AT&T Taking Action Against iPhone Unlocks?

[unigolyn]

Yes, its that simple.

I went to the UK for vacation, took my phone with me. I bought a pay-as-you-go SIM card from the Vodaphone shop, replaced that with my Fido Sim card, and off I went...

Done in less than 10 minutes, including buying the Sim card... no waiting for 'next day' and needing to use the internet, like you suggest!

Uh, when I took my Fido phone, that I paid the full, unsubsidized price for, to Europe, it was SIM locked. I went and paid about $15 Canadian to have it unlocked, after which my prepaid SIM worked just fine.

Then again this is Canada, the country with the absolute worst cell phone providers in the entire world.

 

[M!K]

Of course this was going to happen! D'you really think that AT&T would let this happen.

Plus here's what i think: If some program is able to unlock the iPhone, Apple is in trouble too; They have a contract with AT&T for a 5 years iPhone-exclusivity. So not AT&T nor Apple will let someone release a program that unlocks the iPhone. Sorry for those who were trying to get it!

 

[mpw]

I suspect that most iPhone haters do not actually use an iPhone on a daily basis...

Well if they hate the thing of course they're not gonna be using it, duh!

 

[Rot'nApple]

I will be in agreement with AT&T if they were giving you the iPhone so as which you have the contract of two years with them, but it's not like that, you already paid for the iPhone and already it's yours.

What's this "GIVE" thing? Since when is it required that any mobile phone carrier give you anything along the lines of hardware ie. 'a phone' when signing up for their service via a contract of minutes etc.? I mean, I see a Nokia phone branded by T-Mobile, but T-Mobile didn't "make" it, so why should T-Mobile give it to you. How does Nokia make money and recoup it's R&D and marketing, etc. What a "gimmee" mind set we seem to expect out of life.

Also, when I pay for MY hotel room, doesn't mean the bed is mine to walk out with and do as I please! (although look out little bars of soap! lol) Instead, I pay for the understanding that I am getting a room, hopefully clean, with a bed with fresh linens, an a/c, tv and lights that work, etc. for one nights sleep, or however many nights I paid for. I know the motel room is rented and teh iPhone is purchased, but I go in there with the understanding.

I go into the Apple store, I see the iPhone, I see literature regarding the understanding that it is to be used in conjunction with at&t's mobile service. I see the same on Apple's website - at&t minutes and rate plans, not to mention at&t's website. I go into an at&t store I see the iPhone and literature on mobile plan rates... I won't find that at T-Mobile's store or website, Verizon's store or website, Sprint's store or website... etc. I go to apple.com and replay the iPhone announcement back in January by Steve Jobs and see where Job's say's AT&T is THE exclusive carrier...

Hhmmmmm... I thinks to myself, there seems to be some connection with Apple's iPhone and AT&T as the exclusive mobile carrier, irregardless of where I plop my 600 bucks down... be it an apple store or apple online or at&t store...

If Apple didn't want the phone locked, then why is it locked? If Apple could have had the iPhone used by any ole body, anyway they wished, don't you think Apple would have done so? If the iPhone was not an AT&T exclusive, don't you think one would be able to input a T-Mobile SIM card and change-o, presto, it works?

Kind of like the episode of "Cops" I was watching the other day where a neighbor was watching their neighbor's house while they were on vacation and they called the police because of a break-in. The arrested person, who was an ex roomate, said they had a key that fits into the lock (never mind the fact that it didn't work to turn the tumblers in the lock) and with a friendly persuasion by throwing their hip into the door, the door magically worked. Never mine the lock was still deadbolted and the door was bent and the doorframe was splintered, they still had a key.


Yeah these are stupid comparisons... but no more stupid then the philosophy that, since I paid for the iPhone, it's mine to do as I please, when it's well documented with what you can do ala which service provider allows the phone to work right out of the box and with what service provider(s) it won't.

 

[mambodancer]

And that's the bottom line

I don't give a flying f*** what AT&T paid Apple. The $599 is going directly to the manufacturer of the device, AT&T is not subsidizing it. What AT&T paid for was:

1. The right to be the only operator who can sell iPhones with contracts.
2. The right to be the only operator whom Apple provides activation for via iTunes.

If I want to use the device I owned with any other operator, and I can bypass the technical hurdles in doing so, I can do so legally, and AT&T can't do anything about it. They like to pretend they can, but they can't. End of story.

