Apple to Actively Stop SIM Unlocking

[Clive At Five]

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.

Wow, you are so not a philosopher, so stop trying.

You don't have a circular argument. You have mutually-exclusive resolutions. In fact you don't even have that. If their hacking has a time-delay effect on Firmware updates, it's nothing more than that: a delay. Therefore it has nothing to do with you NOT getting an update. It's about you being impatient. Besides, there's no evidence to support that Firmware 1.1.1 is delayed due to blocking hackers. You're inventing that as a scapegoat for your "entitlist" attitude.

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.

No eithical yardstick? It's man versus corporate entity. Who do you want to win?

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.

They most certainly would not. Plus there's no way to enforce it. Hackers will triumph because of hardware's limitations. End of story.

-Clive

 

[matticus008]

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.

It was all over the news, for one thing, but more to the point, it is your responsibility to know about products when you buy them.

The requirement of ATT activation and contract does not, automatically, preclude using other sims for other services, does it?

No, but it was widely disclosed that it was carrier locked. It was disclosed by Apple and AT&T and either one would have told you so had you asked.

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.

They are allowed to do it, and it has nothing to do with signing a contract or not. It is specifically that they're buying a phone which is released exclusively for AT&T customers. Customers remain free to unlock the devices themselves. They're just not supported in that endeavor by Apple or AT&T, and there's no guarantee that their solution will continue to work. International travelers know to ask about SIM locks on phones. If you're clueless about a particular purchase, you should find a knowledgeable friend or do research beforehand.

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.

How are they not disclosed? It's all over the Apple websites, the AT&T website, the news, and the Internet in general. Even if it weren't, it would still be in the materials enclosed with the product, which are available to review before purchase.

Customers are responsible for knowing. Short of strapping you to a chair and reading the entire terms and conditions to you, there's little else that could be done to inform you.

 

[GFLPraxis]

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.

Oh please; it's perfectly legal to unlock your phone in the US. I'm willing to accept the lack of support bit, and once I get an iPhone and unlock it I won't download firmware updates until I get confirmation it won't brick the phone, etc.

But it's not breaking a law; it's not even breaking a moral grey zone. Legally, you DO have the right to do with that phone what you will. Of course, you'll just have to deal with the resulting lack of support from Apple.

 

[PDE]

It was all over the news, for one thing, but more to the point, it is your responsibility to know about products when you buy them.

No, but it was widely disclosed that it was carrier locked. It was disclosed by Apple and AT&T and either one would have told you so had you asked.

They are allowed to do it, and it has nothing to do with signing a contract or not. It is specifically that they're buying a phone which is released exclusively for AT&T customers. Customers remain free to unlock the devices themselves. They're just not supported in that endeavor by Apple or AT&T, and there's no guarantee that their solution will continue to work. International travelers know to ask about SIM locks on phones. If you're clueless about a particular purchase, you should find a knowledgeable friend or do research beforehand.

How are they not disclosed? It's all over the Apple websites, the AT&T website, the news, and the Internet in general. Even if it weren't, it would still be in the materials enclosed with the product, which are available to review before purchase.

Customers are responsible for knowing. Short of strapping you to a chair and reading the entire terms and conditions to you, there's little else that could be done to inform you.

Customers are responsible for being reasonably informed and companies are responsible to inform reasonably. The former is always used as an escape clause for many companies' refusal to do the latter. There should not be an implicit pre-condition that you watch news coverage, access computer-related sites or really anything else on your right to get clear and comprehensive information. Many people don't. The only thing it says on the package is that ATT activation is required. There is nothing about that the phone will not work with other providers abroad after you have signed your contract with ATT. It would make sense to many people, I'm sure, that once you've signed up with ATT and are committed to paying the monthly fees, that ATT wouldn't mind you putting in another sim when abroad or anywhere. And, if you consider that all other phones in the industry are unlocked when purchased directly from the manufacturer, it would not be far-fetched for a customer to assume that that would be the case here too.

Either way, of course there's a two-week return policy in place, albeit with a fee attached. It's not really a problem, but I would understand if people make reasonable assumptions based on past experience with other phone purchases. I've overheard quite a few visitors in the Apple Store ask/talk about putting their foreign sim cards in it. The fact that people ask this questions shows that not everybody is as clued in to these things as the people around here , and U.S. customers in general. In many places of the world, locked phones are no longer as common.

 

[pezza]

Right, go easy on me 1st post, but here is a question, In europe apple have announced o2(UK) T-Mobile (Germany) and Orange (France), well in the UK we have all three of those operators.

What are the chances of an iphone purchased in France locked to orange working in the UK on the orange network, or perhaps a T mobile German version working on T Mobile in the UK?

