Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You really don't know what you are talking about. The iPhone firmware includes the basedband software. The baseband software is the embedded program on the radio chip. This program is what locks the GSM radio to the SIM card. And THIS is the one the unlock modifies.

All previous firmware updates (1.0.1 and 1.0.2) didn't include updates for the baseband because there was no need to. That is why the unlock till now is restore resistant. It is not because a feature of the unlock but because 1.0.2 doesn't unclude a baseband update.

Now that the unlock was out, Apple had to do something about it because of their agreements with AT&T. So they are releasing a new firmware version (1.1.1) that will include an update to the baseband. Updating the baseband will simply replace the modified unlocked one therefore relocking the phone.

The statement released by Apple yesterday is nothing more than a PR stunt to show AT&T that they are doing something about the unlock. They WILL update the baseband but them bricking intentionally is highly highly improbable.

Then theoretically, we could if the dmg image could be decrypted, take the part of the update that is not updating the baseband, and just update the non-baseband part of the firmware, allowing the new features (if they arn't tied to the baseband update as well, ala PSP hacked firmware.
 
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 think what you described will require me to update the Itunes software on my powerbook.

Apple cannot force me to update Itunes either, so I am intrigued how else they could prevent me from using my iphone as I do right now. Again i have no interest in wifi itunes so....
 
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

In his defense, the firmware for the iPhone UK has been shown to be 1.1.1, and Apple has "hinted" that the update for the US iPhone will be 1.1.1 (and if I recall correctly the iPod Touch has a version such as 1.1.1, the major update is/was to implement WiFi iTunes on the iPhone). As the WiFi iTunes is already on the iPod Touch and the iPhone UK that was demoed had software ver. 1.1.1, US iPhone owners have been wondering why they haven't received the update from Apple for some time, especially as Jobs stated it will be released very soon.

It is a very logical conclusion to draw that the delay has been partly related to ATT pressuring Apple (and Apple also wanting to keep the iPhone's on ATT service plans as Apple receives a portion of ATT's revenue) in locking down unlocked iPhones. No conspiracy there, just simple logical analysis.
 
Unlocked means really unlocked in the EU

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.

I would not be that sure. If the phone is somehow locked to a carrier--even if it is locked to several carriers--it violates the law in some EU countries. In practice this means that if I buy a phone which does not work with another SIM card because of restrictions in the phone, the company selling the phone will be up to their lower back in alligators. (Not that the alligators would like the weather here, though.)

Of course, if a network outside of the EU does not accept my phone due to some restriction in the network, then I am out of luck. Somehow, I think the US carriers are not going to do that, as there is very little profit in refusing to serve paying customers. (Already now we have a collection of cheap Batman phones which have come with the SIM cards we are using when travelling to the States. Still I can use my own phone with those SIMs.)

It may well happen that Swedish or Finnish or whatever unlocked EU iPhones end up in eBay. But if that happens, you are stupid to buy them there. You are better off buying them from some distributor in the net. Mobile phone profits are shaved rather low, so you pay the "street price".

Personally, I think it is more likely Apple is going to ignore part of the EU. There won't be unlocked phones as Apple won't sell them to those countries. That is a pity as I would really like to buy an iPhone. I like the Apple products more than, say, Nokia products. But if their business model is against the European idea of free trade, then there is very little I can do.
 
Personally, I think it is more likely Apple is going to ignore part of the EU. There won't be unlocked phones as Apple won't sell them to those countries. That is a pity as I would really like to buy an iPhone. I like the Apple products more than, say, Nokia products. But if their business model is against the European idea of free trade, then there is very little I can do.

Exactly. That's why I left some flex in there. I think they may just stay out of countries that offer no locking to carriers/contracts at all requiring them to sell unlocked phones out of the box. I mean, regardless of liberal laws about locking here and favorable terms for carriers and phone manufacturers, not all the good handsets -- even some of the real stand-outs -- from Scandinavia, Japan and Korea ever make it over here.

