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.
iPhone as a Widescreen iPod + Wifi without Contract?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not not referring to merely disabling the ability to make phone calls, but other, non-phone functionality.
BTW, there are often no attorneys allowed in small claims.
It will be the consumer, with a totally unusuable, "bricked" phone, versus the local Apple or AT&T store manager.
And that manager won't have an adequate explanation for the judge as to why the iPod function (not the ability to make/receive calls) no longer works on the customer's phone.
BTW, once you win that judgement in small claims, in many states the plaintiff can pay a small fee to have local law enforcement go right down to the store and collect the judgement, IN CASH, straight from the store's register.
That's not a scenario either Apple or AT&T wants.
I can't fathom why people would spend $600 for a 8GB touchscreen iPod, but I'm sure they'll be able to use the iPhone that way after they're out of the phone contract.
Send me a PM in November!
Hopefully by then we'll have the iPhone 2, "with DTT"
BTW, there are often no attorneys allowed in small claims.
It will be the consumer, with a totally unusuable, "bricked" phone, versus the local Apple or AT&T store manager.
And that manager won't have an adequate explanation for the judge as to why the iPod function (not the ability to make/receive calls) no longer works on the customer's phone.
BTW, once you win that judgement in small claims, in many states the plaintiff can pay a small fee to have local law enforcement go right down to the store and collect the judgement, IN CASH, straight from the store's register.
That's not a scenario either Apple or AT&T wants.
I can't fathom why people would spend $600 for a 8GB touchscreen iPod, but I'm sure they'll be able to use the iPhone that way after they're out of the phone contract.
Send me a PM in November!
Hopefully by then we'll have the iPhone 2, "with DTT"
The Apple Employees are ATT lackeys? (They were selling iPhones, as i recall). The reason they are not asking for proof of ATT contracts is because the existence of a contract is NOT a requirement for sale- only for the USE of the iPhone. Show me anywhere in any official document is shows otherwise- back up your statement that an ATT contract is required for activation.
You can't, because your suppositions are made from thin air. The Quote I shared (which states that ATT contract is required to USE and iPhone) was from Apples own documents on their sight... not made up hyperbole.
My Statement is also backed up by real world experience- neither the ATT or Apple store requests or requires a contract for the sale of an iPhone... but every iPhone is requiring an ATT contract to get running. Back your statement up with a single instance of proof of a contract for sale.
How does iTunes know if you are on a computer authorized to play protected AAC files? There is this thing called the INTERNET... and applications can use this to phone home and see if they are authorized or not.
So, I know what you are thinking... You just won't sync to iTunes, then the phone won't know. Strangely enough, the phone itself has wireless systems, so it itself can phone home after a specified interval, if so programed (note you can even call 911 on an unactivated phone... so phoning home for authorization is no great jump in the capabilities of this phone).
So, maybe you do not sync to iTunes... why can't the iPhone check every, uh, 5 days say to see if it is authorized. If no sync, it can easily call the ATT mothership and find out the contract has been canceled. OK, turn yourself off. No big deal for a phone.
I have no clue what you mean here. A non-existent iPhone doesn't exist. A bricked phone can probably be reactivated once a new contract is instituted. If what you mean both are equally usable by being unusable, point taken. Otherwise, I have no clue what this sentence is supposed to prove.
Wrong again. ATT did NOT cancel the customers contract, the customer did it. ATT is enforcing their rights. And the customer is going forward KNOWING the contract is required, and trying to weasel out, trying to get something beyond the scope of the original contract. Customer deserves to get burned .
Do you agree this might be a good analogy? I wish someone would pipe up on this, because I think it makes a good precedent for the Apple iPhone. Consider: both have a separate hardware and subscription service. If you cancel either service, you get to keep the hardware. It is the resultant usability of that hardware that is in question.
So what. Tivo gives a discount... so does my gas card. What does that have to do with this argument.
So am I.
When you sue a corp (see below) someone has to represent the corp- that is a lawyer, and would be allowed.
And that would be thrown out in a hardbeat. The defendant should be the corp. the store manager has no liability for the practices of their parent corps. IF a SM was sued, they just show up, tell the judge, and case dismissed instantly.
Moot point as far as the store manager... but it is quite simple- the specifications of this product REQUIRE a two year ATT contract. No contract, the hardware ceases functioning. That is not a hidden fact or anything, Apple and ATT are quite up front about that, as numerous threads here attest to.
Again, you would have to win... and that is not going to happen with the case you presented.
That's not a scenario either Apple or AT&T wants.
See- we can agree on something!
Send me a PM in November!
Hopefully by then we'll have the iPhone 2, "with DTT"
If I am wrong- I am happy to eat crow at your expense! But I just can't help looking at this and think is ATT that stupid? They are a lot of things.... but I think they have the power behind them on this one.
BTW, do you know the answer to my TIVO question? Is that a valid analogy to make?
Many share this prediction, namely that Apple will lock it down. Why would this not be an antitrust violation?
I Think Not Including Visual Voice Mail
I don't think it includes Visual Voice Mail since you will have no phone service after you cancel the service to have iPhone w/o phone service. Perhaps you meant the pay as you go plan not deactivated? In that case yes.Yes, this is true!
So maybe the existance of an AT&T contract is not a requirement for sale. There was an anecdote of an individual who wanted to buy an iPhone over the weekend and they were turned away because they were not a current AT&T sub and wanted to pay cash for the iPhone. The policy may vary by store.
The fact there are individuals using the iPhone with a disabled SIM card right now is the evidence. It supports that the iPhone's iPod functionality does not require active phone service (let alone a lock-in contract). Why didn't the whole device just sit there on the invalid SIM card screen instead?
With no valid SIM, AT&T sure can't disable anything else. Heck, they have no communication with the phone now. Apple could disable the phone, assuming it is synced to a computer with internet access. But internet access is not a requirement for iTunes to function. iTunes does not verify anything for the iTMS or otherwise once you've purchased your songs and downloaded them. Also, your idea that Apple could disable the rest of the iPhone at anytime would require a coordination between AT&T's billing systems and Apple. Cooperation that generally does not happen due to privacy laws and technical issues.
When you purchase the songs off the iTMS, they are tagged with your info and your iTunes database is updated to show you "own" those two songs. iTunes does not check periodically the internet to make sure you are still authorized. You can defeat the limit on the number of computers by simply not updating iTunes on those machines and never reinstalling Windows on them, and then mass-deactivating the accounts from another machine. As long as you don't visit the iTMS on those machines, they will stay authorized.
Do you have any evidence to support that the iPhone "phones home" or is this just paranoia now.
As far as I can see they're all scared they'll be stuck with a brick so few try it. I don't hold TiVo Corp to the same standards I do Apple, by the way.
TiVo partailly subsidizes the price of their box on the idea they'll get a customer for their box with the deal. AT&T is not. TiVo actually has a leg to stand on when it comes to bricking devices.
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but Apple could easily just spit out an error message if you use 999-99-9999. Note the list of valid digits (999 is not on there, but xxx-99-9999 is theoretically a valid SSN). You could try to make it "look" like a valid SSN, but you run the risk of using someone else's SSN# to go prepaid.
I wonder if AT&T actually keeps the SSN# on file to remote-disable people...
I wonder if AT&T actually keeps the SSN# on file to remote-disable people...
I owned a Series 2 Tivo. If the subscription was cancelled it didn't render the Tivo unusable, you just didn't get the Tivo service... television guide, season pass, etc. It was still perfectly usable in the same fashion as a VCR.
This is what I would expect from an iPhone. As long as you have the ATT service, the phone, text messaging, etc. works. When you cancel it, anything that requires ATT service no longer works and anything not requiring that service continues to work.
IANAL, but it would seem sh*tty at best if Apple completely disabled the iPhone if it did not have ATT service after it's already been activated through iTunes and at worst it would seem to be something that would be contestable in court.
I just don't see it being a smart move for Apple to brick iPhones that don't have active ATT service unless ATT made it a stipulation in their contract with Apple.
TUAW essentially describes how to unlock an iPhone for use as a Widescreen iPod + Wifi -- without a contract, and a $49.98 one time fee.
The first step involves faking bad credit by typing in "999-99-9999" as your Social Security number during activation to trigger the GoPhone/"Pick Your Plan" option which allows for contractless pre-pay plans. The cheapest version of "Pick Your Plan" is $49.98 (rate plans).
