Analyst, iPhone Dev Team disagree on impact of iPhone warning

[AppleInsider]

Commenting on Apple's statement Monday about unlocked iPhones, American Technology analyst Shaw Wu said the matter is likely to impact only a small percentage of iPhone customers, namely "hackers." Representatives for the unofficial iPhone Dev Team, however, disagree.

"While this announcement may cause some controversy and create headlines, we believe this impacts a small group of users, namely hackers," Wu wrote in a note to clients. "[B]ut we believe for the majority of users, the impact will be minimal, if any."

The analyst said Apple was likely compelled to take a strong stand on iPhone unlocking -- which enable the handsets to run on unauthorized carriers -- for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, he said, the company wants to ensure its mobile phone platform remains stable and secure.

Apple also has a an obligation to meet its contractual obligations with AT&T (and other European wireless carriers), Wu explained. Then, of course, there's also a financial incentive on the part of the iPhone maker to keep users on its authorized carriers, as it receives a portion of the monthly fees from iPhone users signed up with those carriers.

Not surprisingly, representatives from the unofficial iPhone Dev Team -- a group of programmers responsible for one of the most widely distributed iPhone unlocking solutions -- disagrees over the scope of the matter.

In statement released Tuesday, the group said download totals from its own iPhone unlocking tools suggest that "several hundred thousand" people have unlocked their iPhones in recent weeks.

"The removal of the lock, a bug, was a major step forward in the iPhone development," the group wrote. "It made the iPhone free and useful to anyone, not only to those in certain countries."

The Dev Team claims that iPhone unlocking tools do not cause "damage" as Apple would like some people to believe. Nevertheless, the group said it plans to release a tool in the next week that will enable unlocked iPhone users to restore their phone to a factory-like state. In the meantime it advise users against updating their unlocked iPhone with the upcoming Apple iPhone software update.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[physguy]

It seems to be a continuing misunderstanding between jailbreak and sim unlock. From the reports I've read this warning only applies to sim unlock, not jailbreak. I am, and would recommend, restoring the phone before upgrade but, again, I believe this warning is with respect to sim unlocking, which it not a 'bug'.

[nagromme]

So which is it? If the combination of iPhone OS changes and SIM unlocking do not cause any damage to the phone's function, then there's no need for relocking software nor to recommend that people not upgrade to Apple's newest feature additions.

How can they KNOW the new features won't break anything until they try? Sounds like they themselves feel there is a chance of something breaking (which of course there is, with or without Apple giving fair warning).

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"While this announcement may cause some controversy and create headlines, we believe this impacts a small group of users, namely hackers,"

Wu, Master of the Obvious

[John the Geek]

I went ahead and restored and re-"shackled" mine anyway just to be sure. I lost my NES.app (just Tetris really...) and I think I can live without it for a while longer.

=)

[EagerDragon]

It is all FUD, from both sides. Apple is trying to discourage people from unlocking the phone by putting fear on them, and the hacker community is trying to get more people to unlock, so they claim the problem would be very serious.

At least Apple gave people a warning before the release of the software.

Please update, im buying brick-ed phones at $0.10 each to build a new brick wall.

LOL

[racer162]

The reality is the federal gvmt made it legal to create unlocks for phones and what apple and ATT have done is basically make it so we have no choice. Being the owner of 2 iPhones one with att and one with another what apple is doing borders insanity and revolt. think about it if People but the phone which is the bottom line. What should it matter of the carrier. Jobs get a grip

[audiopollution]

What is the official AT&T stance on providing unlock codes for iPhones, once they have been on contract for 90 days?

[audiopollution]

Answered my own question.

Via https://www.wireless.att.com/support...t=KB82027.html

QUESTION:
What is the unlock code for my iPhone?
How do I unlock my iPhone?
What is the subsidy unlock code for my iPhone?
What is the subsidy password for my iPhone?

ANSWER:
iPhone cannot be unlocked, even if you are out of contract. If you are traveling internationally, iPhone is a quad-band phone and will work in many countries across the globe. Stay connected while traveling to over 190 countries, plus get discounted rates in over 80 of those countries when you sign up for AT&T World Traveler

So, if I'm to understand this fully ...

1) Pay 'unsubsidized' $400 for iPhone.
2) Sign 2-year contract.
3) Fulfill contract after 24 months.
4) Look at iPhone which is useless everywhere but AT&T, as phone will not be unlocked by AT&T.
5) Sign another contract.

WTF.

