That is kind of taken out of context. You don't buy the product first and get told what network you have to use. You know ahead of time if you want this product, you need this network also. There are no surprises here.
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.
Schiller on iPhone Unlocks and Incompatibility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is kind of taken out of context. You don't buy the product first and get told what network you have to use. You know ahead of time if you want this product, you need this network also. There are no surprises here.
I'd love to see that. If it happens, I can see the $2,000 unlocked Swedish iPhones on eBay already...
Would that make the folks defending Apple in this thread happy? I mean, it's win-win, right? Apple loses out on revenue because people *still* aren't signing up for service through their chosen providers, and instead of spending under $500 for their iPhone, Apple loyalists who'd really like an iPhone can spend 3 or 4 times that, lining the pockets of Scandinavian opportunists everywhere!
Sounds like those Apple shareholders can break out the champagne!
Actually, in the US and initially in Europe DVD's and DVD players were region locked. In europe it is now common to purchase a multi region player. In North America it is not so easy. Non region one dvd's will not play on a region one player.
Gotta love the US, we always have to be "different". Locked phones on specific carriers, the US Imperial System, driving on the "wrong side" of the road, region one dvd locking, etc.
I guess that's why Apple is US, "think different(ly)"
Heh, probably it would create a huge black market. But it's the only way I see them doing it, short of not selling in certain markets where it they are obligated to sell it unlocked from the start.
I realize in the EU (and in the US after 2 years?) there is a legal obligation to unlock. Those are easy, Apple will honor them upon request. Again, though, they sure as hell aren't calling the creator of iphonesimfree and asking if they can buy a license. So this whole argument centers around whether ANY unlock software is legal. And my gut says that Apple has a leg to stand on since they've never said they won't unlock a phone when ordered to by local law, just that they won't support a 3rd party.
But you are right about ebay sellers. Would love to see how high the first "legal" unlocked phone goes for on ebay...my bet is 1500 at least.
Stop the panic
Just dont update the software until you hear otherwise. You're phone will continue to work without issue
Maybe.
The possibility may exist that you may not be able to sync it either without an update that will brick it. We just don't know how far Apple has gone.
While we may not want to think that the change is that intensive, Apple has probably been studying the unlock long enough and is also probably closing the hole that allows you to jail break.
Even if you don't brick it, you may not be able to jail break it for a while. So don't update and let us know if you can still sync your phone.
Apple is obligated by contract to block the unlocking, so this is just the start of the Tom and Jerry. We will see how extensive of a change it is and how long it takes to jaill break it again.
Time will tell, keep your old non-iPhone handy in case it breaks.
I love this! I think this is great, why would you want to go behind the backs of our beloved Apple in the first place? I switched from Verizon when i bought my iPhone a week after it was released and have not looked back since! The service is great, and that is coming from a user in a very rural area in Tennessee. So go for it Apple! Take it from them! 
You think? Doing something like that would be absolutely incredibly idiotically stupid. Not stupid, but stoooooopid.
Doing this unintentionally means tough luck for the customer who ends up with a brick. Just nice that Apple gave you a warning, so you could either restore whatever you did (and if that bricks your phone, then you have prove that these things can happen unintentionally), or avoid the update. Apple had no obligation to test for this case, but fortunately they did, and they have no obligation for a fix beyond this warning.
Doing this intentionally, especially if they needed several attempts, would open Apple up to court cases with likely payments of severe punitive damages. And if any employee is called up in court to testify, they will most definitely say the truth (otherwise they'd get jail time). Anyway, you can't keep something like this secret. You can only keep secrets if you have honourable employees doing honourable things. Crooks don't keep secrets, and honourable employees knowing about dodgy dealings don't keep secrets.
What is just about possible: That there is actually no problem at all, but Schiller made this statement just to annoy any unlockers.
Not being able to sync requires update to OSX software. I do not believe that the changes will be huge, perhaps some basic query of firmware version. This can be easely spoofed / hacked.
I doubt that new baseband firmware will come with new functions, so in future hacks/patches might happen on firmware *before* it is applied to iphone, so it works with old firmware.