Then, according to TUAW simply taking out your SIM card allows you iPhone to continue to function as an iPod + Wifi device without any further hassle.
Presumably, you could then cancel your $49.98 month-to-month and use the iPhone as a Widescreen iPod + Wifi device.
Sneaky method. I like it
. I'll probably just wait for the inevitable iPod replacement.
If making and receiving calls is iPhone's "main purpose" then you'd have to be one heck of a sucker to not just go get a FREE cell phone to do the EXACT SAME THING.
What makes iPhone different is its NON-PHONE capabilities and seeing as it can use WiFi, that means you do NOT lose its REAL main purposes if you could remove the AT&T subscription part. In fact, the only thing you're really doing by KEEPING the AT&T subscription (assuming WiFi zones are good enough for your needs) is agreeing to pay AT&T at least another $1440 over the next two years! Hmmm, I could buy TWO MORE iPhones for that cost (or better yet, a nicely equipped Macbook to go with it!)
Ah, but I must be one of those D&D nerds sitting at McDonalds to not have your amazing leaps of illogic.
Don't try this method. Is risky. Read what happened to me here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/324962/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/324962/
Actually there is another way and its free
From the DVDJon Page: http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/#comments
Ive found a way to activate a brand new unactivated iPhone without giving any of your money or personal information to AT&T NSA. The iPhone does not have phone capability, but the iPod and WiFi work. Stay tuned!
Update:
Magic iTunes numbers:
Offset 2048912: 33C0C3
Offset 257074: 28
Offset 257013: 33C9B1
Add 127.0.0.1 albert.apple.com to c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Download Phone Activation Server v1.0 to activate your iPhone for iPod+WiFi use. Note that this application will not do anything unless you understand the magic numbers as well as add the hosts entry. Phone Activation Server (PAS) requires that you have the MS .NET Framework 2.0 installed.
Download PAS v1.0 Source Code.
The sweet irony is you need windows to crack it...
From the DVDJon Page: http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/#comments
Ive found a way to activate a brand new unactivated iPhone without giving any of your money or personal information to AT&T NSA. The iPhone does not have phone capability, but the iPod and WiFi work. Stay tuned!
Update:
Magic iTunes numbers:
Offset 2048912: 33C0C3
Offset 257074: 28
Offset 257013: 33C9B1
Add 127.0.0.1 albert.apple.com to c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Download Phone Activation Server v1.0 to activate your iPhone for iPod+WiFi use. Note that this application will not do anything unless you understand the magic numbers as well as add the hosts entry. Phone Activation Server (PAS) requires that you have the MS .NET Framework 2.0 installed.
Download PAS v1.0 Source Code.
The sweet irony is you need windows to crack it...
I am somewhat surprised the whole "Put in 999-99-9999 as your SSN" thing isn't raising a lot of red flags on MR.
Here are two alternatives people might want to consider:
1. Pay the damned disconnection fee. It's $150. You are not locked into a two year contract by buying and activating an iPhone.
2. Don't buy the thing in the first place, unless it's already been activated. That is, buy someone else's who has either got it on a GoPhone plan or bought their way out of their contract, or switched to a different phone.
Obviously the former option is slightly more expensive than the method documented here, but not significantly. The latter means the whole instant-gratification thing isn't going to be satisfied.
The iPhone is no panacea. There are many devices out there that offer real Wifi web browsing, from the Nintendo DS ($130 + $30 DS Browser (Opera) cart) to the Nokia N800 ($300, WebKit, also supports any Bluetooth based connection), and the iPod you already have is still a worthy music player. Buying an iPhone purely for use as an iPod with a web browser will, for the majority of people, not be a cost effective solution.
And allow yourselves to wait. Steve Jobs has hinted that the next generation of iPods will be running "OS X." There are good reasons to assume the next iPods will be similar in concept to the iPhone, sans GSM. You're going to feel like an idiot if in a few months the device you wanted to get actually comes out, and you're stuck with a $70/month recurring bill to support a more expensive, first generation, product.
Don't be like a **** politician. Don't mangle word meanings to suit your arguments. It would be an iPod + PDA with the best UI and best screen put into an iPod.