If the phone cannot be unlocked, why the insistence on a 2-year contract. Why not 1-year.

If the phone is locked to AT&T for it's lifetime, what's the point of having a 2-year contract when any subsequent sale of the phone by the original owner will only be to another person who will have to use it on AT&T.

Basically, by purchasing an iPhone you are signing a contract with AT&T for the entire lifetime of the phone.

Thinking out loud, here. Sorry.

[freeny]

I don't think Apple gives a rats ass if people unlock their phones. They have to say something negative about it or else it would seem as if they are condoning it.

I also don't think they care if those unlocked phones no longer function correctly. If you hack your phone its no longer under warranty and no longer apples problem.

Breaking your phone is not considered a "bug".

[melgross]

Originally Posted by racer162

The reality is the federal gvmt made it legal to create unlocks for phones and what apple and ATT have done is basically make it so we have no choice. Being the owner of 2 iPhones one with att and one with another what apple is doing borders insanity and revolt. think about it if People but the phone which is the bottom line. What should it matter of the carrier. Jobs get a grip

No, that's not what happened. The Registrar of Copyrights said that it would be ok for you to unlock your phone.

There is nothing there about third parties creating software, or other methods to either distribute, or to sell.

Doesn't matter much what you think. A company has the right to refuse to repair their product if it is modified, or used in a way that is outside their specified guidelines. Virtually every product you buy will say something to that effect.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by racer162

hink about it if People but the phone which is the bottom line. What should it matter of the carrier. Jobs get a grip

It matters to Apple because they reportedly get a percentage of the charges back. If you're buying the phone and then using it on a carrier other than AT&T, Apple doesn't get it's percentage.

Like Safari updates when you're running input manager hacks, just wait a while before upgrading for the developers to issue a new version which works with the Apple's update. What's the big deal?

The iPhone Dev Team also surely can't believe that all of their downloads equates to the same number of unlocked iPhones.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by aegisdesign

The iPhone Dev Team also surely can't believe that all of their downloads equates to the same number of unlocked iPhones.

They are playing their own little publicity game. We don't even know if they HAVE several hundred thousands downloads.

That would be a large proportion of the total sales of the phone!

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by racer162

The reality is the federal gvmt made it legal to create unlocks for phones and what apple and ATT have done is basically make it so we have no choice. Being the owner of 2 iPhones one with att and one with another what apple is doing borders insanity and revolt. think about it if People but the phone which is the bottom line. What should it matter of the carrier. Jobs get a grip

The reality is that your position needs someone who really knows the laws and the ins and outs of the federal government. You seem to have those abilities. You should lead the revolt. Go get 'em!

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...
Representatives for the unofficial iPhone Dev Team, however, disagree.
...
Not surprisingly, representatives from the unofficial iPhone Dev Team -- a group of programmers responsible for one of the most widely distributed iPhone unlocking solutions -- disagrees over the scope of the matter.

Ah, yes. TONS of credibility here. No conflict of interest at all.

These aren't the droids you're looking for...

[GQB]

Originally Posted by racer162

The reality is the federal gvmt made it legal to create unlocks for phones and what apple and ATT have done is basically make it so we have no choice. Being the owner of 2 iPhones one with att and one with another what apple is doing borders insanity and revolt. think about it if People but the phone which is the bottom line. What should it matter of the carrier. Jobs get a grip

Being legal to unlock is not the same as requiring that a company support unlocking to its own detriment.
The only point most are making is, don't whine when you convert your Prius to a plug-in, and then expect Toyota to honor its warranty.

[Eriamjh]

I'm not scared. Restoring a hacked iPhone is an easier hack than the hack was. Whatever they figured out how to do, they should be able to undo it.

And who cares? If it takes them 2 months to re-lock for the update, so what?

[pjg]

According to French law, customers MUST be allowed to unlock their mobile phone 6 months after starting their contract. Apple is about to start selling iPhones in France with Orange. So, I suspect this issue will be settled by then, if not before.

[onceuponamac]

I saw an article in the WSJ - and also received an email from Amazon - DRM free tracks for $.89 and $.99 - Universal and EMI - plus a couple of independent labels - Apple Insider hasn't picked this up - but it will be interesting to see the impact to Apple.

[dfiler]

Can you be more specific about french law? (genuinely curious)

Do manufacturers have to provide the means of unlocking? Or perhaps the service provider? Or perhaps it only has to be technically unlockable by a highly skilled third party?

Finally, perhaps service providers are only allowed to enforce a contract period of 6 months no matter whether their customer received a free phone.