 

[gkarris]

Unlocking a phone is legal in the US.

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

Steve is out to change the mobile phone world. Revenue sharing with the handset manufacturer and "bricking them if not on the proper network" is a couple of them...

 

[matticus008]

Customers are responsible for being reasonably informed and companies are responsible to inform reasonably.

Yes, but 'reasonably' does not mean 'actually'. Companies inform reasonably by publishing information on their websites and in the materials packaged with the product. These materials are available upon request prior to purchase. That is reasonably informed under any color of law.

All they have to do is make the information available. It's out there, it's easy to ask for. Customers are responsible for reading it. If a customer refuses to take an initiative to inform himself, it's no one's responsibility to chase him down and force-feed him information.

There should not be an implicit pre-condition that you watch news coverage, access computer-related sites or really anything else on your right to get clear and comprehensive information.

There isn't. All you had to do was walk into a store and ask or look at either Apple or AT&T's website. The other sources are merely supplemental.

There is nothing about that the phone will not work with other providers abroad after you have signed your contract with ATT.

How would a reasonable person know this? If they weren't aware that the phone is locked, they certainly wouldn't know of carrier portability. They would look at the iPhone "for AT&T exclusively" and take it at face value.

It's only people with that dangerous level of a little knowledge that walk into this little trap of yours. People who think they know more than they know, and arrogantly refuse to research or ask, and then they get screwed over by their own actions.

all other phones in the industry are unlocked when purchased directly from the manufacturer, it would not be far-fetched for a customer to assume that that would be the case here too.

You'd have to be a fairly unusual and well-informed customer to have ever purchased a phone directly from a manufacturer. In fact, by choosing to do so, it indicates that you know of particular limitations (in software and SIM locks) of purchasing a vendor-branded handset. You're disproving your own point.

The fact that people ask this questions shows that not everybody is as clued in to these things as the people around here , and U.S. customers in general.

And? They're doing their duty and asking about products and doing research. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

 

[w0by]

at&t is lame

I have tmobile and my phone is unlocked. You couldn't pay me to have at&t, their service sucks in the chicagoland area and they don't even have customer support after 8pm. How stupid is that??

 

[sanford]

Unlocking a phone is legal in the US.

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

I think legal, because there isn't any law that specifically protects unlocking, there's just law that states it's not actionable -- except under circumstances of reverse engineering, etc.

 

[shadowfax]

Oh please; it's perfectly legal to unlock your phone in the US. I'm willing to accept the lack of support bit, and once I get an iPhone and unlock it I won't download firmware updates until I get confirmation it won't brick the phone, etc.

But it's not breaking a law; it's not even breaking a moral grey zone. Legally, you DO have the right to do with that phone what you will. Of course, you'll just have to deal with the resulting lack of support from Apple.

Man, there's no reason to "Oh please" me. I never said it wasn't legal, but it's obvious to those that have eyes that Apple and AT&T are not allowing it via contract terms and via software updates. Right? And what do you do? Show them one of your ten fingers. Whether it's legal or not, though I really think it is, as you do. But you are sure as heck wrong about it being a grey zone. The only law I know of that allows unlocking is the DMCA, and from what I have read it's more than a little convoluted.

 

[sanford]

I have tmobile and my phone is unlocked. You couldn't pay me to have at&t, their service sucks in the chicagoland area and they don't even have customer support after 8pm. How stupid is that??

You know what, I ran into the no support after hours, holidays and limited on weekends, too. But then I had to remember that I'm a big proponent of the idea that people deserve reasonable schedules and shifts, and holidays off, so I had to just deal with it because it actually follows my own labor philosophy. Even if it's not just because AT&T is nice to their employees.

 

[smacman]

I can understand Apple's motives for re-locking the phone in the next major update. After all, they do have an obligation to the providers they have struck deals with. What I will say though is this...

If the re-lock is something that can be avoided by not upgrading iTunes / iPhone firmware, then fine. I won't upgrade and I'll live with an iPhone that is slightly degraded in functionality. I guess that is the price one pays for using an unlocked phone.

On the other hand, if Apple somehow renders our phones useless by way of an invisible behind the scenes update (which I have heard is their plan), I am finished. I will sell my iPhone, along with all four of my Macs. The arrogance of Apple and Jobs seems to be infinite. I did nothing illegal by buying an iPhone and unlocking for use outside of the US. If they offered it in my country at the same time as the US, I probably would have signed a contract and bought one. Furthermore this move would demonstrate just how much Apple has it's customers by the "balls". I have been looking for a reason for a long time to give Linux another try, and this might be just the push I need.

Either way, interesting times are ahead.