What I do believe though is that new iphones with new firmware will be tough to hack. Thus: Enyone who wants to have simfree iphone should get one NOW, while new units are still on 1.0.2 or less.
Is it quicker to make just the patch? Is the number of changes to the firmware limited? That would be good explanations. Any bit that gets written could go wrong, so rewriting the whole contents is much more likely to introduce problems than just making the absolutely necessary changes.
Very incorrect, Apple told you the restrictions before hand. So you purchased it knowing the requirement to active and use with AT&T for a period of 2 years. Without the hack the phone is a brick until you activate it.
I don't know, we've heard rumors the firmware has been ready for some time, so why the delay? An intentional break would partially explain it.
Further, I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on if they would try to receive damages from Apple for breaking their hacked phone. As much as I hate to say it, it *is* Apple's product and they do say you can only use it with AT&T, so if you try and circumvent that, it's like those burglers that sue a homeowner for getting cut while climbing out the window after a break in (granted, some of those folks win!).
But I do agree with your last statment: this could very well be Phil playing mind games
Can you give any example for that? Or was it something like the USA suing Al Capone for being successful?
You are probably right, however .... Not being able to sync only requires a change to iTunes, not OSX.
BTW new OSX is coming in 30+ days, so there maybe more changes. Anyone not installing the new version of the iphone software will not be able to use the new iPhone capabilitites and applications.
Seeing that the original poster has Bush as an avatar, I wouldn't hold my breath for an example.
Indeed. But you're being kind of thick. Did you read all the foregoing information about the laws pertaining to unlocking in the countries with the most conservative anti-locking laws? Did you notice the part where the phone manufacturer is compelled to provide an unlock? They can of course provide one of their own design and are not required to support third-party unlocks. They can of course put all kinds of other stuff on those Swedish phones, stuff that no Swedish law addresses.
Stuff, that, using Sweden as an example, checks the IMEI to see if it's from a block of iPhones allocated to Sweden, and if it is, checks to make sure it's holds a SIM card activated on a Swedish carrier. If indeed it does, that Swedish unlocked iPhone may roam at will on US networks billed back through the Swedish carrier. But the Swede who comes to the States and buys a cheap pay-as-you-go month of T-Mo service and a T-Mo activated SIM card to avoid those nasty international roaming charges, the phone will lock data and voice, to everything but 911 calls as required by FCC regulations. More importantly, the American who buys a Swedish gray-market phone off eBay and tries to use it with T-Mo as carrier here is similarly locked off. Because the Swedish law requires that phone manufacturers must sell their cells (by the seashore) unlocked *in Sweden*. They are under no obligation to make the phone work in the States with just any carrier. Swedish laws governing cell phone sales stop at the Swedish border, certainly do not extend outside the EU. Making it difficult for Swedes to swap SIMs in the States or elsewhere may limit sales of the iPhone in Sweden, but Apple will have to decide what will cost them more: reduced sales due to restrictions on statutory unlocked phones outside the home country, or battling gray-market imports to markets allowing locked phones. Maybe if they can't find a way around, they skip selling iPhones in Scandinavian countries. But, hell, you can just restrict the operational bands for EU phones. It's important in the EU that phones sold there work in most EU countries, but it won't completely kill the product if you can't use it as a phone in the States. Or maybe it will, but Apple must decide how far they'll go to sell in a given market.
The fact that some, a few, countries require phones be sold completely unlocked, will not cause Apple to renege on AT&T in the States. Ultimately, Apple will judge how serious the gray-market problem is going to be and adjust their plans accordingly. It's naive to think that absolutely the moment the the iPhone goes on sale in Scandinavia -- future plans for which, personally I have not hear a peep -- it's going to break Apple's stateside business model, requiring a complete reworking, requiring them to sell the phone unlocked in the States or other countries that allow locked phones.
p.s. Seriously, who is "Larry the Cable Guy"? I suppose I could Google that name, but I don't get the reference or its connection to me.
p.p.s. And if you can, avoid getting into this thing that most first-world countries save the US are heaven on earth. In the days of dial-up Internet, while the US had many ISPs available all over the place at reasonable rates and easily accessed, Telia did everything they could to discourage people from using their phone lines for Internet connections. They put up big red somber posters "Skaffa dig Internet. Skaffa dig problem." (Get the Internet, get a problem -- not literally translated.) Then when Telia started *offering* dial-up Internet service for a price, the posters became all light and pretty, and read, simply, "Skaffa dig Internet!") Last time I was in Sweden, which has been a couple years or so, all "local" landline calls were still metered, usually by distance called. And you called a mobile phone from your home phone no matter you know it's mobile or not? *You* paid the wireless charges, not the call's recipient. How you like them apples -- pardon the pun. Don't get me wrong: I like Sweden and Swedes just fine; but it's not the perfect consumer climate, either.