With how much misinformation I hear about my own country, I don't know what to believe about others...

[DCJ001]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In statement released Tuesday, the group said download totals from its own iPhone unlocking tools suggest that "several hundred thousand" people have unlocked their iPhones in recent weeks.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

That's a big number representing a large percentage of the iPhones that have been sold to date.

Impossible.

[dfiler]

Yeah, "several hundred thousand" is complete bullshit. Either the person is a bold faced liar or a complete moron. And I normally give people the benefit of the doubt!

iPhone hacks are great but the face of the iPhone hacking community is unfortunately a bunch of immature whiners. Kind of a shame really.

[pjg]

I don't know the specific law. I lived in France for a year in 2005-06, and had a Nokia phone from Orange. I got a 1 year contract, and after six months I could ask Orange to unlock the phone for me. All my french friends told me this was the law in France. I have no reason to doubt them. If you've ever lived in France, such a law probably wouldn't surprise you. Maybe there are some French readers here who can give more details?

Originally Posted by dfiler

Can you be more specific about french law? (genuinely curious)

Do manufacturers have to provide the means of unlocking? Or perhaps the service provider? Or perhaps it only has to be technically unlockable by a highly skilled third party?

Finally, perhaps service providers are only allowed to enforce a contract period of 6 months no matter whether their customer received a free phone.

With how much misinformation I hear about my own country, I don't know what to believe about others...

[aaarrrgggh]

Originally Posted by audiopollution

Answered my own question.
WTF.

If the phone cannot be unlocked, why the insistence on a 2-year contract. Why not 1-year.

If the phone is locked to AT&T for it's lifetime, what's the point of having a 2-year contract when any subsequent sale of the phone by the original owner will only be to another person who will have to use it on AT&T.

Basically, by purchasing an iPhone you are signing a contract with AT&T for the entire lifetime of the phone.

I'll add to that one-- if it is locked for the life of the phone, why isn't there a warranty for the duration of your contract!?

The info from AT&T wasn't posted until after I purchased the phone and signed my contract AFAIK, a change from their previous policy on unlocking phones.

[aaarrrgggh]

Originally Posted by melgross

A company has the right to refuse to repair their product if it is modified, or used in a way that is outside their specified guidelines. Virtually every product you buy will say something to that effect.

They can void the warranty if you do something that "breaks" the unit. However, they can't take away your consumer rights. Their choosing to brick the units that have been unlocked (which sounds much more likely than the unlock interfering with the software update), is anti-consumer and would be punished. They don't have to repair it under warranty, but they are still liable for breaking your phone.

More and more, I'm thinking of sending mine back. Much of the functionality that I enjoy from my iPhone is provided by third party apps, and I don't plan to be in the US for the life of my iPhone. If unlocking it isn't acceptable to Apple, they can take it back.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh

They can void the warranty if you do something that "breaks" the unit. However, they can't take away your consumer rights. Their choosing to brick the units that have been unlocked (which sounds much more likely than the unlock interfering with the software update), is anti-consumer and would be punished. They don't have to repair it under warranty, but they are still liable for breaking your phone.

More and more, I'm thinking of sending mine back. Much of the functionality that I enjoy from my iPhone is provided by third party apps, and I don't plan to be in the US for the life of my iPhone. If unlocking it isn't acceptable to Apple, they can take it back.

You're making the same mistake others here are making. Apple said that they aren't going to deliberately do this, but with SOME of the unlocking software used. it could happen.

If they were deliberately doing it, they would have said that it would happen no matter what software you were using. They didn't.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by pjg

I don't know the specific law. I lived in France for a year in 2005-06, and had a Nokia phone from Orange. I got a 1 year contract, and after six months I could ask Orange to unlock the phone for me. All my french friends told me this was the law in France. I have no reason to doubt them. If you've ever lived in France, such a law probably wouldn't surprise you. Maybe there are some French readers here who can give more details?

Unfortunately that isn't clear enough to be mean much of anything. In my experience, most people have no clue how laws actually read. Instead, they remember the end result in a simplified model that makes sense to them.

I don't mean to insult you or your friends. Rather, it is just a common thing among the general public. For instance, ask ten people off the street of a single city, what a landlord has to do to evict a tenant? You'll get wildly different responses as to what the "law" is.

In your example, you're saying the service provider had to unlock the phone right? Or is Orange also a phone manufacturer? What would have happened if Orange refused to unlock the phone? Would that have been illegal, a breach of contract, both, or neither?

