AT&T Taking Action Against iPhone Unlocks?

[hayesk]

Really??! If you wanna be told whats good for you I strongly suggest to move to Iran or one of those countries. They will force you to do many things which Im sure are great for you.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken. It was pretty obvious he was being sarcastic.

For example, "your knowledge of Iran and middle eastern countries is amazing. Do tell us more!" is also sarcastic.

 

[emotion]

Apple is ALSO getting paid X amount from At&T per subscriber, so its in Apple's vested intrest to make sure the phone remains locked.

Unless this opens up their market for phones to counter that loss yes.

 

[Unspeaked]

one word for you. EULA

I don't really think the game console comparison works here. Those are proprietary systems and are not remotely compatible.

This is more like if Apple decided tomorrow that the iPod will only play MP3s from Vivendi-Universal. All MP3s from other record labels are non-compatible. True, any MP3 from any label is perfectly capable of being played on an iPod, but the iPod is set to block any non-Vivendi-Universal MP3s from playing.

Then suddenly a patch comes out that removes that and allows any MP3 to play.

It sounds ridiculous when you look at it this way, but that's essentially what's happening... there's a carrier with a network that's totally compatible with the iPhone but that we're not allowed to use because Apple's friends with AT&T.

 

[manu chao]

And to address another argument that there is no difference between unlocking to switch carriers and unlocking to switch SIMs while in Europe, that's ridiculous. In the former, one is leaving before the end on 2 year commitment, while in the latter, honoring 2 year commitment and paying monthly, while just being able to use another SIM IN ADDITION while in Europe. That I support, and AT&T will, I imagine, offer something along those lines in the future (possibly receprocity so Euro iPhones can also get SIMs to use while in US).

The problem currently is the data component. Using a pre-paid card to transfer data is either not possible or pretty expensive. But for those going abroad and willing to forgo the EDGE data accessibility, a pre-paid SIM both cuts down the (otherwise expensive roaming) phone-use charges and prevents any unintended data usage abroad.

AT&T already realized that the roaming charges for data will be prohibitive (and the the iPhone offers no easy way for switching off data-transmission over EDGE or GSM in general except for removing the SIM card) and they have introduced an international data roaming tariff.

 

[koobcamuk]

The world needs more people with minds like ours, kvanwagoner!

...

Doesn't anyone else think that it would be nice if Apple sold this phone unlocked? I can't believe people are for exclusivity. Ridiculous.

I still think Apple should sell this as an iPod that makes phone calls and surfs the internet (at mega slow speeds compared to 3G). Sell it SIM free in the UK, Apple.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I don't think the iPhone is selling that well to begin with (note the "I think" as in guess/opinion). It made a great first run but now that the hype is over and the majority of people that don't have deep pockets, or can't stand AT&T, or need certain features that the iPhone doesn't provide, or need certain features that AT&T can't provide (insurance) people are wising up and staying away from the thing for now.

Most people would love to have one, but since reality has set in, the know they can't cripple themselves with the iPhone and AT&T. Now that it is unlocked, users may get some of the benefits of being able to stick a SIM card in it. T-Mobile and Virgin Mobile users will be happy, and they may go and pick up the iPhone now that the AT&T puppet strings are gone.

Hopefully we see a fully Apple unlocked iPhone or something in the future, and hopefully the iPhone 2.0 will give users more powerful features that the current one lacks. And it would be a very smart move for Apple to release a phone that works with the two bigger better companies, Sprint and Verizon.

 

[knelto]

one word for you. EULA

Thats End User License Agreement for those that are unfamiliar with it.

One word for you. Four.

EULA is four words for those that are unfamiliar with numbers.

/I jest! I jest! Someone had to do it...

 

[emotion]

Their numbers are diminishing with every suicide bomb that goes off.

Doesn't anyone else think that it would be nice if Apple sold this phone unlocked? I can't believe people are for exclusivity. Ridiculous.