Agreed. This whole discussion of AT&T subsidizing the iPhone are just unsupported statements without fact. AT&T does not manufacture any kind of phone. LG does, Sanyo does, Blackberry and Palm do, etc. etc. The manufacture of phones isn't subsidized by any telephone carrier so why would people think the iPhone was? The iPhone was made and manufactured by Apple. This phone would have just as easily been offered by T-Mobile or any of the other carriers Apple approached had they but said Yes. Your 2 points are exactly spot on.

 

[Rot'nApple]

Agreed. This whole discussion of AT&T subsidizing the iPhone are just unsupported statements without fact. AT&T does not manufacture any kind of phone. LG does, Sanyo does, Blackberry and Palm do, etc. etc. The manufacture of phones isn't subsidized by any telephone carrier so why would people think the iPhone was? The iPhone was made and manufactured by Apple. This phone would have just as easily been offered by T-Mobile or any of the other carriers Apple approached had they but said Yes. Your 2 points are exactly spot on.

Except for the fact that it was AT&T that said yes. And it seems that Apple has given it exclusivity. While it is true that AT&T didn't create the iPhone and there is nothing AT&T can do, Apple did create the iPhone and I am sure through software updates, that there is something that they can do.

But let's just wait and see...

Will those who hack and unlock the iPhone via manipulation of Apple's hardware and / or software just to put in another phone carrier's SIM card, will they be locked out of future Apple updates for iPhone OS, say, version 5.0.2 that has increased stability, tighter security and new Apple provided iPhone apps or will they be relegated to iPhone OS 1.0.1.

 

[CWallace]

This whole discussion of AT&T subsidizing the iPhone are just unsupported statements without fact.

It's really just confusion. Cellular carries often eat some or all of the physical cost of the phone in exchange for a long-term service plan which ensures they make not only the amount they "ate", but also generates a profit. So it is natural for folks to think AT&T is doing the same with the iPhone. While Apple is certainly making darn nice coin on the iPhone, part of that is driven by it's capabilities and part by the fact it's Apple and hey, you pay to play.

It may very well be that AT&T is paying zero to Apple for each iPhone, and are only making revenue from the service plans themselves. Personally, I think this to be the case. And in such a case, AT&T would indeed not be subsidizing any of the cost of the phone. Also in such a case, it would be no surprise AT&T would fight tooth-and-nail against an easy unlocking since the entire $499 or $599 of the handset goes to Apple (in other words, Apple charges AT&T $499 or $599 for each iPhone they sell in an AT&T store).

 

[nemaslov]

Well I find it very interesting that those who reponded to my question, Actual owners of the iPhone, who use it with AT&T, seem to be quite happy with it and the service that are getting.

So aside from those who have to switch and pay a cancellation...what is the problem? I had on Moto phone with ATT once and the reception was spotty...more than usual. I got a differnt phone (RAZR) which I still have and my reception almost everywhere is so much better. Sometimes it is not just the provider but the specific phone. It may be that if you had an iPhone, some of your problems would evaporte. Maybe?

 

[CDphoto]

Market it differently

I am not a computer tech or a lawyer but I think the solution could be rather simple. Just change the way the unlocking software works OR is marketed. Simply have it run as a application that, while on, allows the user to access other networks. Something that can be turned on or off if desired. Call it iVacation. Market it to iPhone users who travel and need to access international cell phone carriers (areas where ATT does not provide first hand coverage.) The companies selling the unlock would be no different then any other software developer. Since it would technically be an application, not a software hack, there would be nothing ATT or Apple could do. It would be like Apple saying you cant run adobe software because we said so and don't like what it does on our hardware.

Additionally once you leave the USA, ATT has no further exclusivity rights. Some other carrier will. Who is to say you can't take the same phone you purchased (and own, NOT RENT - it is not a hotel bed) and use it on Apple's European cell partner? Does ATT say in its contract that when outside their coverage area you MUST use partner carriers? For this reason among many others, I think ATT's challenge could easily be thrown out.

These are idealistic views. If any of it is possible it could solve the potential issue. And lets not forget this is only a potential problem not an actual one! Yet.

 

[Football1maniac]

Agreed. This whole discussion of AT&T subsidizing the iPhone are just unsupported statements without fact. AT&T does not manufacture any kind of phone. LG does, Sanyo does, Blackberry and Palm do, etc. etc. The manufacture of phones isn't subsidized by any telephone carrier so why would people think the iPhone was? The iPhone was made and manufactured by Apple. This phone would have just as easily been offered by T-Mobile or any of the other carriers Apple approached had they but said Yes. Your 2 points are exactly spot on.

In the same perspective, what about the iPod? I've seen all over the internet, Linux OS on the iPod. Is it illegal? NO! You are the owner of product you bought. If I want to go smash an iPod into a million pieces, hell, I'll do it!