[TenoBell]

It is all FUD, from both sides.

What would it benefit Apple to spread FUD. People are going to attempt to hack no matter what, its doubtful Apple would scare many people out of hacking the phone if there really were no problems.

Apple knows the iPhone operating system better than anyone else. I would trust what they say over what the hacker community says. Since Apple has not yet released the code, the hacker community does not yet know what problems Apple is even talking about.

Developers have to continually fix compatibility/instability problems with software on the Mac. Which Apple does officially support. Why is it difficult to believe there are some serious problems with software on a closed platform that Apple does not openly support.

[pjg]

http://9to5mac.com/apple-orange-ipone-details-43252450

and the French Law is here...

http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/directions...fiches/b31.htm

Generally, my friends are rarely clueless!

Originally Posted by dfiler

Unfortunately that isn't clear enough to be mean much of anything. In my experience, most people have no clue how laws actually read. Instead, they remember the end result in a simplified model that makes sense to them.

I don't mean to insult you or your friends. Rather, it is just a common thing among the general public. For instance, ask ten people off the street of a single city, what a landlord has to do to evict a tenant? You'll get wildly different responses as to what the "law" is.

In your example, you're saying the service provider had to unlock the phone right? Or is Orange also a phone manufacturer? What would have happened if Orange refused to unlock the phone? Would that have been illegal, a breach of contract, both, or neither?

[Taskiss]

Apple doesn't force you to update your unlocked iPhone. Consider yourselves warned. Once you unlock it, they're not going to fix it for you, apparently.

[michaelb]

Originally Posted by DCJ001

That's a big number representing a large percentage of the iPhones that have been sold to date.

Impossible.

Maybe the numbers are small, maybe not.

It's hard to say how many people have Installer.app running, but an article by a programmer who has been active in the rapidly evolving 3rd party iPhone app development scene suggested the numbers were actually very large.
http://iphone.tuaw.com/2007/09/18/ip...-many-hackers/

(And memebers of this community are the ones that would know this, as they can measure downloads.)

If the update breaks Installer.app and other jailbreaking reliant apps, then a lot of people will be inclined to stay on the earlier firmware 1.0.2, *and* become extremely angry at Apple for being denied Safari bug fixes, interface tweaks, etc.

(I agree Apple certainly shouldn't devote resources to supporting 3rd party apps, but taking hostile action is another matter: that's actually devoting resources to counter the hacks, not just ignoring them.)

As for the SIM unlock specifically, those numbers are harder to know. But consider this:

In the official figures released for the days of the last quarter when the iPhone went on sale, Apple reported many more sales than AT&T did activations.

270,000 vs 146,000.

Now, some of these could be explained by people waiting until the following week to use their iPhone (though seriously, if you'd just queued to buy it, would you have the patience to wait?) Others, by glitches in the AT&T activation system forcing a wait (though I don't think the majority of these lasted longer than 12 hours).

But many were probably also bought up by Ebay sellers. A large number of Ebay sales are to international buyers. Just do an Ebay search and check the feedback of big sellers to see this.

And I know that some overseas residents were at an Apple Store on June 29. How do I know? I was one of them!

(If you go to the techy parts of cities in Europe and Asia, you'll actually see quite a few iPhones...)

More recently, when Apple officially announced they'd reached the 1 million mark, the whisper was that AT&T had achieved 600,000 activations.

1,000,000 vs 600,000.

Do the math.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by michaelb

Maybe the numbers are small, maybe not.

It's hard to say how many people have Installer.app running, but an article by a programmer who has been active in the rapidly evolving 3rd party iPhone app development scene suggested the numbers were actually very large.
http://iphone.tuaw.com/2007/09/18/ip...-many-hackers/

(And memebers of this community are the ones that would know this, as they can measure downloads.)

If the update breaks Installer.app and other jailbreaking reliant apps, then a lot of people will be inclined to stay on the earlier firmware 1.0.2, *and* become extremely angry at Apple for being denied Safari bug fixes, interface tweaks, etc.

(I agree Apple certainly shouldn't devote resources to supporting 3rd party apps, but taking hostile action is another matter: that's actually devoting resources to counter the hacks, not just ignoring them.)

As for the SIM unlock specifically, those numbers are harder to know. But consider this:

In the official figures released for the days of the last quarter when the iPhone went on sale, Apple reported many more sales than AT&T did activations.

270,000 vs 146,000.