I demand more restrictions on my phone, and I demand them now!

I'm resigned to waiting the iphone out past EDGE and when it becomes 3G but I might be tempted by an unlocked one at £250/300 as a nano replacement.

 

[inkiboo]

I supposed its been mentioned before, but all mobile phones in the UK are "unlocked" so you can bung in any SIM card of your choice.

That's not true; Orange and T-Mobile lock all theirs and Vodafone and o2 lock some of theirs.

 

[emotion]

So....back to the original topic.

The so-called call from the law firm sounds like this company whipping up some hype for their soon-to-released software/unlocking services.

As some have hinted at above in their replies.

 

[koobcamuk]

I demand more restrictions on my phone, and I demand them now!

Me too! I have seen the light. I want things locked down. While we're here, when I buy my next Mac, I want to be told which service provider I need to sign with on a 2 year contract to get the internet.

I'm resigned to waiting the iphone out past EDGE and when it becomes 3G but I might be tempted by an unlocked one at £250/300 as a nano replacement.

Maybe if I sell my current nano (2Gen) and current mobile (903SH) I can get £300 for the iPhone. I think it'll be more than that though. I am holding out until 3G. Until then, I'll get a SE phone with a 5MP camera and a £15 per month plan

Back to the topic... quite.

I think that this company should be allowed to sell this software. Unlocking the phone should be allowed. If nothing more, than for roaming reasons (cost).

 

[Unspeaked]

...

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, my comment was so full of sarcasm that it would have set off the red alert on any Saracasm Detector™ within 500 yards of it...

Sarcasm aside, though, don't you think your comment was slightly in poor taste?

 

[koobcamuk]

Sarcasm aside, though, don't you think your comment was slightly in poor taste?

I got the sarcasm. In hindsight, I do think it's poor taste.

Since you've quoted it though, I doubt I can change it now...

 

[nemaslov]

In various serveys of iPhone owners, more than 75% are happy with the phone and most are actually happy with the service. Yes there are exceptions and ATT has been working on improving their system.

I don't have an iPhone but have been with ATT (Pacbell, SBC, Cingular) for over 8 years and live in San Francisco, travel frequently to New York, Chicago and LA and have no real problems. Yes I am not online with data transfers by voice serves in great.

 

[milo]

Here's what I don't get...

Can't they just get around this by requiring you to sign the ATT contract in order to buy the phone?

It seems like the mistake they've made so far is selling them and allowing activation at home. Couldn't they get around this by just requiring the buyer to enter the contract before they can have the phone?

People could still unlock the phone, but as long as ATT is still getting either the monthly fee or the early cancel fee, what would they care?

 

[goosnarrggh]

one word for you. EULA

Ah, but the EULA is nothing other than the license under which a copyright holder grants usage rights to a licensee (ie the end user).

Its enforcement is subject to the copyright laws in effect in the country where you physically reside. And the copyright office in the USA's stated opinion is that unlocking phones for the sole purpose of network interoperability is explicitly permitted.

It has been argued in this thread that the LoC's exemption was only intended to be used by the network carrier if it voluntarily wanted to unlock the phone.

That rationalization is complete BS. The network carrier is (or at least is an agent acting on behalf of) the copyright holder. A copyright owner can do whatever they want with their copyrighted material; they own it, and it's theirs to do with as they please regardless of anything the DMCA (or any other copyright law) says.

The DMCA (and copyright law in general) only comes into play in terms of the rights that the licensee (eg. the end user who isn't a copyright owner) has.

The only reason for the DMCA exemption to exist would be because the LoC found it warranted to grant the end user additional rights regardless of the network carrier's intentions.

 

[Unspeaked]

Since you've quoted it though, I doubt I can change it now...

I edited the quote, so you're welcome to change your comment, if so inclined...

 

[ncbill]

Sorry, but there's no guarantee any particular clause in a EULA is enforceable until tested in court.

