koobcamuk
macrumors 68040
Many phones are not locked - it depends on the network. O2 and Vodafone never used to lock the handsets, but some are.
Phones bought directly from the manufacturer are unlocked.
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.
AT&T Taking Action Against iPhone Unlocks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Many phones are not locked - it depends on the network. O2 and Vodafone never used to lock the handsets, but some are.
Phones bought directly from the manufacturer are unlocked.
Well, I edited my post already, because the DMCA probably covers more than just encryption. I'm just not familiar with it. Anyway, there is copyright protection outside of the DMCA, and the article that I linked to didn't specifically mention the DMCA, just copyright (in general, I assumed).
www.iphoneunlocking.com
Monday 27th August 2007 @ 2:15pm
August 27th, 2007
Due to overwhelming response and comments, we have decided to suspend additions to our email mailing list for the moment.
The past few hours have presented incredible changes which we are addressing.
Over the next few days, you can expect a clear response, and you will get what you are looking for too.
Also, would the OMM lawyer who phoned us, please call back today. We have a few questions now that were awake.
Monday 27th August 2007 @ 2:15pm
August 27th, 2007
Due to overwhelming response and comments, we have decided to suspend additions to our email mailing list for the moment.
The past few hours have presented incredible changes which we are addressing.
Over the next few days, you can expect a clear response, and you will get what you are looking for too.
Also, would the OMM lawyer who phoned us, please call back today. We have a few questions now that were awake.
Duh. They have to!
AT&T has an obligation to its shareholders to enforce its agreements. Apple felt that it had to share the risk of introducing the iPhone by getting AT&T involved. Unfortunately, for Apple to be able to reduce their risk, they agreed to terms with AT&T are anti-consumer, as far as I am concerned.
I still can't understand why we have to oblige ourselves to a two-year contract AND have to pay full-price for the phone. If AT&T is getting two-years of guaranteed income from me, the least I should get in return is a discount on the equipment.
I'd love an unlocked phone, and if I paid the full price for it, I would like the right to switch carriers on a month-to-month basis so I can always be free to get the best deal for MY phone (not my rented equipment). That said, these hacks are undoubtedly illegal and AT&T would be negligent if they did not enforce the agreements they entered into.
AT&T has an obligation to its shareholders to enforce its agreements. Apple felt that it had to share the risk of introducing the iPhone by getting AT&T involved. Unfortunately, for Apple to be able to reduce their risk, they agreed to terms with AT&T are anti-consumer, as far as I am concerned.
I still can't understand why we have to oblige ourselves to a two-year contract AND have to pay full-price for the phone. If AT&T is getting two-years of guaranteed income from me, the least I should get in return is a discount on the equipment.
I'd love an unlocked phone, and if I paid the full price for it, I would like the right to switch carriers on a month-to-month basis so I can always be free to get the best deal for MY phone (not my rented equipment). That said, these hacks are undoubtedly illegal and AT&T would be negligent if they did not enforce the agreements they entered into.
A view shared by a lot of people, and me, is that this Irish lot never actually had the unlock solution and were hoping to make a quick buck from someone else solution. But when that wasnt forthcoming, they made up some cock and bull about the legal threat
If it is true, why have engadget and iphonesimfree.com not had approaches from this mystery law firm
If it is true, why have engadget and iphonesimfree.com not had approaches from this mystery law firm
The problem is that if I purchases a piece of hardware I should be able to do anything I want with it. If I want to throw my iPhone out of the window, hit it with hammer, or frame it and hang it on my wall no one should be able to stop me. If I want to change the software on a piece of hardware that I *own* then I should be able to.
If ATT/Apple wants to keep the iPhone locked down then they should lease them like the cable companies do with their cable boxes. I purchase an ATT phone plan and get an iPhone lease for another $5/month or something. When my contract expires I have to turn the phone back in or get charged. The way it currently works is that ATT/Apple wants to eat their cake and have it to by selling you ownership of the hardware with none of the rights that ownership implies.
Rooskibar03
macrumors 65816
You bought the UNSUBSIDIZED phone knowing full well in order to use it you had to enter into a contract.
I'm baffled by the folks who assume that just because you enter into a two year contract you are entitled to something fee or discounted.
When you signed your first least, did you do so expecting cheaper rent or a fee month now and then? When you signed up for a 3 year car lease, did you get a lower price on the car?
NO, a contract and a subsidy do know go hand in hand, get over it.