AT&T has no right meddling with products already purchased by the consumer, I don't care what contract is on it.

 

[pocketrockets]

Again, ATT loses no matter what. They have no hand to tell Apple to make software updates locking the phone. Sure ATT might sue Apple for breaking an agreement. Still, Apple will most likely still win based on many of the arguments I've read tonight, and in the end, Apple will apease millions of customers, increasing their revenue and marketshare, while ATT gets nothing.

After all, what's ATT going to do? Get mad at Apple and say, the deal's off? They have no argument! LOL.

The smartest thing for ATT to do would be to not do anything. Just let it slide. Less than 5% of the iPhone community will hack it anyway.

 

[BKKbill]

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.

Same here in Thailand. And as said before AT&T has already lost this battle.

 

[PubGuy]

Everyone seems to be missing the point.
1) The Consumer pays full RETAIL price for the iPhone and owns the product.
2) If the Consumer ends up with bad credit, they can opt for a Monthly pre-paid plan.
3) If the Consumer chooses, they can cancel their service with AT&T within 14 to 30 days from signing the contract without penalty.
4) the DCMA allows for the legal unlocking of phones to work with other providers.
5) the Consumer can choose to unlock their iPhone without any legal repercussions (and it is NOT THEFT of anything ... its totally legal).
6) all the rest of this mindless speculation is meaningless.
7) besides, the basis of this whole discussion is nebulous at best. There is absolutely no validation that this mysterious phone call was even from a valid attorney, let alone one representing either Apple or AT&T. unlocking of cell phones is totally LEGAL in Europe and the company that states that it can do so with only a software patch is in Europe. It is even a legal exception in the US based on the DMCA. So, why is this even a valid discussion?????

 

[GetSome681]

Everyone seems to be missing the point.
1) The Consumer pays full RETAIL price for the iPhone and owns the product.
2) If the Consumer ends up with bad credit, they can opt for a Monthly pre-paid plan.
3) If the Consumer chooses, they can cancel their service with AT&T within 14 to 30 days from signing the contract without penalty.
4) the DCMA allows for the legal unlocking of phones to work with other providers.
5) the Consumer can choose to unlock their iPhone without any legal repercussions (and it is NOT THEFT of anything ... its totally legal).
6) all the rest of this mindless speculation is meaningless.
7) besides, the basis of this whole discussion is nebulous at best. There is absolutely no validation that this mysterious phone call was even from a valid attorney, let alone one representing either Apple or AT&T. unlocking of cell phones is totally LEGAL in Europe and the company that states that it can do so with only a software patch is in Europe. It is even a legal exception in the US based on the DMCA. So, why is this even a valid discussion?????

This has turned into a discussion because most people don't investigate the facts before forming their opinion. Most people in this thread have no idea what they're talking about. Also, I'm not going to believe a word that comes from these guys until I see them come forward and show their unlock like iphonesimfree.com did.

 

[PNW]

What's this "GIVE" thing? Since when is it required that any mobile phone carrier give you anything along the lines of hardware ie. 'a phone' when signing up for their service via a contract of minutes etc.? I mean, I see a Nokia phone branded by T-Mobile, but T-Mobile didn't "make" it, so why should T-Mobile give it to you. How does Nokia make money and recoup it's R&D and marketing, etc. What a "gimmee" mind set we seem to expect out of life.

Um T-Mobile buys the phone from Nokia at wholesale and then "sells" it to me for $0 and a long term contract. Point in case I have to sign the contract before I get the phone. Afterwards the phone is mine, I can do what ever I want to it including use it on another network, but I'm bound to the contract I signed with T-mobile which nets them more than the retail markup on the phone would.

Also, when I pay for MY hotel room, doesn't mean the bed is mine to walk out with and do as I please! (although look out little bars of soap! lol) Instead, I pay for the understanding that I am getting a room, hopefully clean, with a bed with fresh linens, an a/c, tv and lights that work, etc. for one nights sleep, or however many nights I paid for. I know the motel room is rented and teh iPhone is purchased, but I go in there with the understanding.

What understanding? that's the fundamental difference between owning and renting. If you own something it's yours to do with as you please if you rent it its not.

Yeah these are stupid comparisons... but no more stupid then the philosophy that, since I paid for the iPhone, it's mine to do as I please, when it's well documented with what you can do ala which service provider allows the phone to work right out of the box and with what service provider(s) it won't.