Also Swedish law might be tested in Swedish court as to whether the existing law allowed iPhones to be sold within the country in a condition completely unlocked as to carrier within Sweden, but locked *off* other carriers in countries that allowing locking. The idea being, the iPhones would only violate Swedish law when they were out of Swedish jurisdiction; that particular nuance might be difficult to interpret. Whether Apple would find this worth testing in court, I don't know. Indeed, I kind of doubt it.
 
Apple shareholders, wake up, if you've truly been reading these forums you'd see the VAST majority of the people unlocking iPhones are folks who would otherwise NOT buy an iPhone. People who can't use them in their countries (and won't be able to for a long, long time) or people who despise AT&T or O2 or whomever and would never sign a contract with them, preferring to not have an iPhone and keep using their old phone if they had to. The unlock opened up a world of profit for Apple from these customers. Would they rather not make a cent of these people, or would they rather sell them a nice, $399 piece of hardware?

Wait a minute. So this would actually mean double the profit, if all those maniacs have a splendid iBrick and need a new phone :D:D:D

Maybe it's just me, but I can clearly accept, that Apple made the business decision to keep the iPhone closed network. It's the same with the business decision to use EDGE instead of 3G or to force you into using eMail instead of MMS (though I won't buy an iPhone alone for those reasons).

As some bad car analogy has been in this thread, I will bring my own: If you buy yourself a new sporty car, say Audi TT, then go to a store to hack the Software, so your engine has more horsepower and you can go faster, you can't blame Audi for a malfunction in the braking system that caused an accident.

And while we're at bad analogies, here comes another one: Say you're a cookie manufacturer and sell those fab iCookies. Here comes the blog, that tells you how to modify your iCookie with sweet chocolate spicing. Well, you have a new recipe for iCookie 1.1.1. and want to advertize it as the optimal snack for diabetics. Granted you should issue a press release, that 'hacked iCookies with modified icing' may not hold that promise.

Now be happy with your phone (hacked or not) and, well, act as with every other Apple Software update: Let the guinea pigs update and wait til the dust settles...that's all I've gotta say (been a FileVault-fiasco victim, luckily on a private machine). :D:D:D
 
You guys are brainwashed! OBVIOUSLY Apple is intentionally bricking the iPhone. They don't make any money if people use T-Mobile!
Who do you *really* think is telling the truth here?

Apple has consistently stuck to the facts and given everyone fair warning over these issues and now they are letting everyone know that even if you ignored all the other warnings, their testing reveals that some unlocked iPhones will be bricked by the imminent update. Sounds reasonable to me.

On the other hand, the hackers are selling unlocking software to folks with virtually no warning of what will happen, or might happen, if they use it. They are also issuing a blanket denial that the phones will be bricked, when they don't even have the software to test that yet.

They also claim (and this is absolutely f*cking ridiculous) that around three hundred thousand (!) people have unlocked their iPhones, when only just over a million have even been sold? (I can't believe the rumour sites are repeating that figure all over the place today, without challenging it.) Absolutely nuts.

Which one of these groups sounds more honest to you?

I will choose to believe the reasonably well-behaved corporate monsters over the philosophically "pure" but dishonest, raving hackers any day. :)
 
Here's my official response to Schiller. Kiss my butt. For any move you make, there will continue to be hackers that WILL make the iPhone available for use on any network. Go deal with that reality. By the way, you're going to love the European regulators when you find out that when the technology is available inside a phone to access ANY GSM network and is being locked into one, it's considered illegal and predatory. ESPECIALLY in Europe, with full GSM coverage. Apple better shape up quick.
 
On the other hand, the hackers are selling unlocking software to folks with virtually no warning of what will happen, or might happen, if they use it. They are also issuing a blanket denial that the phones will be bricked, when they don't even have the software to test that yet.

Or giving away the software for free. Anyway, I almost went after one of them I'm pretty sure I could have gotten because of said individual's professional affiliations, but then I figured, you know, why bother. Being a reckless idiot usually catches up with someone on its own rather than having to fool with my karma over it.

They also claim (and this is absolutely f*cking ridiculous) that around three hundred thousand (!) people have unlocked their iPhones, when only just over a million have even been sold? (I can't believe the rumour sites are repeating that figure all over the place today, without challenging it.)

