Why the next update should not relock the non-AT&T iPhone...

[ventro]

Apple should be happy that people are unlocking their device to use it on other carriers. So what if their revenue stream from ATT is taken away? People are buying their device because they like the device, but not the carrier. The only forces trying to re-lock the phone and lock unlockers from their devices. should be from ATT, not from Cupertino.

For every customer they re-lock, that's a customer that's going to be seriously pissed at Apple - their revolutionary device has started to fit into their daily lives, and all of a sudden it's a useless brick. And, seeing as Apple sees their portable devices as a gateway drug into the world of Mac, their anger is a very bad thing.

 

[pdpfilms]

Apple should be happy that people are unlocking their device to use it on other carriers. So what if their revenue stream from ATT is taken away? People are buying their device because they like the device, but not the carrier. The only forces trying to re-lock the phone and lock unlockers from their devices. should be from ATT, not from Cupertino.

For every customer they re-lock, that's a customer that's going to be seriously pissed at Apple - their revolutionary device has started to fit into their daily lives, and all of a sudden it's a useless brick. And, seeing as Apple sees their portable devices as a gateway drug into the world of Mac, their anger is a very bad thing.

I'm sorry to say, but business (even for Apple) has largely to due with profit, and not necessarily being nice. If Apple is nice and anstds by doing nothing, they're likely to be severed and sued by AT&T, which is currently a huge moneymaker for them.

I wish they wouldn't (I've got a T-Mobile unlocked iPhone), but I'm sure they will.

 

[JoJoCal19]

Yea but isnt it ILLEGAL for Apple to just re-lock the iPhone? It was my understanding that the law says people are allowed to unlock their phones to use with any provider.

 

[Speedracer04]

Apple profits far more from their contract with AT&T than they do with hardware sales.
Don't fool yourself.
Even if iPhone production were down to $200, they'd be making a $200 profit from each sale.
If they only make $10 a person from AT&T that's $240, just in the initial 2-year agreement.

Exactly.

Apple will be trying to break the unlocks. We have started a war between devs and Apple.

Much the same with the PSP:
Patch comes -> workaround, Patch comes -> workaround.

Endless cycle until one gives up, but with a device of this publicity Im guessing neither will give up for anytime soon at all.

 

[Speedracer04]

Yea but isnt it ILLEGAL for Apple to just re-lock the iPhone? It was my understanding that the law says people are allowed to unlock their phones to use with any provider.

Yes, they are not allowed to keep you from unlocking it on your own...but in no way do they have to make it easy and in no way do they have to allow you to keep it unlocked once you unlocked it. If they update their firmware and it relocks the phone thats up to them...you can just unlock it again and be fine (hopefully).

And if you read the fine print, from ATT. you can only unlock the phone after your contract is up...so after 2 years they will provide you with an unlock code if you ask for it, thats why there is going to be a big debate about the iPhone once the 2 year mark hits.

 

[question fear]

Yes, they are not allowed to keep you from unlocking it on your own...but in no way do they have to make it easy and in no way do they have to allow you to keep it unlocked once you unlocked it. If they update their firmware and it relocks the phone thats up to them...you can just unlock it again and be fine (hopefully).

Exactly. They can't release an update for the sole purpose of relocking the phone. But if they can prove they needed to patch/update some other aspect of the phone that the unlock HAPPENED to exploit or use, it's not Apple's obligation to avoid breaking the unlock. IIRC, none of the workarounds for activation have been broken by firmware updates yet either, so there's some hope.

As I've said on other threads; they might not be looking for ways to relock, but they certainly are not reverse engineering any updates to avoid it either.

And I think the crack/hack community makes up a small percentage of their sales. We forget because everyone here reads Macrumors and Hofo etc religiously but most people can't tell GSM from CDMA, let alone unlocking. It's more gravy than substance. Apple doesn't object to the money they get, certainly, but if tomorrow everyone stopped hacking it would probably have a minimal effect overall.

 

[carfac]

Yea but isnt it ILLEGAL for Apple to just re-lock the iPhone? It was my understanding that the law says people are allowed to unlock their phones to use with any provider.

I think this is a VERY good point. Apple may close the hacker hole, after all, that is a security risk. But I think they cannot lock an unlocked phone, at least legally. I am NOT a lawyer....

As to people buying now that you can unlock, I am one. Now that my wife has played, she wants one, too. My sister wants 3 (her, her husband, my father all on the same t-Mob plan) and is sending them to me today. I have been at work 3 hours- two people said they will do this if I unlock for them. My friend Deb in Sacto will pick one up this week and send me to uLock. That is six for sure, probably more in my close circle in 2 days.

Add to that that the local tMob store took my number to help them out... you thyink tMob is gonna be quite about this? They are NOT under any contract, and will be helping their customers out any way they can.

 

[Speedracer04]

I think this is a VERY good point. Apple may close the hacker hole, after all, that is a security risk. But I think they cannot lock an unlocked phone, at least legally. I am NOT a lawyer....