Apple's error
There never was a good reason to lock the iPhone to AT&T.
So far as I can determine, the only feature the iPhone has that relies upon network upgrades is "Visual Voicemail", something of dubious usefulness that, in any case, could be implemented by any operator that wants to in a backward compatible way simply by using MMS the way it was intended.
The result of locking iPhone has been to put a sword right through Apple's "It just works" ethos. I remember as far back as the eighties seeing an ad describing the difference between Windows and Macintosh in terms of how something works. The ad walked the viewer through the easy steps needed to install a printer under Windows. (eg: Plug printer in, get printer driver disk, click on "Setup.exe", you're done) and then compared it to the Mac equivalent (Plug in printer, you're done.)
Now compare "Setting up an iPhone" vs "Setting up every other GSM phone in existence."
Every other GSM phone in existence:
1. Remove SIM card from old phone.
2. Plug SIM card into new phone
3. You're done.
iPhone:
1. Ensure you're sitting in front of an IBM PC clone or Macintosh running either Windows XP SP2 or greater, or Mac OS X 10.4.9 or better.
2. Connect to Internet.
3. Install iTunes, or update it to iTunes 7.1 if already installed.
4. Plug phone into computer.
5. Run iTunes
6. Select "Activate iPhone"
7. Type in the phone number of your existing cellphone account
8. Select plan
9. Wait for phone to activate
10. Discard old SIM card from older phone. Contact older cellular carrier to close account if your old account was not AT&T.
It just works my ass. That's ten steps, and some of those "steps" are actually multiple steps in practice. For all the iPhone's "user friendliness" I'd never recommend one to my mother.
How on Earth did Apple get into this mess? Because it wanted to advertise a price of $600 for the iPhone vs around $700 as it would have done otherwise? Because it wanted the phone available at AT&T stores where the entirely clued up professionals mobile phone salespeople are known to be would have carefully counseled potential buyers? Because the quality of AT&T's hacked together GSM grafted onto an old AMPS/D-AMPS network would have been superior in all areas to rival GSM operator's like T-Mobile, Suncom, et al, to the point that nobody in their right mind would have wanted to use the iPhone with a clean, well built, GSM from the ground up, network like T-Mobile's.
Maybe Apple is just full of Verizon customers, and they think being ripped by a network operator is somehow what everyone wants.
Not that there's anything anyone can do about this now, of course.
There never was a good reason to lock the iPhone to AT&T.
So far as I can determine, the only feature the iPhone has that relies upon network upgrades is "Visual Voicemail", something of dubious usefulness that, in any case, could be implemented by any operator that wants to in a backward compatible way simply by using MMS the way it was intended.
The result of locking iPhone has been to put a sword right through Apple's "It just works" ethos. I remember as far back as the eighties seeing an ad describing the difference between Windows and Macintosh in terms of how something works. The ad walked the viewer through the easy steps needed to install a printer under Windows. (eg: Plug printer in, get printer driver disk, click on "Setup.exe", you're done) and then compared it to the Mac equivalent (Plug in printer, you're done.)
Now compare "Setting up an iPhone" vs "Setting up every other GSM phone in existence."
Every other GSM phone in existence:
1. Remove SIM card from old phone.
2. Plug SIM card into new phone
3. You're done.
iPhone:
1. Ensure you're sitting in front of an IBM PC clone or Macintosh running either Windows XP SP2 or greater, or Mac OS X 10.4.9 or better.
2. Connect to Internet.
3. Install iTunes, or update it to iTunes 7.1 if already installed.
4. Plug phone into computer.
5. Run iTunes
6. Select "Activate iPhone"
7. Type in the phone number of your existing cellphone account
8. Select plan
9. Wait for phone to activate
10. Discard old SIM card from older phone. Contact older cellular carrier to close account if your old account was not AT&T.
It just works my ass. That's ten steps, and some of those "steps" are actually multiple steps in practice. For all the iPhone's "user friendliness" I'd never recommend one to my mother.
How on Earth did Apple get into this mess? Because it wanted to advertise a price of $600 for the iPhone vs around $700 as it would have done otherwise? Because it wanted the phone available at AT&T stores where the entirely clued up professionals mobile phone salespeople are known to be would have carefully counseled potential buyers? Because the quality of AT&T's hacked together GSM grafted onto an old AMPS/D-AMPS network would have been superior in all areas to rival GSM operator's like T-Mobile, Suncom, et al, to the point that nobody in their right mind would have wanted to use the iPhone with a clean, well built, GSM from the ground up, network like T-Mobile's.
