iPhone 8(+) Is my iPhone unlocked?

ThatiPhoneKid

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 15, 2017
981
659
selling an iPhone I bought from the Apple store, it was sim free is this phone unlocked?
 

blairian89

macrumors 6502
Dec 5, 2016
379
247
Texas
One easy way to find out is by restoring it through iTunes. If it is unlocked, you will receive a notice alerting you to that status.

SIM-free models are supposed to be unlocked global versions of the phone.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
One easy way to find out is by restoring it through iTunes. If it is unlocked, you will receive a notice alerting you to that status.

SIM-free models are supposed to be unlocked global versions of the phone.
Taht is a way (or at the very least used to be), but I wouldn't really call it an "easy" way. Inserting another SIM (from a different carrier) is probably an easier way, assuming one has access to another SIM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatiPhoneKid

blairian89

macrumors 6502
Dec 5, 2016
379
247
Texas
Taht is a way (or at the very least used to be), but I wouldn't really call it an "easy" way. Inserting another SIM (from a different carrier) is probably an easier way, assuming one has access to another SIM.
I would find that to be more difficult, personally...just simply because I, and everyone else that I know, are all on Verizon. I just do a backup and restore it...takes maybe ten to fifteen minutes and you wind up with a fresh copy of the operating system on your phone - it's a win-win if you ask me.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
I would find that to be more difficult, personally...just simply because I, and everyone else that I know, are all on Verizon. I just do a backup and restore it...takes maybe ten to fifteen minutes and you wind up with a fresh copy of the operating system on your phone - it's a win-win if you ask me.
I think most don't really want to mess around with their phone on that level if they don't want to. It goes even more so for a SIM-free or a Verizon model which is basically factory unlocked and doesn't need to be checked really (with perhaps the exception of someone being on the pre-paid side of Verizon or getting a phone from them very recently when Verizon seems to be wanting to change some of their unlocking rules).
 

blairian89

macrumors 6502
Dec 5, 2016
379
247
Texas
I think most don't really want to mess around with their phone on that level if they don't want to. It goes even more so for a SIM-free or a Verizon model which is basically factory unlocked and doesn't need to be checked really (with perhaps the exception of someone being on the pre-paid side of Verizon or getting a phone from them very recently when Verizon seems to be wanting to change some of their unlocking rules).
I can't say that I blame them for wanting to change their rules in regards to unlocking; they're stuck in an agreement with the FCC.

Verizon should have the right to lock their phones until they have been paid in full, and then unlock them at that point - that's just my personal belief. It's that way with every other carrier too. It's one simple and effective way to ensure that the people they loan the phones to actually pay for them. As it stands now, Verizon likely loses their asses on phones.

Anyway, it's not that big of a deal to restore your iPhone and set it up as new or restore your backup. Apple even has it listed in their steps for unlocking the phone.
 

NoBoMac

Moderator
Staff member
Jul 1, 2014
2,881
1,209
Heck, OP is looking to sell the phone, so, needs to wipe it anyway. Do iTunes trick, imo, as most normal people don't have sim cards from other providers lying around.
 

Raist3001

macrumors 65816
Mar 5, 2012
1,094
835
Right behind you
One easy way to find out is by restoring it through iTunes. If it is unlocked, you will receive a notice alerting you to that status.

SIM-free models are supposed to be unlocked global versions of the phone.
Agreed. Since you are selling the phone, you will want to factory reset the phone anyway.
 

BiggAW

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,544
171
Connecticut
I can't say that I blame them for wanting to change their rules in regards to unlocking; they're stuck in an agreement with the FCC.

Verizon should have the right to lock their phones until they have been paid in full, and then unlock them at that point - that's just my personal belief. It's that way with every other carrier too. It's one simple and effective way to ensure that the people they loan the phones to actually pay for them. As it stands now, Verizon likely loses their asses on phones.
I disagree. I think that all phones should have to be sold unlocked. Now, I understand that some of the business models of the carriers, particularly on the prepaid side, depend on pretty draconian locking policies. I also think that manufacturers and carriers shouldn't be allowed to have multiple models with different banding. If OnePlus refuses to put B13 in their phone and wants to give up the Verizon market entirely, which is a behemoth in the Android phone world, that's their choice, but Samsung shouldn't be allowed to sell one S9 with one set of bands, and another with another set of bands. If they want to sell the S9 on every carrier, it should have to be an unlocked, universally banded device, like Apple does with their unlocked phones. Carriers should also have to be all-or-nothing in terms of VoLTE and VoWiFi support. No more of these games with an unbranded S9 not getting VoLTE/VoWiFi, but the branded device getting it. It's ridiculous. It should also be an open system with clear standards for phone manufacturers to get devices certified for VoLTE/VoWiFi on networks, much like how T-Mobile does it. If they can do, so can Verizon and so can AT&T, the current worst offender.

How the heck you would write that type of regulation without it being overly restrictive, that would be a challenge.

In terms of paying for the phones, I fundamentally don't believe in the financing plans. I think it's pushed the cost of phones way too high, and made people too likely to buy a new one every two years, and put less of an emphasis on the phones lasting longer, somewhere Apple has done very well versus Android.

Without financing plans, I think most of the Android market on postpaid would be in the $300-$600 range, not the $700-$1000 range, and I think Apple would be in a similar market position, maybe $500-$700. These financing plans are causing people to buy stuff that they would never buy if they had to hand over $1149 all at once to buy an iPhone X.

I honestly think that 80% of people would be fine with something at the same level as the Moto G6 or something with the innards of an iPhone SE2 crossed with the form factor of a 6s or 7.