 

[shadowfax]

Right, go easy on me 1st post, but here is a question, In europe apple have announced o2(UK) T-Mobile (Germany) and Orange (France), well in the UK we have all three of those operators.

What are the chances of an iphone purchased in France locked to orange working in the UK on the orange network, or perhaps a T mobile German version working on T Mobile in the UK?

I think you will still have to unlock. The iPhone/iTunes setup will know when you register that you are in the UK trying to get a French iPhone to unlock, and it either won't let you or it will make you use O2, probably based on your billing address or something. I would presume that even if you got it activated it for Orange/TMo in the UK, probably by setting up billing from an address in France/Germany, you would be paying whatever roaming charges apply for those companies for making calls from the UK.

 

[sanford]

Well, I'm out. I'm sick of it, really, the whole debate. I don't think ultimately you and I disagree so much. I'm just saying that in this case I feel just as much as I should have my update now as unlockers feel they should be able to unlock now. That's the extent of my entitlement.

If you get a chance, explain to Clive At Five down there what a circular argument is and how the debate of who has more right to what in this case fits the definition of a circular argument, one in which each point of debate has an opposite number that brings us right back round the same loop, same issues, all over again; never proceeds forward but only back around on itself to the same points in the same order. Because I'm too freaking tired of the whole thing to bother.

At this point, I'll just be pleasantly surprised if the update shows up by Christmas no matter what Jobs said about later in September. Have a good one, shadow.

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.

 

[matticus008]

On the other hand, if Apple somehow renders our phones useless by way of an invisible behind the scenes update (which I have heard is their plan), I am finished.

The only way Apple can do it is to update iTunes or release new firmware. If you decline either of these, there's no "silent" update they can push on you.

If you're not on one of the iPhone networks anyway, it doesn't matter if the carriers blacklist your IMEI.

 

[shadowfax]

On the other hand, if Apple somehow renders our phones useless by way of an invisible behind the scenes update (which I have heard is their plan), I am finished. I will sell my iPhone, along with all four of my Macs. The arrogance of Apple and Jobs seems to be infinite.

Where did you hear that? AFAIK, that's just FUD from this thread. There's no indication OF ANY KIND from any real source that Apple is going to brick phones by subterfuge. That would be walking into the Sony RootKit BS with their CDs. They would be on shaky grounds, probably subject to a class action suit. Look at MS and Windows XP. they couldn't brick people's PCs with pirated copies of Windows, much as they wanted to. So they just refused updates to all users that didn't want to install the "Validation Tool" that checks that you have a valid copy. There are boundaries you cannot cross in the software industry, and altering your customers' devices without their consent is 100% one of those things.

Count on this: if you unlock your phone, you will not be able to update to the latest firmware when it comes out. However, you will be able to wait 2-3 weeks, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, before someone hacks THE NEXT update, just as they hacked this one, and then you will be able, by some means, to get that update. But Apple and AT&T will not be able to update your software without your permission.

 

[shadowfax]

Well, I'm out. I'm sick of it, really, the whole debate. I don't think ultimately you and I disagree so much. I'm just saying that in this case I feel just as much as I should have my update now as unlockers feel they should be able to unlock now. That's the extent of my entitlement.

You have a good one, too. no hard feelings, and I think we mostly agree, except at the most fundamental level that I don't think this is about rights. we don't have a right to a firmware update, and they don't have a right to unlock their phones, but they're doing it anyway, and I think that's how it ought to work. If we really can't wait for the firmware update, we should be writing it ourselves--that's what hackers and third-party developers are doing. And that's awesome. It'll be cool if some other people with initiative ALSO establish that consumers have the right to get their phones unlocked, and someone files a class action suit against Apple & AT&T over that. But it has to be clarified in the law before it's established that anyone is doing anything wrong in this whole issue, and it's certainly clear to me that entitlement doesn't enter into it on your side or theirs.

I can sort of understand being upset that we don't have the update. I am certainly complaining about it in private, and I hope they get it rolled out ASAP, but I don't have any idea why that is, and even if it's because of the hackers, I don't see why that's any reason to get upset at them.

 

[ScottDrummer]

hackers and "home made" programmers are what make the IT industry interesting, it provides prospects for programmers to create useful applications that can aid everyday things.
I personally feel apple should leave this wide open, and for apple to be the instigator of a revolution where programmers are developing apps for the phone and other apple products in order to make it a multi purpose and useful device to its users beyond what apple have already provided.
lock the thing down and you just get what apple give you, people dont write software for it and the whole 'scene' which is quickly developing will become a very boring place, this wouldnt be good for sales.
im not sure why apple went with a carrier, rather than just releasing the device worldwide sim free, maybe there are reasons for this, i guess we will see further down the line.