Now, some of these could be explained by people waiting until the following week to use their iPhone (though seriously, if you'd just queued to buy it, would you have the patience to wait?) Others, by glitches in the AT&T activation system forcing a wait (though I don't think the majority of these lasted longer than 12 hours).

But many were probably also bought up by Ebay sellers. A large number of Ebay sales are to international buyers. Just do an Ebay search and check the feedback of big sellers to see this.

And I know that some overseas residents were at an Apple Store on June 29. How do I know? I was one of them!

(If you go to the techy parts of cities in Europe and Asia, you'll actually see quite a few iPhones...)

More recently, when Apple officially announced they'd reached the 1 million mark, the whisper was that AT&T had achieved 600,000 activations.

1,000,000 vs 600,000.

Do the math.

I don't trust any of these people who are making the phone hacks. They have good reason to make people think that many people are using them. It's doubtful that many are.

Most people who download software never install it, much less use it. This is even more difficult, because of the warnings posted with the software.

As far as the problems people were having in the first two, or so, days, I do believe that those people did install their phones correctly.
It would have been insane for them to have bought their phones on the supposition that someone, somewhere, somewhen, might possibly, get some hack to work that would allow the phone to function on another network.

If people were that dumb, then they deserve any problems they might now have.

eBay might have seen a few hundred iPhones up for sale. When I looked, there were a few dozen, not thousands.

Please don'T use "whisper" numbers spread by people who only want to badmouth the situation. It is as reliable as the rest of what you've written down.

[McDave]

Originally Posted by EagerDragon

It is all FUD, from both sides. Apple is trying to discourage people from unlocking the phone by putting fear on them, and the hacker community is trying to get more people to unlock, so they claim the problem would be very serious.

At least Apple gave people a warning before the release of the software.

...why consumers shouldn't listen to hackers & technophiles trying to hijack a product to take it in their own direction. The hackers get what they deserve, the consumers are mugged again!

McD

[VL-Tone]

To anyone that believes that Apple will deliberately brick unlocked iPhones, explain me this:

How come Apple warned that only SOME of the unlocking methods would cause this problem, implying that the other methods won't cause bricking?

If Apple got out of their way to thwart unlocking applications, they would target ALL methods not just two specific ones. It would be probably much easier and logical for them to brick every iPhone with hacked SIM settings than to target only two specific methods.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by VL-Tone

To anyone that believes that Apple will deliberately brick unlocked iPhones, explain me this:

How come Apple warned that only SOME of the unlocking methods would cause this problem, implying that the other methods won't cause bricking?

If Apple got out of their way to thwart unlocking applications, they would target ALL methods not just two specific ones. It would be probably much easier and logical for them to brick every iPhone with hacked SIM settings than to target only two specific methods.

Yes, I brought that up earlier.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by michaelb

Maybe the numbers are small, maybe not.

It's hard to say how many people have Installer.app running, but an article by a programmer who has been active in the rapidly evolving 3rd party iPhone app development scene suggested the numbers were actually very large.
http://iphone.tuaw.com/2007/09/18/ip...-many-hackers/

(And memebers of this community are the ones that would know this, as they can measure downloads.)

If the update breaks Installer.app and other jailbreaking reliant apps, then a lot of people will be inclined to stay on the earlier firmware 1.0.2, *and* become extremely angry at Apple for being denied Safari bug fixes, interface tweaks, etc.

(I agree Apple certainly shouldn't devote resources to supporting 3rd party apps, but taking hostile action is another matter: that's actually devoting resources to counter the hacks, not just ignoring them.)

As for the SIM unlock specifically, those numbers are harder to know. But consider this:

In the official figures released for the days of the last quarter when the iPhone went on sale, Apple reported many more sales than AT&T did activations.

270,000 vs 146,000.

Now, some of these could be explained by people waiting until the following week to use their iPhone (though seriously, if you'd just queued to buy it, would you have the patience to wait?) Others, by glitches in the AT&T activation system forcing a wait (though I don't think the majority of these lasted longer than 12 hours).

But many were probably also bought up by Ebay sellers. A large number of Ebay sales are to international buyers. Just do an Ebay search and check the feedback of big sellers to see this.

And I know that some overseas residents were at an Apple Store on June 29. How do I know? I was one of them!

(If you go to the techy parts of cities in Europe and Asia, you'll actually see quite a few iPhones...)

More recently, when Apple officially announced they'd reached the 1 million mark, the whisper was that AT&T had achieved 600,000 activations.

1,000,000 vs 600,000.

Do the math.

WalMart is running a 2 for 1 special on tinfoil.

