking forward to firmware update 1.1.1, more for double-clicking support on the home button than anything else.

But gosh, it's really kind of silly to hear you keep going ON AND ON about that stupid bullcrap of "you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't keep me from getting what I want." You sound like John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I could sort of understand "you can do anything you want as long as you aren't hurting me," but good lord, the former statement reflects a really skewed sense of entitlement IMHO.

 

[sanford]

Okay, first off I am not at all for Apple locking out native application hackers, except I think it's reasonable they lock out any native app that uses the AT&T network. This for practical reasons. The iPhone is essentially just a Mac OS X-based little computer. You can do some crazy things with it. And I believe AT&T has the entire Blackberry (on EDGE) contract for the DoD. So imagine a native iPhone application that uses the EDGE network that brings down AT&T's entire EDGE network. Even if they don't have the DoD, it's still an issue for a huge number of customers, not just iPhone users. Otherwise, I'm all for your freedom to install native applications. They won't support them. You might cause yourself usage problems or even potentially permanently brick your iPhone. But you know that and if you accept that risk, that's okay. (Note, also, that before the deluge of unlocks, Apple's Joswiak -- I think I spell his name differently ever time I write it -- stated that Apple might with updates break native third-party programs but would not do so intentionally in most cases. Of course that's changed now due to unlocking. I think they intend to clamp it down as best they can, period.)

It's interesting you mention Rand because this is essentially a philosophical argument: whose benefit supersedes another's? In this case "hurt" and "want" are essentially synonymous since we are talking about phone features, not discharging firearms in public areas. But, yes, I admit I do feel a sense of entitlement about getting full, timely benefit from current and future features of something for which I paid at retail and for carrier service. (It's a phone. I'm not saying I'm entitled to eat seven-course meals while others starve.) Can you say that unlockers feel no sense of entitlement to unlock? Sure they do. From my perspective, my entitlement supersedes theirs and I'm sure they feel just the other way round. I mentioned previously that because of this, we have a circular argument. So I say they annoy me and they are annoyed that I am annoyed by them. Who really should out? I have no idea. There are no good criteria to triage iPhone users' desires.

So I'll stand pat on my notion that I deserve my desired benefits over the desired benefits of unlockers. I mean, there's really no good ethical yardstick here.

Perhaps the most equitable solution is to freeze unlockers at the feature set they already have, not break their phone because of the unlock. But I doubt unlockers will think that's reasonable.

sanford, to be a little tongue in cheek (at a certain member of this board who is not you)--you should have known that when Apple announced the most popular, talked about phone in history, and then said it would be locked to one carrier in each country it was sold in, that it was inevitable--INEVITABLE like poor people in China stealing windows, and iPod rip-offs all over East Asia, that PEOPLE WOULD TRY to unlock it. It's been in the news since day one, maybe even before that.

So why get upset about something that you know is going to happen? You shouldn't have bought the phone if you couldn't deal with things that you KNEW were the case before you bought it!

Ok, that's stupid .

But seriously, I am in the same boat as you (except that I use AppTapp to have MobileFinder and an IM client installed on my phone). I signed a contract with AT&T, and I am sticking with them, and have no interest in unlocking my phone till my contract ends or I go overseas, whichever happens first. And I am ALSO greatly looking forward to firmware update 1.1.1, more for double-clicking support on the home button than anything else.

But gosh, it's really kind of silly to hear you keep going ON AND ON about that stupid bullcrap of "you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't keep me from getting what I want." You sound like John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I could sort of understand "you can do anything you want as long as you aren't hurting me," but good lord, the former statement reflects a really skewed sense of entitlement IMHO.

 

[shadowfax]

Okay, first off I am not at all for Apple locking out native application hackers, except I think it's reasonable they lock out any native app that uses the AT&T network. This for practical reasons. The iPhone is essentially just a Mac OS X-based little computer. You can do some crazy things with it. And I believe AT&T has the entire Blackberry (on EDGE) contract for the DoD. So imagine a native iPhone application that uses the EDGE network that brings down AT&T's entire EDGE network. Even if they don't have the DoD, it's still an issue for a huge number of customers, not just iPhone users. Otherwise, I'm all for your freedom to install native applications. They won't support them. You might cause yourself usage problems or even potentially permanently brick your iPhone. But you know that and if you accept that risk, that's okay. (Note, also, that before the deluge of unlocks, Apple's Joswiak -- I think I spell his name differently ever time I write it -- stated that Apple might with updates break native third-party programs but would not do so intentionally in most cases. Of course that's changed now due to unlocking. I think they intend to clamp it down as best they can, period.)

It's interesting you mention Rand because this is essentially a philosophical argument: whose benefit supersedes another's? In this case "hurt" and "want" are essentially synonymous since we are talking about phone features, not discharging firearms in public areas. But, yes, I admit I do feel a sense of entitlement about getting full, timely benefit from current and future features of something for which I paid at retail and for carrier service. (It's a phone. I'm not saying I'm entitled to eat seven-course meals while others starve.) Can you say that unlockers feel no sense of entitlement to unlock? Sure they do. From my perspective, my entitlement supersedes theirs and I'm sure they feel just the other way round. I mentioned previously that because of this, we have a circular argument. So I say they annoy me and they are annoyed that I am annoyed by them. Who really should out? I have no idea. There are no good criteria to triage iPhone users' desires.

So I'll stand pat on my notion that I deserve my desired benefits over the desired benefits of unlockers. I mean, there's really no good ethical yardstick here.

Perhaps the most equitable solution is to freeze unlockers at the feature set they already have, not break their phone because of the unlock. But I doubt unlockers will think that's reasonable.

I have little respect for unlockers that think they're entitled to unlock. That's the thing about entitlement, I think it's generally a load of bollocks, certainly to the degree we're taking it--talking about your entitlement to a timely update on a phone that's being ruined by hackers. That's stupid. I can appreciate a hacker that says, "Oh, I'm not allowed to unlock, my phone? guess which finger I'm holding up right now. I'm doing it anyway, and prepared to face the lack of support I get for it." That has nothing to do with entitlement, that's taking what you want regardless of entitlement, which is, surprise enough, how the world actually works. Free speech (for example) is not a right you intrinsically have, it's something you have to stand up for, whether or not your government thinks it's your right. Or you could let them walk on you.

 

[GFLPraxis]

I for one hope they do.Things have never been so screwed up.
The U.S. isn't Europe either.

Unlocking a phone is legal in the US.

If Apple deliberately bricks phones that are unlocked...I'm not sure the legal status.