Blogs repeat something without verifying the source? Dare you say! But WHAT?!?!?! 3 hundred damn freaking thousand. Try maybe a little upwards of 3,000. I could believe 10,000 at a real stretch if you count frequent international traveler's and people importing overseas. But that's just whack. Rampant self-promotion of their, ahem, "cause" without even bothering to make up a number even half believable.
 
I think they actually said upwards of 500,000 people DOWNLOADED their software. One would think they have access to the logs of their servers and would have pretty accurate numbers.
 
I think they actually said upwards of 500,000 people DOWNLOADED their software. One would think they have access to the logs of their servers and would have pretty accurate numbers.

I can imagine that. I wonder if they eliminated for duplicate IP downloads, which still wouldn't eliminate for duplicate downloads. Then they estimated *over half* of everyone who downloaded it used it. Please. There's a kind of person who hacks something to see if it can be done and then there's the kind of person who hacks something and immediately blasts it out to the general public without putting it through any kind of reasonably thorough even homebrew QA process and consideration of future bad effects, effectively saying, Look Ma! No hands. Pure egomaniacal tripe. And from what I understand reading these forums, posts from people who understand this sort of radio technology and/or are formally educated radio engineers, what they did to unlock the iPhone wasn't even hard to figure out and even easier to implement, albeit in a messy, shotgun form.

I mean the PSP hackers manage to hack PSP firmware updates fast, support all Sony-sanctioned firmware features and it doesn't brick the PSPs if a person decides not to wait to update and uses Sony's new firmware. Even though Sony, while changing course and going liberal with alternative OS installation on PS3, has been pretty strict about the idea of PSP hacking.
 
Why does FileVault sound so familiar but I can't place it?

Apple's built-in encryption, introduced with OS 10.3.

Early adopters reported corrupt home directories and much data loss.

It's still kinda buggy, but not a fraction as bad as upon release...
 
snip

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.
snip

Do you have access to the Apple/ATT contract. . .? How do you know what Apple is "obligated" to do?
 
I presume that, like previous iPod updates, there's nothing that will force you to update your iPhone to the new firmware? IE, when you plug it into iTunes, it won't automatically update, it'll just pop up the "Hey, there's new software available for your iPhone. Wanna install it?" window, the way it does with the iPod.

Of course, Apple will probably at some point make it so a new version of iTunes won't even talk to a pre-1.1.1 iPhone. But then, one could just avoid updating iTunes, I suppose.
 
Unlocked iPhones in Europe

I mean, regardless of liberal laws about locking here and favorable terms for carriers and phone manufacturers

The carriers do benefit from the long and tight contracts, no doubt. (At the expense of consumers, most of the time.)

The situation with phone manufacturers is trickier. At least Nokia says that it is easier to sell to end users than to carriers. On the other hand, Motorola is accustomed to acting in the US market. This is quite clear from the market shares inside the US vs. rest of the world.

So, some phone manufacturers benefit, others lose. The phone manufacturers as a group are not on the winning side in the bundled sales game.

(It is interesting to note that as the bundled sales in the US seem to support the US mobile phone manufacturing industry, the regulators may not be in a hurry to do any deregulation at this point.)

The idea being, the iPhones would only violate Swedish law when they were out of Swedish jurisdiction; that particular nuance might be difficult to interpret.

I do see your point there. I could not find any accurate description of "locked" or "unlocked" in the legislation. In any case, the consumer affairs are an important area of emphasis on the union (EU) level. This means Apple would at least have to do the partial locking so that the phones work with all carriers in the EU countries. And, quite inevitably, even when doing that, the consumer groups (or authorities) would sue them, probably in several EU countries.

Doing all this would mean getting a lot of bad press. I doubt Apple would be that stupid. They either play by the rules or don't play at all. I put my money on the latter option.

Even though... I would not be that surprised if unlocked iPhones would hit the shelves here at some point. Apple may still be quite confident that a vast majority of US customers will buy a bundled one in the States. Unlocked phones trickling from some remote and dark corners of some far-away land whose name no one remembers are not a real problem.
 
