or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

There were. I don't recall it here but have seen it quite frequently on other boards. Mostly from kids too ignorant to realize that Apple is, in many ways, the most important customer Samsung has and that not supplying Apple would hurt them more than it would hurt Apple. Apple can fund other suppliers to ramp up if needed to replace Samsung. Samsung can't make other companies buy from them at the same levels that Apple does.
Cutting Samsung out of their supply chain (as much as possible) would be a much better tact that the lawsuits, IMO. Lawsuits drag on and are creating a negative public perception. Moving to alternative suppliers is just a business decision and will hit Samsung harder. Without overtly making it an issue in their supplier relationships, they could certainly use this to encourage more ethical behavior from Samsung with regard to aping Apple products.
uhhh, yeah. And whether a restore through iTunes is required to complete the unlock or not has nothing to do with your subsequent comment "In the US companies like AT&T subsidize many iPhones; hence they want them locked to THEIR service."So again, given that with other carriers, when they perform the identical unlock through Apple's mechanism, why does AT&T's instructions require an iTunes restore? I have had multiple iPhones unlocked through my carrier and I only used...
This would certainly be required if carrier are obligated to use a IMEI Database. I think this is why moding IMEIs is illegal in the UK and other countries where EIR registries are mandated.Of course without manufacturers like Apple on board, then all one would have to do is walk in and exchange your phone to get a new IMEI.
That wasn't the question. The question is why does the unlock with AT&T require a restore through iTunes.
Whether they knew it was stolen is sort of irrelevant. Buying stolen goods is illegal whether you knew it was stolen or not.
I never understand why they do that. The same thing happened when Rogers in Canada started doing unlocked. Word spread through blogs but the employees were mostly unaware. Speaking to one of the people at the unlock dept on the first day it was offered, they also only ordered and received a single system from Apple to do the unlocks. They were hammered that first week with people calling to do the unlocks so some people were getting through to the unlock team and then...
If you bought it very recently and it wasn't on contract (so full price) and you bought it directly from Apple, it should already be unlocked. If it isn't then AT&T should unlock it for you, assuming you meet the rest of the eligibility requirements (i.e. have an account with them).
It is pretty sad that the FCC had to get involved in this. For many years there has been a cross carrier database called the IMEI Database or [C]EIR Registry. Carriers all over the world are member (it is run by the GSM Association AFAIK) and it allows any of them to submit IMEIs of stolen phones and any member carriers are obligated to block those IMEIs from their network. My carrier in Canada is a member but they are dicks about it and will only add IMEIs of phones that...
I see. Actually your other comment was interesting too:This was actually a loophole that was commonly used in Canada to have in contract iPhones unlocked. If you exchanged your phone with Apple, then the carrier lock carried over to the replacement but it was never registered in the carrier system. So, you could then call in and request the unlock. They would trace the IMEI, it would come back without any obligations listed and they would do the unlock. They fairly quickly...
New Posts  All Forums: