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.
Why iPhone is locked to AT&T in the U.S. ?
- Thread starter dannysiu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
With the exception of the iPhone, you can usually get an unlock code for other subsidized GSM phones once you've paid off the subsidy and/or if you were already a good customer.
Verizon will also unlock the GSM side of the World phones that have both GSM and CDMA. There are even some people using them in the USA on AT&T.
I think Apple would be a lot happier if the GSM standard didn't include user changeable SIMs. Goes against their philosophy.
The mobile communication industry in the USA is not regulated like it is in other countries.
This means that larger companies like Verizon and SMB have been able to use their money to purchase large swaths of the spectrum and restrict its use without having to allow smaller companies equal (or close to equal) access.
As a result, instead of having multiple mobile providers in a small geographic area that must compete with each other (like in Europe)... the USA has a small number of very large providers with little competition
There is little incentive to cut prices when there is a 1-in-4 chance (at worst) that a customer will choose you as a provider. These companies can do what they want...charge a lot of money for handsets... require contracts (which they used to do), and levy exorbitant penalties for 'breaking' a contract.
What is equally crazy is that they charge you MORE money to buy a device (smart-phone) which has double the monthly fee of a cheaper device (dumb-phone).
As long as all four national providers do the same thing, consumers have nowhere to go.
As for the iPhone, Apple wanted to charge customers an then-unheard-of amount for their device and force the owners into agreements where they would pay top monthly fees for the service. By only offering it through 1 provider, they were able to dictate the terms of the agreement. Lack of competition meant that anyone who wanted the iPhone had to deal with AT&T and apple.
Fast forward a few years... Android is everywhere and growing by leaps in bounds in terms of devices and features.... competition! The iPhone 4 was the first iPhone to NOT be the best smart-phone on the market at release. Now there are rumors (almost every week) about iPhone making the jump to other carriers... AT&T has loosened restrictions on upgrade eligibility because they had to. If 7 out of every 10 customers are upgraders from the previous model, then you are pretty much stuck.
Things are just getting interesting. The competition is going dual core and 4G. What will the next moves be?
This means that larger companies like Verizon and SMB have been able to use their money to purchase large swaths of the spectrum and restrict its use without having to allow smaller companies equal (or close to equal) access.
As a result, instead of having multiple mobile providers in a small geographic area that must compete with each other (like in Europe)... the USA has a small number of very large providers with little competition
There is little incentive to cut prices when there is a 1-in-4 chance (at worst) that a customer will choose you as a provider. These companies can do what they want...charge a lot of money for handsets... require contracts (which they used to do), and levy exorbitant penalties for 'breaking' a contract.
What is equally crazy is that they charge you MORE money to buy a device (smart-phone) which has double the monthly fee of a cheaper device (dumb-phone).
As long as all four national providers do the same thing, consumers have nowhere to go.
As for the iPhone, Apple wanted to charge customers an then-unheard-of amount for their device and force the owners into agreements where they would pay top monthly fees for the service. By only offering it through 1 provider, they were able to dictate the terms of the agreement. Lack of competition meant that anyone who wanted the iPhone had to deal with AT&T and apple.
Fast forward a few years... Android is everywhere and growing by leaps in bounds in terms of devices and features.... competition! The iPhone 4 was the first iPhone to NOT be the best smart-phone on the market at release. Now there are rumors (almost every week) about iPhone making the jump to other carriers... AT&T has loosened restrictions on upgrade eligibility because they had to. If 7 out of every 10 customers are upgraders from the previous model, then you are pretty much stuck.
Things are just getting interesting. The competition is going dual core and 4G. What will the next moves be?
Yeah right.
That would benefit AT&T not Apple.
Apple does officially unlock the iPhone in every country but the US.
Neither do those of us living in Japan. Here it's Softbank instead of AT&T.
Nope. See above.
Not even close.
Open this official Apple page, and you can see which carriers will or won't unlock the iPhone.
Hint: it's less than half the countries listed.
Apple needed a partner, they were venturing into unknown waters for them. Without Apple and ATT there would be no China iPhone. You should thank the Americans for suffering along in Apple's venture (with ATT) into the mobile market so other countries can enjoy the iPhone. Just send an email, we all in the US would appreciate it.
Damn, I thought it was just the US that was getting the shaft
But still plenty of other places that do sell them unlocked.
I tend to think its more cause of AT&T than Apple though.
Was stupid for Apple to sign a 5 year contract for every new phone that they are going to release. I can understand an exclusivity for 1 phone but for every phone?? Newly released phones should come with an unlocked option to be purchased directly from Apple with no contract requirement nor exclusivity like they are sold in Hong-Kong and other countries.
ya i totally agree with you !!!
and even the price of i phone is much high in asia WHY can anybody explain !!!
i had this
. I had a blackberry data only plan that i used with an iphone 4 (bought it off craigslist for $550 16gb). That with skype and after my at&t discounts was about $30 a month. Then i damaged the phone, sold it for parts, ended up doing an upgrade with at&t for the 32gb not to lay out the cash now i have unlimited data back but a voice plan that is pretty useless, stupid move on my part i should have just paid $700-800 on craiglist for a 32gb no contract and stuck with data only since i can never get that plan again. oh well you live and learn....From a buyer's viewpoint, that page is incomplete.