 

[ericsthename]

I have an iPhone and it's unloacked and the reason is simple - I live in Canada. I did the Windows/Blackberry thing for a long time and last year made the move to a Mac. It has been a whole new computing experience and a very welcome change. When the iPhone was announced I was ecstatic - an Apple device to replace the Blackberry! But no iPhone for Canada......

When it comes to GSM in Canada, there is only one game in town - Rogers and they have shown absolutely no indication that they are planning to release it in Canada so I got one (thanks SC) and unlocked it. It has been everything the Mac switch was and there is one huge benefit to me. Data rates in Canada are hugely expensive so the WiFi capability of the iPhone is a major benefit to me. My data usage has gone down about 75% since I started using the iPhone mainly because I can check my email at the office when away from my desk and at the airport where there is a hotspot ( I work in airline security so I spend about 30% of my time at the airport). Also at home I can do a quick check of email without having to fire up my computer.

So while I have an unlocked iPhone, it is not because I am trying to screw Apple or AT&T or anyone else. If and when Rogers releases the iPhone I will be first in line, but until then I will use it unlocked. The rotten part is with Apple actively trying to stop the unlocks, I can't get the new features and my big question is will leopard be a problem (i.e. will I "have" to update the firmware for it to talk to my Mac).

The iPhone is not just a phone to me, it is a better way to communicate just as the Mac is a better way to compute.

So I'm unlocked and "feature-locked" until Rogers gets off their asses and/or Apple realizes the world doesn't end at the 48th parallel.........

Exactly where I'm at in this picture - but don't forget its actually the 49th parallel

 

[bbarnhart]

With the iPhone so successful, I wonder in hindsight if Apple would have been in a better position if they had just sold unlocked phones and not relied on a partnership with AT&T or any other carrier. Since US T-Mobile doesn't mind that you're running with an iPhone (or any other phone), why would AT&T care either? You're paying a monthly fee and they didn't have to subsidize the phone.

But, with Apple's revenue sharing plan with AT&T and European partners, they must feel, ultimately, that they can be more profitable using a partner. These relationships seem incompatible with unlocked phones. I wonder what percentage of phones Apple is willing to concede to unlocks. My guess is about 5%. In the US, T-Mobile is the only nationwide compatible carrier. There are many regional, but smaller carriers.

I'm betting the way Apple will beat the unlock crowd is to sell the iPhone for US$199 before middle of November. But, to get the phone at that price, you must sign a 2-year contact with purchase of the phone. By subsidizing the phone, you "lock" the buyer into the monthly contract.

 

[jdechko]

Just Steves RDF to keep the corps happy...they aren't trying that hard.

That's what I think. I really think Steve's just saying that to keep AT&T pacified for the time being.

 

[big_malk]

Why Apple went with one carrier

I can think of one reason Apple would want to be partnered with one carrier; they were able to force the unlimited data into the monthly plan, (that and they get a cut of the monthly bills).

Using the full, un-watered-down web will surely use a lot more bandwidth than the crummy wap, mobile, whatever-its-called version of the web. And Apple will want people showing of their iPhones and the browser when people ask about them.

If people had to pay to show of the browser, or didn't want to use the web as much because of the higher bandwidth and higher cost, it would put people of the iPhone.

I have ordered me an iPhone, and plan to unlock it and use it with my Vodafone contract in the UK. It will cost me £1 a day for between 0.5MB and 15MB a day. Plus, there's no EDGE coverage with Vodafone, so its GPRS for me So (in this case at-least) there really would be a benefit to using the carrier Apple choses, not just because of the unlocked/update danger.

 

[Stella]

Oh dear me, you've been infected by SJ's RDF.

No application EVER on a smartphone, be it, Symbian, Palm, Blackberry etc has EVER crashed a cell network, NOR is it possible!

Applications on mobile-OSX are no different than that of applications on any other smartphone platform.

The reason why there is no third party applications is down to the following possible reasons:
1. Application want ( as usual ) to control the platform
2. Mobile OSX isn't mature enough ( security / stability / other ).

An application that makes use of EDGE uses the internet, so it would be no different than having to use 3G, GPRS - it would be totally transparent to the application. The application would request to open a data connection and the phone OS will take care of the rest. There are plenty of internet-enabled applications on all smartphone platforms.

So imagine a native iPhone application that uses the EDGE network that brings down AT&T's entire EDGE network.

 

[megfilmworks]

whatever...

Give it an hour and there will be a fix after each update.

What a hassel. Looks like I'm through with hacking. Better things to do with my time.

 

[Fast Shadow]

Very unlikely they would deliberately brick phones that are unlocked. Too much risk of accidentally bricking a few legit phones and having a huge PR blunder to deal with.