Apple's only recourse would be to sue personally an end-user who had unlocked their iPhone to try and enforce that particular clause.

Considering there is now a specific exemption in the DMCA to allow the end user to unlock their phone, I doubt such a suit would even make it to trial.

Of course, I don't see how the DMCA or other U.S. laws apply since the company in question is located in the U.K.

You'd think their response to a 3 AM phone call from a U.S.-based law firm would likely be "Sod off, you wankers!"

one word for you. EULA

Thats End User License Agreement for those that are unfamiliar with it. Like most products, the iPhone carries one of these. The box specifically says, opening this box and using this product requires accepting the EULA. Part of the EULA indicates that you will not modify the software or hardware of the product. So, that means that if you purchase one of these nifty little products and use it you will agree to the EULA.

 

[koobcamuk]

I edited the quote, so you're welcome to change your comment, if so inclined...

Many thanks - done.

Here's what I don't get...

Can't they just get around this by requiring you to sign the ATT contract in order to buy the phone?

It seems like the mistake they've made so far is selling them and allowing activation at home. Couldn't they get around this by just requiring the buyer to enter the contract before they can have the phone?

People could still unlock the phone, but as long as ATT is still getting either the monthly fee or the early cancel fee, what would they care?

I actually like your idea. This would make it more like getting a normal phone. Thing is - it would mean the Apple store would become very busy (more than usual) due to the time it takes to do all this.

 

[Rooskibar03]

Well, because that's generally how business WAS done. In the cell phone industry, you buy an expensive phone for a discount but you're required to sign a two year contract.

So, simply put, the reason why people are upset about this is because AT&T is changing the rules, based on how these things are handled in most cases, including just about everywhere else in the cell phone industry, even AT&T's other cell phones.

Let me make a small correction for you there.

I seem to remember a time when you could visit certain web pages without subsciption too. Everyone pissed an moaned because it used to be free and now its not.

Just because thats how it was done, doesn't mean anyone has to keep doing so. There is no law that says a company must discount any product because you have to use their services.

 

[hh83917]

I think Apple will be happy about it because that means they might be able to sell more phones to the world instead of limited by carrier or country. But maybe to pity AT&T, they might void unlockers warranty.

 

[jarednt1]

It seems to me, that Apple will somehow relock these phones via a software update.

Remember it may be in the contract that Apple is somehow responsible for relocking phones that become unlocked.

There are bound to be new features added, and a software update could relock these phones.

 

[Macromullet]

The primary issue I see with the current situation is that Apple and AT&T negotiated hard for the current exclusivity deal. As I recall, only AT&T was able to give Apple the terms they desired and work with them to implement things like visual voicemail and activation via itunes. One carrier provided the level of support (both technically and financially) that Apple required, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that Apple or AT&T would go after them hard, and I cant say I blame them. The phone was a risk for both companies, and so I don't think its unreasonable for the two companies that took the risk to profit from an exclusivity agreement.

Another problem is support. Apple has typically benefited from the lower support costs of closed systems. With people hacking up their iphones and using different carriers, who knows what will happen, and I guarantee a lot of those support calls are going to fall back on Apple, and I don't blame them for trying to avoid that at all costs.

While I think in the long run open systems benefit consumers, I also think that companies and people that take risks should reap the fruits of their labor.

 

[kitki83]

I think Apple will be happy about it because that means they might be able to sell more phones to the world instead of limited by carrier or country. But maybe to pity AT&T, they might void unlockers warranty.

I am confused ok does the iPhone profits go directly to ATT, Apple or both. If its Apple then they wont probably care since they make the money off the phone. Either way you still have to pay way more just to get the phone and cancel contract.

 

[nemaslov]

One thing that surly will happen. Once you hack in any manner, your warranty will no longer be valid. So it will be up to you to fix on your own. Also you may not be able to have access to any future software updates. That is a very real possibility.