It doesn't mention that Apple may sell the iPhone unlocked directly in a market. It just mentions what the carriers do. For instance, it says that all five Canadian carriers that offer the iPhone offer it locked and don't unlock. True. But it doesn't mention that Apple itself offers the phone unlocked in Canada, either at Apple Stores or online.
I had read that Apple Canada sold "unlocked" iPhones, but it only accepted SIMs from Canadian carriers, and also locked to the first SIM it saw.
In other words, the whole idea was to just make it easier to keep iPhones in stock at Canadian Apple stores, without needing several different versions.
Has this changed? If so, then we should all be ordering phones from Up North.
Thanks!
Yes, that's changed in Canada you can get factory unlocked iPhone 4 from Apple stores.
The contract/cheap phone theory may have a point. But again, if you compare those countries, their carriers also offer contracts (except fewer ppl than US choose a contract). In addition, if consumers are afraid of the high price of phone but hate the idea of locking himself to a carrier, there are banks where you can get low or even zero interest financing for the handset. You can thus take your phone with any carrier in the world !!
So they have a lot more freedom / choices than US counterparts.
Thanks to people like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush the younger and Obama, corporations have more of a say in government.
It's because of the FCC's lack of power that no one looked out for the people. There's no ruling that said all phones must have an unlocked version available and that all carriers must use the same standard (instead of this ridiculous GSM v CDMA nonsense); these are just two examples where the US government was supposed to have stepped in to help the public. Also, a strong FCC wouldn't let only a small number of companies buy most of the cell signals; that's anti-competitive, imnsho. Either they'd parcel it out more fairly or force the companies to share the spectrum.
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled back in the early 1900s that corporations are people, they're allowed to do whatever they damn well please without any of the deterrents that affect actual individuals (e.g., there's no prison for companies like Exxon, BP or Blackwater/XE).
Your answer, in essence, is because the corporations are greedy.
It's because of the FCC's lack of power that no one looked out for the people. There's no ruling that said all phones must have an unlocked version available and that all carriers must use the same standard (instead of this ridiculous GSM v CDMA nonsense); these are just two examples where the US government was supposed to have stepped in to help the public. Also, a strong FCC wouldn't let only a small number of companies buy most of the cell signals; that's anti-competitive, imnsho. Either they'd parcel it out more fairly or force the companies to share the spectrum.
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled back in the early 1900s that corporations are people, they're allowed to do whatever they damn well please without any of the deterrents that affect actual individuals (e.g., there's no prison for companies like Exxon, BP or Blackwater/XE).
Your answer, in essence, is because the corporations are greedy.
Re: subsidized vs not...
If you're going to be on a carrier for at least two years, then it's not an illusion that a subsidized phone is much cheaper than buying your own. In fact, it's in-your-face obvious.
The reason is that, whether you bought the phone for full price or not, you still pay the same monthly plan price.
It isn't any cheaper even if you bring your own thousand dollar phone to the party. So you might as well take advantage of the subsidy fund that you're pumping into each month no matter what.
(This is my big beef with carriers. My monthly cost _should_ be less if I have paid off a phone and/or bring my own. Although I suppose you could argue the opposite and say that subsidized users should pay more.)
If you're going to be on a carrier for at least two years, then it's not an illusion that a subsidized phone is much cheaper than buying your own. In fact, it's in-your-face obvious.
The reason is that, whether you bought the phone for full price or not, you still pay the same monthly plan price.
It isn't any cheaper even if you bring your own thousand dollar phone to the party. So you might as well take advantage of the subsidy fund that you're pumping into each month no matter what.
(This is my big beef with carriers. My monthly cost _should_ be less if I have paid off a phone and/or bring my own. Although I suppose you could argue the opposite and say that subsidized users should pay more.)
Well, I know this whole idea of a phone contract being cheaper. True in most cases. But only because lack of other viable options and choices. And those corporations harnessed this whole idea that this is only way you can get it, no one else can offer it, and to do it u have to be with me for two years with a contract. How? They together make non-commitment model expensive or impossible, and lock your phone. Hence that two year contract is the only possibility.
Think this way. Were the users allowed to choose whatever handset they want and use it on whichever carrier any time. Switching would be more frequent. There would be much more competition among carriers and thus cheaper rates! Afraid of an expensive phone? Banks and credit card companies should be well positioned to finance your purchase. (in the phone contract model, you pay the price of the handset anyway. But eventually got a locked iPhone unusable on other carrier)
Thus which phone and which carrier is completely a matter of your own choice!
Think about this. What happens if Sony tvs are only available by subscribing Comcast and when you wanna switch to a different service they tell you your tv is locked and there is nothing they can do about it.
What if your MacBook can only be connected to AT&T broadband? And no other ISP would be able to connect it?
Had FCC regulated the wireless industry the way many other countries do (use compatible standards and frequencies). This won't be the case.
I think users should have that sort of freedom of using their device on any network.
I [for] once agree with you
But... but... it's not 2012...
The world isn't supposed to end yet!
Quick, disagree with me as always, or we're all doomed! Doomed, I say!