As to people buying now that you can unlock, I am one. Now that my wife has played, she wants one, too. My sister wants 3 (her, her husband, my father all on the same t-Mob plan) and is sending them to me today. I have been at work 3 hours- two people said they will do this if I unlock for them. My friend Deb in Sacto will pick one up this week and send me to uLock. That is six for sure, probably more in my close circle in 2 days.

Add to that that the local tMob store took my number to help them out... you thyink tMob is gonna be quite about this? They are NOT under any contract, and will be helping their customers out any way they can.

Read the above 2 posts....like we said, yes it is illegal for them to release an update for the sole purpose to lock the phone, however if they release an update and it just *happens* to break the unlock, your all out of luck, which is not illegal.

 

[carfac]

Read the above 2 posts....like we said, yes it is illegal for them to release an update for the sole purpose to lock the phone, however if they release an update and it just *happens* to break the unlock, your all out of luck, which is not illegal.

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!

 

[nippyjun]

With the price drop apple probably makes most of their profit off the iphone from the cell carriers that it has contracted with. It is for this reason that in my opinion apple would want the phone to stay locked to get the revenue from the cell carriers.

 

[pdpfilms]

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!

I think the most important thing to consider in this particular occaision is that the unlock is possible only because of a buffer exploit. This is the result of bad coding, an effective bug. Apple has every right to resolve this (it is a security threat as well), and undoubtedly will do so. But next time, if the Dev Team uses a method that doesn't exploit a bug, who know's what the legal recourse is.

 

[carfac]

I think the most important thing to consider in this particular occaision is that the unlock is possible only because of a buffer exploit. This is the result of bad coding, an effective bug. Apple has every right to resolve this (it is a security threat as well), and undoubtedly will do so.

Right. That is a bug, a bit of bad coding, and, as I have been lead to beleive, a security risk. Apple SHOULD fix that. All this would do is cause hackers to have to find a new way to do it.

BUT... Locking an already unlocked phone is a whole different kettle of fish. Apple would have to ACTIVELY program to target and lock unlocked phones. As we have the legal right to unlock our phones, and to use unlocked phones (I know- this is up for argument, too, but that is my position), I think Apple would be on shaky ground at best if they did this. As they have also said they are neutral on hacks, I think they will probably avoid the hairball that would result from locking unlocked phones. But they WILL close the hole, for sure.

 

[carfac]

...that in my opinion apple would want the phone to stay locked...

Apple may also want WANT you to ONLY by Apple computers.... doesn't mean it's gonna happen. I am sure, too, they would WANT it to stay locked, but that sort of ignores reality a bit too much, even for Steve Jobs.

 

[Sobe]

Read the above 2 posts....like we said, yes it is illegal for them to release an update for the sole purpose to lock the phone, however if they release an update and it just *happens* to break the unlock, your all out of luck, which is not illegal.

I would LOVE to see the actual laws you are citing and any case history on point.

 

[pdpfilms]

BUT... Locking an already unlocked phone is a whole different kettle of fish. Apple would have to ACTIVELY program to target and lock unlocked phones. As we have the legal right to unlock our phones, and to use unlocked phones (I know- this is up for argument, too, but that is my position), I think Apple would be on shaky ground at best if they did this. As they have also said they are neutral on hacks, I think they will probably avoid the hairball that would result from locking unlocked phones. But they WILL close the hole, for sure.

I agree. However Apple will fix the hole, which will break our unlocks. It may not be their primary intent, but it's an unavoidable result.

 

[carfac]

I agree. However Apple will fix the hole, which will break our unlocks. It may not be their primary intent, but it's an unavoidable result.

Are you sure? I thought the hole just allowed you to DO the unlock... it was the "tunnel" in. I *THOUGHT* the unlock went through that hole to perform the unlock... and the unlock is done on code on the SIM or in the phone separate from the hole used to get in. Thus, if you are already unlocked, you no longer need the "tunnel". So, if the hole is closed, the unlock remains. This was my understanding of the process.

I am also not a hacker. I could be WAY off here with my understanding of the process. Perhaps someone else could shed light on this?

 

[question fear]

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!

The precedent would be any phones sold with legal (manufacturer approved) unlocks vs any others sold without. I am sure there are cases out there somewhere.

I think the most important thing to consider in this particular occaision is that the unlock is possible only because of a buffer exploit. This is the result of bad coding, an effective bug. Apple has every right to resolve this (it is a security threat as well), and undoubtedly will do so. But next time, if the Dev Team uses a method that doesn't exploit a bug, who know's what the legal recourse is.

If that's the case I'd put money that the firmware update breaks the lock.

I would LOVE to see the actual laws you are citing and any case history on point.

From wikipedia, the most important part of that is this:

In the United States the DMCA has been claimed to criminalize unlocking. A exemption however took effect 27 November 2006 allowing unlocking, and will expire in three years[1]. The exemption only applies to the actual unlocking, not to providing an unlocking device or service (emphasis mine)

In other words, Apple's not coming after you for the unlocking but they are not legally obliged to SUPPORT an unlock. Which means if their OFFICIAL support of the iphone conflicts with the unlock they are not required to support it. That's my reading of it at least.