How is anyone going to know unless the owner point this out to them?
That I remember, Apple's never used the largest hard drive available, their choice was usually one notch below the biggest. When the 60 Gig unit was announced, an 80 Gig was available. When the 80 Gig unit was announced, there was already a 100 Gig drive. I don't think there's enough of the biggest size available to support Apple's sales volume, even though they usually don't sell very many of the biggest ones.
I don't think it is illegal, and I wouldn't call it unethical. I am more disturbed that they ask for it. Your number is not supposed to be used with anyone but the government.
I don't know, I think they will have to do a meaningful update to the product line, which they've done for each of the last three winter seasons anyway. The holiday shopping time is Apple's biggest quarter for iPod sales.
You are completely ignoring the new UI, PDA capabilities, nicer screen, nice keyboard and so on. The screen might have twice the screen area as the iPod with Video. There *might* be a 6G iPod this fall, or there might not be. We really don't know. The ability of Apple fans to predict when or if a feature hits Apple products has always been poor.
Battery covers don't have to be flimsy. My Tapwave's case is pretty darn tough. But I don't think Apple will do this unless there's a customer revolt - and I don't think that is coming, unless Apple screws up something much bigger than that.
Imagine thinking that something being called "iPhone" would be considered as being primarily a phone. Blimey. That's a mighty "If" you pointed out.
So, Mr Logic, if all you want is a WiFi web browser you can stick in your pen pocket why not just buy a Nokia N800 for half the price, a fraction of the hassle and the same net result? In fact FIVE MORE with the money you'd save not buying a phone to use as something else that's already widely available.
If the definition of same net result being looking at web pages, then OK, but I don't think the Nokia is nearly as nice at doing that. Even if the back end engine is the same, the front end is very different.
Exactly...I think it's already about 100-150 bucks too much for what it does as a phone. Don't get me wrong. I love it. But as just an ipod/wifi it's way overpriced. New IPOD models will be out in the fall. The Fall is only 3-4 months away. Hang in there. Save the 600 bucks now. You could buy 2 IPODs later.
edited to say : NEW IPOD models instead of New Models.
Hi:
Yesterday, I took on arguing with ncbill and SeaFox that I did not think this would be possible, or if it was possible, ATT/Apple would shut you down. Well, it looks as if DVD Jon has proven me wrong in my assessment, and that anything Apple can do, hackers can undo rather quickly.
So I wanted to post a public apology to ncBill and SeaFox. You guys look to be proven right! NCBill, I owe you a beer!
I did enjoy our discussions, and had a lot of fun in them- hope you guys did too. No hard feelings i hope? It was sort of fun playing devils advocate on those discussions!
Yesterday, I took on arguing with ncbill and SeaFox that I did not think this would be possible, or if it was possible, ATT/Apple would shut you down. Well, it looks as if DVD Jon has proven me wrong in my assessment, and that anything Apple can do, hackers can undo rather quickly.
So I wanted to post a public apology to ncBill and SeaFox. You guys look to be proven right! NCBill, I owe you a beer!
I did enjoy our discussions, and had a lot of fun in them- hope you guys did too. No hard feelings i hope? It was sort of fun playing devils advocate on those discussions!
See, this is what I like to read. People respecting each other and showing decency. It's nice to know that in all the online flaming and insults, there are some decent people out there (ok, I've channeled Dr. Phil enough for one day lol).
I have yet to find the EULA on my iPhone? There is a section called Legal under the About section of the iPhone, but I can't see where it states that Apple has the right to disable the phone if no active phone service is on it. Has someone looked this up? Where exactly is it? Apple's website hasn't been updated with the iPhone EULA from what I saw.
BTW....I did the SSN# thing and it does work. I didn't cancel my plan though. I just wanted a pay as you go plan so I wasn't pinned down to a 2yr contract. I plan to keep the pay as you go for a month or so to see how this works out. I'm sure Apple and/or AT&T will put a stop to this eventually somehow.
BTW....I did the SSN# thing and it does work. I didn't cancel my plan though. I just wanted a pay as you go plan so I wasn't pinned down to a 2yr contract. I plan to keep the pay as you go for a month or so to see how this works out. I'm sure Apple and/or AT&T will put a stop to this eventually somehow.