[fvdveen]

The same situation occured 20 years ago, when the Macintosh was a completely closed system, not accessible by the outside world.

Since, Apple has learned that using public domain solutions (FreeBSD, SAMBA, Apache, JAVA etc. etc.) brings them into a far more profitable situation.

Now, it seems that this learning has to start all over again with their iPhone.

Imagine how many iPhones would already have been sold world-wide if Apple would not have sticked so much to their "one operator only" policy?

The European market would have been open already since June 2007. What a profit would it have been to sell the iPhone to early adopters for 600 Euros, by just releasing it to the normal retail channels?

Apple is now still struggling to get their place in Europe due to this too strict policy.

Come on, Apple! LEARN!

[doemel]

Originally Posted by pjg

http://9to5mac.com/apple-orange-ipone-details-43252450

and the French Law is here...

http://www.minefi.gouv.fr/directions...fiches/b31.htm

Generally, my friends are rarely clueless!

And for those of you who don't speak/understand French, here's a rough translation:

SIM locking is a authorized procedure in France in order to prevent fraudsters and thieves reselling the phone in France or abroad. It keeps a cell phone from being used on a network other than the one the SIM card was issued for. [so much for the basics but you all knew that]
Nevertheless, after a 6 month period, the operators [of the network] are obliged, on the customer's request, to freely provide the code to unlock the phone.

Or so.

Don't judge me too much on my French, it's becoming somewhat rusty.

As for the ligitimicy of this information: It comes directly from a French government body's website, the Directorate of competition, consumption and the repression of frauds.

Anyways, it will be highly entertaining to see what creative solutions Apple will come up with to accomodate the laws in the consumer friendly European countries.

edit: Just saw they did the translation already on 9to5mac. I feel so embarrassed now...

[singletrack]

Originally Posted by doemel

And for those of you who don't speak/understand French, here's a rough translation:

SIM locking is a authorized procedure in France in order to prevent fraudsters and thieves reselling the phone in France or abroad. It keeps a cell phone from being used on a network other than the one the SIM card was issued for. [so much for the basics but you all knew that]
Nevertheless, after a 6 month period, the operators [of the network] are obliged, on the customer's request, to freely provide the code to unlock the phone.

Or so.

Don't judge me too much on my French, it's becoming somewhat rusty.

As for the ligitimicy of this information: It comes directly from a French government body's website, the Directorate of competition, consumption and the repression of frauds.

Anyways, it will be highly entertaining to see what creative solutions Apple will come up with to accomodate the laws in the consumer friendly European countries.

edit: Just saw they did the translation already on 9to5mac. I feel so embarrassed now...

Your french is fine (it's the english you need to worry about....try "legitimacy"...)

While it is six months in France by law, it is zero months in Belgium and Luxemburg - where simlocking is not allowed. How many European markets does Apple intend to ignore while users cross the border, buy phones and unlock them? Won't take long for someone's competition authority to haul them into court... If Apple want to play in the EU, they'll have to play by EU rules.

[dfiler]

Thanks for the translation.

So if the carrier is required to be to unlock the phone upon request after 6 months, that puts them in a bind when they aren't the manufacturer of the phone. That leads me to believe that the carrier would negotiate a contract with Apple that spells out what happens if Apple doesn't (or can't) provide the unlock mechanism in time.

My bet is that they already have such functionality built in or ready to go for a future firmware update. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll give consumers the ability to unlock phones at whim. I could see it being only possible via a triggering message sent via the current carrier's network.

In the long run though, I don't think apple is for "locked" phones. I think the current situation makes sense for them because of a number of factors. The iPhone roll-out was fairly smooth considering it was apple's first experience in selling a million mobile phones. Imagine how many more horror stories would have been posted in various forums if Apple had gone with 6 carriers instead of one for the roll-out. Providing support would have difficult for a company with zero experience in the mobile phone market. Also, Apple needed some insurance that they'd have a carrier for the iPhone for at least a few years. Exclusivity was probably the only way to land such an assurance.

In my opinion, locked phones are a business tool Apple needed to enter the market. After gaining a foothold though, I doubt Apple will need any form of locking.

On the other hand, hacking really doesn't seem like a concern of Apple's whatsoever. It doesn't go against any of the likely motives they had for using an exclusive carriers. To me it seems like hacking doesn't even enter their train of thought. Updates might break hacks simply because Apple isn't even looking at the hacks let alone testing for compatibility. There aren't enough hackers to make it worth their while.