What so stupid about feeling that I can do what ever I damn well please with my property. I realize that the iPhone is designed and marketed to work with AT&T and if I don't like that I don't have to buy one. However figuring out how to make it work on another network is not stealing, and is well within my rights as the owner of said iPhone. It may violate the warranty, it may not be legal to sell/ profit from/ or patent said modifications, but it goes against the very essence of ownership to suggest I can't even attempt to make them. It's also worth noting that Apple tends to give a wink and a nod to tinkering. Note the recent "well it will void the warranty" statement about hacking the full OSX on the Apple TV.

So aside from those who have to switch and pay a cancellation...what is the problem? I had on Moto phone with ATT once and the reception was spotty...more than usual. I got a differnt phone (RAZR) which I still have and my reception almost everywhere is so much better. Sometimes it is not just the provider but the specific phone. It may be that if you had an iPhone, some of your problems would evaporte. Maybe?

T-Mobile has a tower on top of the apartment building at the end of the block, everyone else's towers are on the far side of a nearby hill. So With T-mobile we get full signal strength in the basement with everyone else you have to go outside to make a call. So in my case the carrier makes a huge difference. I don't have $500 to drop on a phone so it's kind of a mute point, but as an inherent tinkerer I get pretty ticked off when people start suggesting that companies should be able to dictate what consumers may and may not do with their products once they've been purchased. If a corporation wants that much control they should rent rather than sell.

 

[Rot'nApple]

This has turned into a discussion because most people don't investigate the facts before forming their opinion. Most people in this thread have no idea what they're talking about. Also, I'm not going to believe a word that comes from these guys until I see them come forward and show their unlock like iphonesimfree.com did.

Went to iphonesimfree.com and saw at the bottom of the homepage...

Copyright iPhoneSimFree.com . All rights reserved.
No responsibility taken for any misuse of the information above.

"Copyright"... "All rights reserved."... - hell of a nerve, but you gotta luv 'em!

With regards to "Also, I'm not going to believe a word that comes from these guys until I see them come forward and show their unlock like iphonesimfree.com did."...

Where did you see iphonesimfree.com actually demonstrate their software that makes you believe that the software produced by them works?

 

[cameronjpu]

Evidence?

That $200 could be pure 'profit' for Apple - i.e., a cash cow for Apple.

The cost analysis of the phone has already been made and Apple are already making a hefty profit from each iPhone ( ignoring r&d, marketing etc ).

What's the difference between pure profit and tainted impure profit?

Apple gets around $800 per 8 GB ATT iPhone, period. Selling it without ATT only nets $600. See how that's $200 less for Apple?

 

[mazola]

Fight the Power!

Wait a minute.

I am the power.

 

[wnurse]

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.

Why do people always make the same old tired argument that you make?. No, you do not have the right to do whatever you want with the product you buy... you only have the right that the owner of the product confers upon you. Sigh.. hasn't this been debated in other forums?. I bet you made this argument before. An example of where you cannot do whatever you want is with music.. you cannot just sell unlimited copies of your music electronically just cause you paid for it.. You cannot drive your car through a red light cause you paid for the car. You cannot demand the captain of a cruise ship going to greece take you to alaska cause you paid for the cruise, you cannot demand extra legroom on a plane cause you bought a ticket. You cannot reverse engineer an ipod and mass produce it cause you bought one. You cannot install mac osX on any computer other than a mac cause you paid for it..
Get it?... ok... jeesh!!!. The owner of a product can introduce any limitation on product use that they want to and that is legal. You can choose not to buy that product but once you do, you agree to limitations set by the owner of the product. Stop making these 4th grade observations that you can do anything with a product you bought.

 

[nemaslov]

T-Mobile has a tower on top of the apartment building at the end of the block, everyone else's towers are on the far side of a nearby hill. So With T-mobile we get full signal strength in the basement with everyone else you have to go outside to make a call. So in my case the carrier makes a huge difference. I don't have $500 to drop on a phone so it's kind of a mute point, but as an inherent tinkerer I get pretty ticked off when people start suggesting that companies should be able to dictate what consumers may and may not do with their products once they've been purchased. If a corporation wants that much control they should rent rather than sell.[/QUOTE]


I guess I am just old fashion. When I am home...I have a land line. My mobile phone is for when I am...well mobile.

 

[wnurse]

Again, ATT loses no matter what. They have no hand to tell Apple to make software updates locking the phone. Sure ATT might sue Apple for breaking an agreement. Still, Apple will most likely still win based on many of the arguments I've read tonight, and in the end, Apple will apease millions of customers, increasing their revenue and marketshare, while ATT gets nothing.

After all, what's ATT going to do? Get mad at Apple and say, the deal's off? They have no argument! LOL.