That's funny. Didn't sue him, unless you consider suing in the criminal sense. Indicted him on evasion of tax, and won a guilty verdict, because he buried his tracks so well they couldn't get him for murder, smuggling, armed robbery, etc., etc. Unfortunately for him, he didn't pay his tax on all that income from, ah, ambiguous sources. If he'd only paid those taxes he would have likely never been brought down.
no
i disagree. anyone who unlocked the iphone did so to get around the at&t requirement. if M$ was in the same boat, the unlockers wouldn't suddenly just sign up for whatever carrier. what % of people now who unlocked their phone are suddenly going to say, "ok, apple, you win, i'll sign up for at&t now . . . " i'm guessing almost no one. someone will come out witha new hack within a matter of days and it'll be all good until the next/if a next firmware update comes along.
to reiterate, i'm totally against the hold apple and other telecom industries have on consumers in this country. however, anyone who bought the iphone did so knowing they had to enter into a contract to use it. never was the case otherwise. the unlockers bought an iphone with the expressed intent to get around the contract. whether you like it or not, apple has no obligation to go out of their way to support every conceivable thing hackers may or may not do to get around the rules. they updated the iphone as they do any other computing device they create and if you changed the firmware it's your issue as to whether or not you've bricked your iphone after the update.
as i said before, this is a form of civil disobedience, of which i fully support. but in doing so, you assume the risks of landing in a hot spot. protesters sometimes get arrested and pay hundreds in fines, iphone hackers likewise will sometimes get bricked and have lost hundreds in paying for a now defunct iphone. i hope apple eventually sees the demand and somehow gets out of the at&t deal, or at the very least when their partnership has run its course they don't renew it and let everyone and anyone use an iphone with who ever they want. until that utopic day arrives, the rules are contract or run the risks. petition your government if you want it otherwise.
i disagree. anyone who unlocked the iphone did so to get around the at&t requirement. if M$ was in the same boat, the unlockers wouldn't suddenly just sign up for whatever carrier. what % of people now who unlocked their phone are suddenly going to say, "ok, apple, you win, i'll sign up for at&t now . . . " i'm guessing almost no one. someone will come out witha new hack within a matter of days and it'll be all good until the next/if a next firmware update comes along.
to reiterate, i'm totally against the hold apple and other telecom industries have on consumers in this country. however, anyone who bought the iphone did so knowing they had to enter into a contract to use it. never was the case otherwise. the unlockers bought an iphone with the expressed intent to get around the contract. whether you like it or not, apple has no obligation to go out of their way to support every conceivable thing hackers may or may not do to get around the rules. they updated the iphone as they do any other computing device they create and if you changed the firmware it's your issue as to whether or not you've bricked your iphone after the update.
as i said before, this is a form of civil disobedience, of which i fully support. but in doing so, you assume the risks of landing in a hot spot. protesters sometimes get arrested and pay hundreds in fines, iphone hackers likewise will sometimes get bricked and have lost hundreds in paying for a now defunct iphone. i hope apple eventually sees the demand and somehow gets out of the at&t deal, or at the very least when their partnership has run its course they don't renew it and let everyone and anyone use an iphone with who ever they want. until that utopic day arrives, the rules are contract or run the risks. petition your government if you want it otherwise.
Oh good god, give it up with the conspiracy theories. Who did you hear from that the firmware has been ready from some time. Someones blog or forum post? lol
This could aslo be interpreted as another "cat & mouse" challenge to the dev team (hackers, coders, etc...)
Let the Mayhem Begin!
Isn't that the way DVD's and some of the new next-get HD formats do it, by regions?