Anonymous Programmers Reveal iPhone Unlocking Software 328
CNN reports details of a group of anonymous programmers who are planning to sell iPhone unlocking software on the Internet. They demonstrated the software hack for CNN and had a T-Mobile sim card working moments after removing the AT&T sim card. This is bound to stir up a lot of controversy: in the US iPhones are supposed to work only on the AT&T network in the first two years according to their agreement with Apple.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:locks make no sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Big question is how much will they charge? (Score:2, Interesting)
Having in mind what the demand curve for a software-based unlocking solution for the iPhone is, especially in Europe, these guys can easily charge more than 100 USD for the hack... at least until somebody else puts a competitive hack on the market.
iPhone in Europe (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not surprising, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thing is, that kind of agreements aren't just because Apple or AT&T are "evil" and want to tie you to their network. They're a glimpse into how expensive the iPhone really is. That price you see when you buy one is already minus AT&T's subsidies, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're quite hefty.
That's how everyone else negotiates too. Exclusive contract is worth X dollars, for the features and hopefully new killer app, Y dollars, for tying some functionality to their network, Z dollars, and so on. Dunno how it works in the USA, but that's how we end up with 1 Euro phones down here, as long as you're tied to a telco.
Seeing the extent to which the iPhone is locked down, makes me think Apple negotiated some pretty damn hefty subsidies for it. I mean, for example, for any other phone, they don't even bother worrying what you do with it, as long as you have your two year contract with the one who subsidized it. If you have your 2 years T-Mobile contract anyway, and you want to use that phone with Vodaphone too (thus paying two phone bills for it), T-Mobile won't usually give a damn. It's just assumed that most people won't bother. If you wanted a Vodaphone contract, you'd have just gotten one of their phones. If for the iPhone anyone actually gives a damn whether you can use it at all on another network, they probably are paying more than the standard subsidies for it.
Thing is, the iPhone didn't happen before just because it's expensive, not because everyone else is a drooling moron and Apple is t3h genius. Symbian has all the expertise they need with touch screens even before they starting having anything to do with phones, for example. My old Psion 5 has touch-screen. Everyone just bet that there's not much of a market for a phone that costs as much as a laptop. Apple apparently bet that there's one if they get half the price subsidized by AT&T.
So it might get interesting. If Apple can't deliver the lockdown they promised for the extra money, AT&T would have to be dumb to keep paying for it. And that's at the very least.
Would the iPhone still be as attractive as a $1000 toy (a number pulled out of the arse, for example sake) if it were unlocked and usable on any network? Sure, for some nerds it would still be a cool toy, but more people -- or they significant other, if they have one -- would start wondering if they _really_ need one.
It might get interesting.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating curtailing consumer rights to save the iPhone. Just saying what I see at work there. (And I could be wrong too.)
Re:Atleast (Score:2, Interesting)
For the record: it is perfectly legal to unlock phones in the US as well. I've done it with three of mine thus far. The DCMA, if applicable in any way, would be enforced if the provisions of that law were broken. There are no specific provisions regarding the unlocking of phones, and not even a hint of such legal hassles is made in the article or the summary.
In conclusion, you pulled shit out of your ass in a misguided attempt to bash the US. Next time, try to do it in a manner that doesn't display rabid ignorance, and I won't call you out on it.
Re:Third party (Score:2, Interesting)
Just paying the money constitues an acceptance of all the terms and conditions of their standard contract regardless of whether you actually read them.
I could not find any links detailing the Law on this but here is a link to Dell's Terms and Conditions of Sale:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/po
It clearly states that you are bound buy them unless you can prove you negotiated a seperate agreement. I would be very surprised if this is not legally enforcable but if anyone who has a legal background can tell me why they are not I would grateful for some links to the relevant case law. If you do not have links to a relevant law or precedent please do not bother spouting some unproveable / unqualified opinion.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
So each phone is $600. Toss in 'activation' which is usually somewhere around $35, insurance which is about $5 each month, and then the plan itself which will run you $100 a month recurring for the next 24 months...
600 + 35 + (5 * 24) + (100 * 24) = $3155
lets assume that you don't use up all your minutes, you don't send thousands of text messages a month, and you aren't getting a new iPhone because you keep dropping it in the toilet (who takes the phone into the bathroom?) and so on and so on.
AT&T is making money hand-over-fist with all the iPhone sales. They could sell the phone for $50 and STILL make money on it. Hell, I would consider switching at that point--and I... Hate... AT&T. I'd buy the phone at $50 and then cancel my contract and pay the $300 bucks. Unlock it, and sell it for the 40k that one kid did. It's still worth it to buy it, don't get a contract, and then sell it on eBay.
Re:Maybe not surprising, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Apple deal, since it pays them recurring royalties over the life of the contract, are not.
I have no doubt that the purchase price of the phone is non-subsidized. Notice that you can purchase an iPhone at the same price, direct from Apple, without a contract. Of course, since even that handset is still locked, you end up having to get the contract anyway. That's not the usual model.
Look at Palm. It sells its smartphones through carriers, subsidized, at a lower price than they sell their own, unlocked smartphones, direct on their websites. People can, and do, pay $500-$700 for unlocked GSM smartphones because they need to use them everywhere around the world without paying roaming charges. It's worth it.
Technologically speaking, about the only thing about the iPhone that is different from most other phones is the touchscreen and the software that makes it run. All of its features (and more, in fact) are found in other smartphones at similar or lower prices.
Face it: iPhone buyers are paying full price. Their handsets are not subsidized. The cash that normally gets kicked back from the carrier to the purchaser as a subsidy on their handset is going to Apple in the form of royalties.
Re:Maybe not surprising, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon was approached by Apple and offered the iPhone before AT&T.
One of the reasons (among many) VZW turned it down was because one of Apple's terms was that the iPhone not be subsidized in any way.
So GP is correct.
Apple has a history of this - not letting retailers discount their products, I mean.
We call this 'price fixing,' and until recently, it was illegal.
no anonymous (Score:1, Interesting)
Cops picked up a teenager using a Tracfone to phone in bomb threats to his high school. Took about a day to make the match and get him more days off than he bargained for.
As a side note, I would like to use my Tracfone sim in an iPhone, the sim puts me on AT&T anyway.