Maybe Apple is just full of Verizon customers, and they think being ripped by a network operator is somehow what everyone wants.
Not that there's anything anyone can do about this now, of course.
koobcamuk
macrumors 68040
I think you'll find that they "couldn't" care less. I am sure they really don't give a damn. I think AT&T could care a hell of a lot less - this could cripple them.
Apple should have sold this phone in Apple stores. Plug in a SIM card and you're done. Stuff the visual voicemail. If this phone was £300 ($600) in the apple store, and you only needed to plug in the SIM from your current phone - they would be sold out for years. Everyone would have one. A 2 year plan with a company is not ideal.
Depends how much they're making from their cut of the usage fees of AT&T customers I guess.
This is why taking a commercial approach to this problem just won't work. Not necessarily Apple but definitely AT&T will do everything they can to prolong iPhone exclusivity, just because of the nature of their agreement with Apple.
daveschroeder
macrumors 6502
emotion
macrumors 68040
Agreed, except Apple seem to have convinced AT&T to sort out sane data plans. At least that's the way it looks from here (the UK doesn't have many sane data rates/plans).
Getting the data charging sorted out is a key factor in getting this data-centric device accepted a sa step above the rest of the mobile phone world (it's actually a communicator rather than a phone....well almost).
Unless your contract is up, ans you would like to take your phone to another carrier. This, of course, doesnt apply to any iPhone owner... Yet.
bdj21ya
macrumors 6502a
Yeah, I'd have to agree that their story sounds more than a bit fishy. Why would AT&T seek help from a "Silicon Valley area law firm" instead of just using in house legal dept. for this?
CaryMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
I honestly think that it should be illegal to lock a phone to a specific carrier, this includes branding of the carrier on the phone. In the situation of land lines, there is no phone that ONLY works with Bell South, Verizon, or Embarq. If an individual purchases a land line phone when he is on Bell South and then moves and has to use Embarq, that phone works with no modification.
Plus, consumers already have to stay in a 2 year agreement for this lovely phone and then if they move and their needs change why should they have to buy another (sometimes expensive) phone just because they have a different carrier.
One could argue that breaking this bond between the phone and carrier would keep innovations such as visual voicemail from happening. NOT TRUE! Simply work with ALL the major carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, etc). Then when marketing the phone say this phone will work with all GSM carriers but if you want Visual Voicemail, for example, you need to use AT&T or T-Mobile.
Plus, consumers already have to stay in a 2 year agreement for this lovely phone and then if they move and their needs change why should they have to buy another (sometimes expensive) phone just because they have a different carrier.
One could argue that breaking this bond between the phone and carrier would keep innovations such as visual voicemail from happening. NOT TRUE! Simply work with ALL the major carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, etc). Then when marketing the phone say this phone will work with all GSM carriers but if you want Visual Voicemail, for example, you need to use AT&T or T-Mobile.
I'm still not 100% convinced that iPhoneUnlocking has indeed been contacted by Lawyers offering "friendly advice" about the whole unlocking situation. I would have thought a faxed cease and desist letter from AT&T and/or Apple's lawyers would have now been sent, let alone whomever phoned the chap at 3am would have clearly stated who they are and what they wanted.
Even if you're asleep and someone calls and gives you friendly advice, would you not want to wake yourself up a bit, or get the chap to call back in 10 mins, or get a number to call them back when you're a little more awake. Also, would you not want to consider putting off the call until you have spoken to your legal team and had them ready to listen into the call as well, so they can offer their own advice as well.
It all seems a little too convenient that they state they have an unlock, and will be releasing it on saturday and then it does not happen. There is also the little fact that you need to enter your IMEI number as well as your email address to sign up. Being blunt, that's like posting your Mac's serial number to a similar form on a brand new unknown webiste, very dangerous in my opinion.
As for iphonesimunlock. Well, unless they duped Engadget, they could well have a solution and hopefully we'll know more later today (well they said "next week" last week, so one hopes they'd say *something* today), wether it's when they'll ship and the pricing, or that they to have been given friendly advice not to release the unlock.