Exactly. That's why I left some flex in there. I think they may just stay out of countries that offer no locking to carriers/contracts at all requiring them to sell unlocked phones out of the box. I mean, regardless of liberal laws about locking here and favorable terms for carriers and phone manufacturers, not all the good handsets -- even some of the real stand-outs -- from Scandinavia, Japan and Korea ever make it over here.

Also Swedish law might be tested in Swedish court as to whether the existing law allowed iPhones to be sold within the country in a condition completely unlocked as to carrier within Sweden, but locked *off* other carriers in countries that allowing locking. The idea being, the iPhones would only violate Swedish law when they were out of Swedish jurisdiction; that particular nuance might be difficult to interpret. Whether Apple would find this worth testing in court, I don't know. Indeed, I kind of doubt it.

I'd be curious to see how such a scheme would work.

Presumably, the iPhone itself would have to be self-regulating, since as has already been pointed out, it is extremely unlikely that every non-Swedish network carrier in the world would get together and agree to specifically identify phones bearing IMEI numbers corresponding to Swedish-sold iPhones, and restrict them from operating unless their SIMs correspond to specific Swedish carriers.

So I suppose the hypothetical Swedish iPhone would have to have an internal listing of every GSM network lawfully operating in Sweden. Initially, it would only accept SIMs from the initial exclusive agent. Following a "legitimate" unlock, it would expand slightly to only accept SIMs from any Swedish carrier.

But what if, according to some hypothetical Swedish law, the unlock procedure must not have any network affiliation at all. (To be pedantic, I'll include an example: a visitor from Nowherisa, while within Sweden's borders, must be able to pop in his foreign SIM card into any unlocked Sewdish cell phone, and be allowed to roam in Sweden subject to the terms of his foreign plan.)

Things become really muddy really fast.
 
I don't know if this has been discussed...

But if the iPhone can be hacked to use T-Mobile, a whole different company's network, then why can't it be hacked to run AT&T Mobile Broadband instead of edge network? I'm sure the responses to this will be overwhealming and derogatory but i don't know anything about how my iPhone works, just that it does.
 
But if the iPhone can be hacked to use T-Mobile, a whole different company's network, then why can't it be hacked to run AT&T Mobile Broadband instead of edge network? I'm sure the responses to this will be overwhealming and derogatory but i don't know anything about how my iPhone works, just that it does.

The iPhone works on T-Mobile because T-Mobile uses a compatible mobile phone standard (both AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM.)

The iPhone doesn't work on AT&T Mobile Broadband because the latter is a different mobile phone standard that the iPhone doesn't support.

An analogy would be if the iCar accepted only BP Gasoline, and if "hacked" could also use Shell Gasoline. Just because that hack is possible wouldn't mean it could also use BP Diesel.
 
If Apple did this in the UK to disable unlocked phones I can guarantee you that is illegal and many people will come down quite hard on them here!
 
I cannot recall another cell phone maker voiding a warranty because a phone was unlocked. Its amazing that Apple just comes into the game and boom story changes.

But here's my real issue! Since we're mostly Mac users here, we may remember that Apple has had some recalls/warranty issues in the past. I can remember the iBook logic board extension and the more recent battery recall. There is also the iBook Denmark issue. Say somewhere down the line, a design flaw is detected in the iPhone that cause locked as well as unlocked phones to fail. Would Apple still deny unlockers service?
 
If Apple did this in the UK to disable unlocked phones I can guarantee you that is illegal and many people will come down quite hard on them here!

if Apple denied an official unlock, yes. They are not obligated to support an unlock created by a software exploit. Official unlocks come from company approved codes. Apple is not legally bound to support iphonesimfree. Its absurd to argue they are. Anyone pissed about this (and I agree you 100% have a right to an unlocked phone) take it up with your local government and apple to demand an official unlock. They cannot deny that.
 
ummm

You guys are brainwashed! OBVIOUSLY Apple is intentionally bricking the iPhone. They don't make any money if people use T-Mobile!


ummmmmm, I think that t-mobile customers who wouldn't have bought an iphone if it was unhackable, have contributed greatly to the iphone sales figures. So, basically they make money off of T-Mobile users. Just the phone, not the service.....I assume that's what you meant
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.