However, all that being said, I think Verizon should have the same set of rules that everyone else does, as it's not fair to have them playing by one set of rules, and everyone else by another. I see the open access as mattering a lot more for bringing devices onto Verizon's network from the outside, not the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blairian89

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
However, all that being said, I think Verizon should have the same set of rules that everyone else does, as it's not fair to have them playing by one set of rules, and everyone else by another. I see the open access as mattering a lot more for bringing devices onto Verizon's network from the outside, not the other way around.
The different rules came as part of their bidding and winning a frequency auction as I recall. Why should they suddenly not need to comply with something that they agreed to in order to help them win their bid?
 

BiggAW

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,544
171
Connecticut
The different rules came as part of their bidding and winning a frequency auction as I recall. Why should they suddenly not need to comply with something that they agreed to in order to help them win their bid?
It was for the C-block open access rules. The open access rules were created because Google made a deal with the government that they would bid the reserve on the C-block if the government put the rules in place. They state that the C-block must accept any device, software, or applications. The intent of the rules had nothing to do with the devices that the winner of the C-block auction sold, but rather access to the wireless network itself. It's all sort of meaningless at this point, except that Verizon can't block you if you SIM-swap into another device, like with the Nexus tablets that took Verizon forever and a half to approve, but worked due to the open access rules with a SIM card that was first activated in an approved Verizon device.

If having B13 in a phone forces it to be unlocked, that would force every carrier to offer them unlocked, as every iPhone has B13. I think the rules should be the same for all the carriers, as the spirit of the C-block rules were never intended to affect the devices themselves.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
It was for the C-block open access rules. The open access rules were created because Google made a deal with the government that they would bid the reserve on the C-block if the government put the rules in place. They state that the C-block must accept any device, software, or applications. The intent of the rules had nothing to do with the devices that the winner of the C-block auction sold, but rather access to the wireless network itself. It's all sort of meaningless at this point, except that Verizon can't block you if you SIM-swap into another device, like with the Nexus tablets that took Verizon forever and a half to approve, but worked due to the open access rules with a SIM card that was first activated in an approved Verizon device.

If having B13 in a phone forces it to be unlocked, that would force every carrier to offer them unlocked, as every iPhone has B13. I think the rules should be the same for all the carriers, as the spirit of the C-block rules were never intended to affect the devices themselves.
Well, did Verizon get something out of that auction that the other carriers didn't?
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
It is a nice chunk of spectrum, but they paid top dollar for it, so no.
Top dollar along with everything else that went into it that they agreed to by bidding and trying to win (and actually winning), right?
 

Mrbobb

macrumors 601
Aug 27, 2012
4,989
194
SIM-free models are supposed to be unlocked global versions of the phone.
OP didn't exactly say SIM-Free. Apple will sell you iPhone and immediately, if you choose, signup with a carrier, and I don't know if those phones are locked or not.

Unlocked phone should sell at a better price but sometimes it seems to make little difference.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
OP didn't exactly say SIM-Free. Apple will sell you iPhone and immediately, if you choose, signup with a carrier, and I don't know if those phones are locked or not.

Unlocked phone should sell at a better price but sometimes it seems to make little difference.
The OP says "it was sim free".
 

BiggAW

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,544
171
Connecticut
Top dollar along with everything else that went into it that they agreed to by bidding and trying to win (and actually winning), right?
Yes. And they should keep the C-block open to all compatible devices. But forcing the devices to be unlocked as a part of the C-block conditions makes no logical sense. By that logic, all iPhones should be unlocked, because they all have B13 support.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
Yes. And they should keep the C-block open to all compatible devices. But forcing the devices to be unlocked as a part of the C-block conditions makes no logical sense. By that logic, all iPhones should be unlocked, because they all have B13 support.
I understand the general aspect of what you are saying, but, again, was that part of the specific agreement? There's rationale and and all that, and then there are agreements and contracts.
 

BiggAW

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,544
171
Connecticut
I understand the general aspect of what you are saying, but, again, was that part of the specific agreement? There's rationale and and all that, and then there are agreements and contracts.
The original point of the openness rules on B13 was about B13, not about iPhones. There's no logical argument to say that Verizon has to sell them unlocked, and no one else has to, when every iPhone sold in the US has the hardware to work on Verizon, including B13.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
49,618
18,161
The original point of the openness rules on B13 was about B13, not about iPhones. There's no logical argument to say that Verizon has to sell them unlocked, and no one else has to, when every iPhone sold in the US has the hardware to work on Verizon, including B13.
But it doesn't apply to just iPhones for Verizon, it applies to all their phones that support LTE. And not every iPhone can support Verizon, perhaps the LTE aspect, but not necessarily CDMA (which might be getting phased out but is still there to this moment nonetheless).
 
Last edited:

BiggAW

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2010
2,544
171
Connecticut
But it doesn't apply to just iPhones for Verizon, it applies to all their phones that support LTE. And not every iPhone can support Verizon, perhaps the LTE aspect, but not necessarily CDMA (which might be getting phased out but is still there to this moment nonetheless).
I was using that as an example. There aren't too many other B13 devices sold on other carriers. iPhones are one of the big exceptions, as they are universally banded.

Yes, an Intel iPhone won't get CDMA in a few rural areas where Verizon hasn't built LTE, but they will work on Verizon's LTE network with full VoLTE/VoWiFi and everything else.

I wouldn't use an Intel iPhone on any network, and I wouldn't use a phone without CDMA on Verizon's network, but for most average users, it would work fine.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.