Do AT&T and Apple have the right to do something about this? Much as I'd love a carrier independent iPhone, and thus would love to see the software unlock, I think they do have a right to protect their contract that people entered into. Apple won't be too impressed, but an unlock would mean more iPhone sales, plus other Carriers will be happy as they won't have a specific iPhone plan, offering unlimited data transfer, so they can rub their hands with glee at how much they'll be able to charge new iPhone customers. This is one reason why I've not got an iPhone yet. I'm in Canada and so I'd have to pick a carrier whose data charges aren't that bad, My current cell is with Rogers, who are known to have rather high data charges, and there's no point in me getting an iPhone if I'm going to be hit hard on the data charge.
Even if you're asleep and someone calls and gives you friendly advice, would you not want to wake yourself up a bit, or get the chap to call back in 10 mins, or get a number to call them back when you're a little more awake. Also, would you not want to consider putting off the call until you have spoken to your legal team and had them ready to listen into the call as well, so they can offer their own advice as well.
It all seems a little too convenient that they state they have an unlock, and will be releasing it on saturday and then it does not happen. There is also the little fact that you need to enter your IMEI number as well as your email address to sign up. Being blunt, that's like posting your Mac's serial number to a similar form on a brand new unknown webiste, very dangerous in my opinion.
As for iphonesimunlock. Well, unless they duped Engadget, they could well have a solution and hopefully we'll know more later today (well they said "next week" last week, so one hopes they'd say *something* today), wether it's when they'll ship and the pricing, or that they to have been given friendly advice not to release the unlock.
Do AT&T and Apple have the right to do something about this? Much as I'd love a carrier independent iPhone, and thus would love to see the software unlock, I think they do have a right to protect their contract that people entered into. Apple won't be too impressed, but an unlock would mean more iPhone sales, plus other Carriers will be happy as they won't have a specific iPhone plan, offering unlimited data transfer, so they can rub their hands with glee at how much they'll be able to charge new iPhone customers. This is one reason why I've not got an iPhone yet. I'm in Canada and so I'd have to pick a carrier whose data charges aren't that bad, My current cell is with Rogers, who are known to have rather high data charges, and there's no point in me getting an iPhone if I'm going to be hit hard on the data charge.
Visual voicemail has become an amazing asset for me personally. That being said, i was already with att before I got my iPhone, I get great coverage and have no desire to switch to another carrier.
emotion
macrumors 68040
Yep. I'd be willing to plunk down some money for an iPhone if it worked under T-Mobile. There was no way otherwise.
I couldn't - still can't - believe how many actually did sign up for the AT&T iPhone under its current ridiculous contract terms.
Rocketman
macrumors 603
YOU just did and besides I have seen it in various historical accounts without the conclusions about illegality. In those accounts, such conclusions are up to the reader 🙂
Look. Apple and ATT have a commercial contract between themselves that ATT is exclusive. The result is all of the convenience buyers are indeed locked into ATT initially. ATT is actually helpful in supporting its own exclusive by offering what has been described as "low data prices" and "vast mobile data coverage" and "surprisingly increased EDGE bandwidth", "excellent calling plans", etc. In short they are competing on price, service and value, with whatever competitors they perceive themselves to have.
I for one cannot see how a hobbiest unlocking program can violate anything, especially on equipment wholly owned by the hobbiest unlocker. So I suspect any such suit will go nowhere and take a long time to do so.
Rocketman
mainstreetmark
macrumors 68020
This feature is important to me! I don't have to wait ten minutes for the robot voicemail lady to tell me the date and time before finally getting to the message. I hate that VM lady.
What, are you serious? You have "Run iTunes" as a step? "Connect to Internet?" Why not "Grasp mouse with hand" and "sit down", or "be awake".
I can't even understand why you think this process is at all hard. Every cellphone should be iPhone easy to set up, and the fact that you can do it yourself at home adds a lot of points. Have you not had to sit in a cellphone shop for 15 minutes while some kid types in your life story into a computer, and then hands you wads of paper, including a receipt that is nearly six feet long?
It's unfair of you to compare the process of using an existing SIM in a new phone, with setting up a new iPhone.
Roy Hobbs
macrumors 68000
I hope that at&t or Apple's legal teams can block these unlockers. If people don't want at&t don't buy the iPhone. at&t paid big buck to be the exclusive carrier and there is no reason why some geek hackers should be allowed to bypass this.
Or I hope Apple can relock with each and every sofware update, and possibly a FORCED update!!
If you want an iPhone sign the at&t contract and shut up. If its not available in your country sit there and wait.
Or I hope Apple can relock with each and every sofware update, and possibly a FORCED update!!
If you want an iPhone sign the at&t contract and shut up. If its not available in your country sit there and wait.