Iphone Unlocked

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry - you misunderstand me. I mean "no benefit to anyone in the long term". Obviously this will permit people to use an iPhone at much lower rates on other network, but at the expense of Apple probably making a loss on that device because they aren't getting the revenue from the phone contract. People who buy an iPhone know that much of the real "cost" of that phone is paid in the phone contract. I don't know if it's illegal, but it's certainly immoral (IMHO) to take a highly-subsidised device and then "avoid" paying the real cost of it by using it on a different network.

In the USA (where it was unlocked), it is perfectly legal to unlock your cell phone for use on other networks. So what this kid did was fully within the law. If Apple should have set the iphone for use on the other networks if they didn't want this to happen. It's Apple's blunder for not having a T-Mobile and a Sprint version.

[Alexander Turcic]

There are some who say this unlock will only "harm" AT&T because now people are not forced to go with their murderous year plans. I say it will also "harm" Apple because in the future, it will be much harder for Jobs to work out special lucrative deals for Apple -- with telecos knowing that hackers will always find a way to circumvent the lock.

[HeffeD]

Originally Posted by Kilarney

It is not subsidized. However, Apple gets a cut of every activation and every monthly bill. So, Apple stands to lose money as well as AT&T if the phone is unlocked.

Sounds like subsidy to me then...

The thing I've never understood is how the 'network lock' concept is legal. It smacks of a monopoly to me. I mean, I can understand being locked into a service contract to subsidize the cost of your phone, but after the initial contract period is up and your hardware is paid for, how can they possibly say that you don't have any other choice but the single provider?

Limiting third party access definitely doesn't fly in the computer world, how does it manage in the phone world?

[Azayzel]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Go read the article. The 6 guys who demoed it for Engadget wrote a software hack. It takes less than 5 minute to do it.

Guess this is another article, the one I read by the boy mentioned in my previous post stated that there was a little soldering to do, et al. I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip!

As to being locked to a specific network... I think it totally sucks. I know many times while I was quaintly happy with my current provider, they had hardly a good selection of decent mobile phones that met my requirements. Should I have to suck it up and take a crappy plan with another network simply because I want to use the technology of one of the phones that meets my needs? I don't think so. The phone company is selling their service, not the devices, so the phones should be available in their various forms; i.e., CDMA, GPRS, GMS, etc., on various networks, why bother with limiting themselves to one vendor? Apple should have made a deal with all the vendors to get the greater mass appeal. While I can understand that they probably signed some lucrative deal with whomever provides their services, they pissed a lot of people off who may have paid what they were asking for the phones but won't now due to not wanting to switch providers.

Here's the second issue, I had a SmartPhone that I used religiously before leaving the states. Turns out, if the SIM card gets updated to indicate that it's no longer in service the phone won't friggin work any more. This would have really sucked, since I used the PDA for more than simply a phone, fortunately I was able to use the GoPhone cards in it, so it was still usable for what I needed; i.e., GPS & PDA functions. What's going to happen to the iPhone when the contract is up? Will you not be able to use it as a PIM anymore, or what about as a PMP?

Edit: Just checked out the video on Engadget, too cool! I've been avoiding checking out any real info on the iPhone since it's not available here. Sure would be nice if I could get one of those babies to work over here. I can't believe how slim it looked, and the touch-screen... (drool). These things will be free by the time I move back to the states, hopefully we'll be seeing 'em here in the next 6 months or so (I won't hold my breath).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Azayzel

As to being locked to a specific network... I think it totally sucks. I know many times while I was quaintly happy with my current provider, they had hardly a good selection of decent mobile phones that met my requirements. Should I have to suck it up and take a crappy plan with another network simply because I want to use the technology of one of the phones that meets my needs? I don't think so. The phone company is selling their service, not the devices, so the phones should be available in their various forms; i.e., CDMA, GPRS, GMS, etc., on various networks, why bother with limiting themselves to one vendor? Apple should have made a deal with all the vendors to get the greater mass appeal. While I can understand that they probably signed some lucrative deal with whomever provides their services, they pissed a lot of people off who may have paid what they were asking for the phones but won't now due to not wanting to switch providers.

But that's the whole point of it, isn't it? The fact that the phone only works through one provider is what makes it valuable to that provider - I'm sure that AT&T paid Apple a great deal of money for that "exclusive" contract. The same thing's true here in the UK - Apple have signed an exclusive deal with T-Mobile to sell it here which it's launched this autumn.

As a matter of interest, had the iPhone been, say, 50% more expensive, but "open", would you still have been willing to buy one?

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HeffeD

Sounds like subsidy to me then...

I'd only consider it a subsidy if some of the hardware cost is covered by part of the monthly service fees. In this case, I believe the buyer is paying the entire hardware cost up-front. If Apple is, indeed (and I'm not contesting the claim, I have no idea if it's so), getting a monthly kick-back from AT&T, but it's not defraying the cost of the actual hardware, I'd call that something other than a subsidy. A stipend for temporary exclusive rights to sell the thing, maybe.

[JSWolf]

I'd call it a bribe or a payoff if Apple is indeed getting paid for giving AT&T exclusive rights.

[NatCh]

They'd probably prefer a term like "incentive," but essentially, yes, that's right.

[Azayzel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's the whole point of it, isn't it? The fact that the phone only works through one provider is what makes it valuable to that provider - I'm sure that AT&T paid Apple a great deal of money for that "exclusive" contract. The same thing's true here in the UK - Apple have signed an exclusive deal with T-Mobile to sell it here which it's launched this autumn.

As a matter of interest, had the iPhone been, say, 50% more expensive, but "open", would you still have been willing to buy one?

Yes, I agree that is why there are exclusive contracts... it just irritates me that they're applied as such. I think Apple really shot themselves in the foot by signing an exclusive contract; think of all the money they could have made through various providers by being open to any/all service providers. We're talking on the terms of hundreds of millions in the longrun, considering the fact that the device is not only useful as a phone, but a PMP as well. Look at how much money they've made with the iPod so far. While I'm sure the providers they filed contracts with probably paid them a hefty sum, it probably won't hold up to the number of *potential* sales missed by people unwilling to switch providers. On the other hand, without doing any indepth research, I'd say their exclusivity contract is probably only good for a year's worth of sales that way they can sign with other providers after the initial infiltration of the market.

Heheh, in regards to paying 50% more for an unlocked phone... I'm unwilling to pay the $500 (4GB model) or $600 (8GB model) for a regular version, let alone paying a premium over that for what amounts to a $180 iPod video with a phone attached; that's just crazy talk. I recently picked up a used 30GB iPod Video for $120, not that I'm poor... more like rational when it comes to spending my gadget funds. I'm curious as to why they limited the iPhones so much on internal memory? Ahh well.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by Azayzel

Yes, I agree that is why there are exclusive contracts... it just irritates me that they're applied as such. I think Apple really shot themselves in the foot by signing an exclusive contract; think of all the money they could have made through various providers by being open to any/all service providers.

Some people may argue that they could have made it harder for hackers to break the lock, but that for some reason they decided not to...

[Azayzel]

This just in from Engadget... the software to unlock the iPhone has just been updated and released into the wild for FREE! Here's the article link Lots of info on this!