The smartest thing for ATT to do would be to not do anything. Just let it slide. Less than 5% of the iPhone community will hack it anyway.

Apple will win based on the arguments you have read?. Are you for real?. See what happens when you let 5 years old type on computers?.

Also apple appeasing millions of users has nothing to do with ATT suing the pants of them.. and lets take your argument to a logical conclusion.. what other carrier would want to deal with apple if they can cavilarly break their agreement?. A phone without service is an expensive paperweight. Maybe you should give apple the advice to let things slide too.. perhaps you should tell them to let thinksecret slide.. or those people in china cloning the iphone to slide... Actually, you are not 5, you are 4. Stop playing with your mothers computer and go do your homework.

 

[PNW]

I guess I am just old fashion. When I am home...I have a land line. My mobile phone is for when I am...well mobile.

I'm old enough to still see merit in a land line (and like it for incoming calls), but once the T-mobile tower went up, it seemed silly to pay extra for long distance.

 

[Rot'nApple]

What understanding? that's the fundamental difference between owning and renting. If you own something it's yours to do with as you please if you rent it its not.




What so stupid about feeling that I can do what ever I damn well please with my property. I realize that the iPhone is designed and marketed to work with AT&T and if I don't like that I don't have to buy one. However figuring out how to make it work on another network is not stealing, and is well within my rights as the owner of said iPhone. It may violate the warranty, it may not be legal to sell/ profit from/ or patent said modifications, but it goes against the very essence of ownership to suggest I can't even attempt to make them. It's also worth noting that Apple tends to give a wink and a nod to tinkering. Note the recent "well it will void the warranty" statement about hacking the full OSX on the Apple TV.

So if I bought a cable-ready tv from walmart, and it's my tv, to do as I wish, and I want to receive more tv channels. Since I have the right to do with my property anything I like, as in hack my tv to receive channels that other people see on cable, I can, just as long as I don't need the local cable company's "cable box" and I won't splice into any of cable's proprietory lines running from their network, to the streets, to the houses... If I hack until I "invent" a work around that supplies cable programming to my cable ready tv that I bought and is my tv, I'm in the clear, as well as the right!

I don't think my local cable company would buy it though...

I don't have $500 to drop on a phone so it's kind of a mute point, but as an inherent tinkerer I get pretty ticked off when people start suggesting that companies should be able to dictate what consumers may and may not do with their products once they've been purchased. If a corporation wants that much control they should rent rather than sell.

Our government does it all the time, but by your own admission above, you must be a Fair Tax supporter, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer - who wants to repeal the income tax that our government uses to dictate what tax citizens HAVE to pay based on the income received from the hard work they put in to their employers.

Good deal my friend!

 

[GetSome681]

With regards to "Also, I'm not going to believe a word that comes from these guys until I see them come forward and show their unlock like iphonesimfree.com did."...

Where did you see iphonesimfree.com actually demonstrate their software that makes you believe that the software produced by them works?

How did you miss this? There's even a video that shows it.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/24/iphone-unlocked-atandt-loses-iphone-exclusivity-august-24-2007/

Again, iphonesimfree is the group that has demonstrated that their unlock works. AT&T is 'supposedly' theatening legal action towards iphoneunlocking, which is another group that announced they had a software unlock shortly after iphonesimfree, yet they have not backed up any of their claims. More than likely iphoneunlocking is just riding on the coat tails of the real unlockers, iphonesimfree, and are using all the buzz surrounding this to generate loads of traffic and signups to their website. All this will play out soon enough, so eventually we'll know the truth.

 

[PNW]

you cannot just sell unlimited copies of your music electronically just cause you paid for it..

No but I can rearrange it however I want to for my own listening enjoyment.

You cannot drive your car through a red light cause you paid for the car.

I can if I own the light and the intersection

You cannot demand the captain of a cruise ship going to greece take you to alaska cause you paid for the cruise

I can If I bought the boat, though I'd have to settle a fair number of lawsuits from passengers expecting to go to Greece.

, you cannot demand extra legroom on a plane cause you bought a ticket.

Once again if I bought the plane I can have as much legroom as I want.

You cannot reverse engineer an ipod and mass produce it cause you bought one.

I can If I make enough changes so as not to violate the patent, and that's only necessary if I want to sell them. If I just want to make a better iPod for myself I'm well within my rights.

You cannot install mac osX on any computer other than a mac cause you paid for it..

I'd be interested to see that hold up in court of of course acquiring a legal full installation of OS X would be rather tricky since no one sells them, so I'll grant you a draw on that one, but the rest of your arguments are bunk