@ Carfac: An unlock changes the software on the phone, not the SIM. So if the software changes, it could change the unlock.

 

[kdarling]

Heck, my MOTHER, at 85 years old, asked me if I'd heard about the kid unlocking the iPhone... and she doesn't even really know what one is !!

That's how widespread the news was

 

[pdpfilms]

Are you sure? I thought the hole just allowed you to DO the unlock... it was the "tunnel" in. I *THOUGHT* the unlock went through that hole to perform the unlock... and the unlock is done on code on the SIM or in the phone separate from the hole used to get in. Thus, if you are already unlocked, you no longer need the "tunnel". So, if the hole is closed, the unlock remains. This was my understanding of the process.

I am also not a hacker. I could be WAY off here with my understanding of the process. Perhaps someone else could shed light on this?

I also am no hacker, and am simply going off what I read on forums around. Doubt I'm any more knowledgable about the process than you.

 

[carfac]

...In other words, Apple's not coming after you for the unlocking but they are not legally obliged to SUPPORT an unlock. Which means if their OFFICIAL support of the iphone conflicts with the unlock they are not required to support it. That's my reading of it at least.

But, by your SAME quote, I AM allowed to unlock my phone, not for profit- right? If I am legal that way, then APPLE would be breaking my DMCA rights by reversing my unlock, as I have the right to do that (and if you read further in the actual law, they do not have to show me how, but they also cannot prevent me.)

 

[carfac]

I also am no hacker, and am simply going off what I read on forums around. Doubt I'm any more knowledgable about the process than you.

Agreed- we are both along for the ride!~

 

[Speedracer04]

I do not agree. Again, not a lawyer... but I would think I as a consumer would have some sort of recourse if they locked it after I LEGALLY unlocked it. They *MAY* be obligated to unlock my previous unlocked phone. I do not care about the ATT contract, I am not a party to that. I think App will tread carefully... probably closing the uLock hole, but not relocking phones.

It is a VERY interesting point, isn't it? I am not aware of a precedent on this... is anyone?

I am sure minds greater than ours will argue this out, and we are just along for the ride!

Everyone saying that you are legal to unlock your phone is wrong! It is NOT legal. When you buy an iPhone you are agreeing to use the ATT network, which means you are still under contract with ATT. When you sign that contract you agree to be with them for 2 years!

It is only legal to unlock your phone after your 2 year contract is up for any phone!

You got the phone to unlock by using a program the exploited the coding in the iPhone....this is NOT legal.

They cannot purposly relock the iPHone, but if their update makes it so the code exploit does not work, that is not their fault!

In other words, Apple's not coming after you for the unlocking but they are not legally obliged to SUPPORT an unlock. Which means if their OFFICIAL support of the iphone conflicts with the unlock they are not required to support it. That's my reading of it at least.

Exactly.

 

[question fear]

But, by your SAME quote, I AM allowed to unlock my phone, not for profit- right? If I am legal that way, then APPLE would be breaking my DMCA rights by reversing my unlock, as I have the right to do that (and if you read further in the actual law, they do not have to show me how, but they also cannot prevent me.)

Right, they don't have the right to stop you BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT IT EITHER! What I am saying is that they will probably break it but I guarantee you won't find a single line in the release notes that the firmware update is intended to do anything to unlocks.

But if Apple could go to court and explain that the most efficient way to patch the software or to update the firmware happened to break the unlock they are not obligated to rework their firmware to avoid that. Apple is not going to come after anyone, but if the unlock truly uses a security flaw they have every right to patch it, and if it happens to break your unlock it's not their problem.

Likewise, you have the right to re-unlock the phone as much as you'd like. They can't update the phone SOLELY to break the unlock, so as long as firmware updates leave alone whatever software patch/overrun/whatever the unlock uses then you are fine. Does that make more sense?

 

[plumbingandtech]

* And I know they get paid for every AT&T iPhone activation, but do the math, selling iPhones generates by far more profit.

You do the math and tell us exactly how many phones have been sold because of unlocking.

 

[MacCurry]

AT&T has said that it expects only 5% of all iPhones to be unlocked, as stated in an article in CNN's business section, this means 50,000 iPhones have been unlocked so far. For the most part, AT&T has a better GSM network than the other GSM carriers in the US. Their billing and customer service may be another issue.

If Apple issues a FW change to re-lock, it must consider that any firmware change could adversely affect another 5% of locked iPhone users. At the same time Apple has to ensure the FW will work with the other different carriers with whom it is partnering in Europe. Is a FW lock worth it?

Lets take a look at some iPhone economics:

1. Apple's profit per iPhone: $200
2. Apple's revenue from AT&T per iPhone: 20% of subscription, typically $16/month for 2 years. This is assumed because AT&T gives 15% discount on non-iPhone subscription to various large corporate customers.
3. Increased sales due to various unlock methods: 5% more. Therefore, the next 1 million sold will result in 50,000 unlocked iPhones. Apple's profit: $10 million - $19.2 million = -$9.2 million.
4. Now if Apple decides to issue a FW lock it could potentially mess up another 50,000 customers which could cost Apple potentially about $10 million.