or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Unlocked iPhones may total 1 million, see help from insiders
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unlocked iPhones may total 1 million, see help from insiders - Page 2

post #41 of 74
there will be more unlocked phones in the second hand market with 16gb released and next model when it is released (may be wwdc )

i am going to get 8gb iPhone for $250 and use ATT (i choose att for data plan) and unlock it to use in other countries

there will be flood of (1st and second hand) iphones once 3g iPhones are released ...

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #42 of 74
there are LOT OTHER (like turbosim;stealthsim and so on) people are making money out of this iPhone not just Apple only ... strange enough

and countries like singapore it is selling 1.5th (s$800 upwards) of its price ($399) and LOT OTHERS are making money on these...

i wonder when apple will set iPhone free like what he did with music

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #43 of 74
So, Apple gives AT&T a few hundred million dolars, and makes the phone available to EVERYONE!

It stops or at least slows down Black-market, Hacked phones sales, and increases sales of the iPhone by a number that is scary. Even scarier if it's a 3G phone.

I think we'll all agree, this is one time Steve wishes he hadn't signed such a long contract. Someone (AT&T) actually pulled a "Steve Jobs" by getting this contract … it's win-win for them and not so for Apple?

Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?

Skip
post #44 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee View Post

So, Apple gives AT&T a few hundred million dolars, and makes the phone available to EVERYONE!

It stops or at least slows down Black-market, Hacked phones sales, and increases sales of the iPhone by a number that is scary. Even scarier if it's a 3G phone.

I think we'll all agree, this is one time Steve wishes he hadn't signed such a long contract. Someone (AT&T) actually pulled a "Steve Jobs" by getting this contract it's win-win for them and not so for Apple?

Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?

Skip

Nice points. I think Apple made a dumb move with AT&T.
post #45 of 74
Quote:
Considering that China Telecom (not sure of the proper name) did not leap at this wonderful deal and arguably they have about the largest potential phone market on the planet. But once again, this is all speculation.

Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.

Quote:
They get paid no matter what. AT&T can build a 4G network and it really will not matter if people churn (go to other networks). The only winners in this war are the equipment guys, which Apple happens to be.

I don't know why you keep brining ATT into this. Unlocked phones anywhere but the US have nothing to do with ATT because they only offer service in the US.

The churn rate does not necessarily mean ATT is only loosing customers. They are gaining more than they are loosing.

Quote:
In London you see quite a lot of people using an iPhone - even though O2 reportedly only sold some 70.000+. I would guess the unlocked figure is at least as high if not higher.

O2 signed 190,000 to iPhone contracts. I've made this point also. The carrier sign ups only reveal demand for the iPhone on that carrier. It does not reveal the total demand for the iPhone in general.

Quote:
Yes Apple is selling iPhones, but how many would they sell, if they were available at just about every cell phone company?

The business model Apple is using for the iPhone isn't about selling as many iPhones as they can. If it were why would Apple place a limit on the number of iPhones one person can buy, or limit iPhone sales to credit cards instead of cash.

Apple wants to have total control of the iPhone experience and its development.

Quote:
Nice points. I think Apple made a dumb move with AT&T.

What difference would it have really made to sell unlocked phones in the US? The only other alternative is T-Mobile and they have around 29 million subscribers vs ATT 70 million subscribers.
post #46 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.



I don't know why you keep brining ATT into this. Any locked phones anywhere but the US have nothing to do with ATT because they only offer service in the US.

A high churn rate does not necessarily mean ATT is only loosing customers. They can still be gaining more than they are loosing.



O2 signed 190,000 to iPhone contracts. I've made this point also. The carrier sign ups only reveal demand for the iPhone on that carrier. It does not reveal the total demand for the iPhone in general.

Sorry to ask but, what position are you trying to argue?

Also, do you think O2 would have signed those contracts if buyers had other opportunities, or AT&T would have sold as many?
post #47 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

In the US, there's not much of an alternative carrier, that alternative has less coverage and a rep for worse customer service. Elsewhere, I think it's first a matter of whether it's available "white market", and maybe second, whether you agree with the available plans.

If I'm reading this statement correctly, what kind of crack are you smoking? AT&T notoriously has the worst rated customer service. Maybe Sprint is worse (big deal).
post #48 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Just a rough calculation:

1.5 iPhones x $399.00 (suggested price of US iPhone) = $598,500,000 = Smiling Steve Jobs

By the way, I am more than sure that Apple saw this unlocking, locking issue coming on the horizon.

You're missing two crucial points. First, the number of unlocked iPhones has to be way above anything Apple initially calculated for. Secondly, Apple looses monthly revenue from each iPhone not activated on one of their partners' network.

I, for one, am not surprised at all by the high number of unlocked iPhones, but I do not think Apple (or AT&T for that matter) expected that as many as 1-in-4 iPhones would be unlocked. (I think that number is closer to 30-35% myself).

My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company. But I think both companies are sincerely surprised by what has happened, and that we'll see more aggressive locking attempts in the near future.

The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.

I say-and have said since the iPhone rumor stage-that this arrangement is plain wrong. I suggested that that the carrier, in this case AT&T, earn the iPhone activation by offering exclusive features, for example.

But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.

That said, Apple has a reason to keep iPhones locked. They earn monthly revenue stream from each legitimately activated iPhone. Estimates are that Apple earns as much as $10/ from each handset, so Apple actually doesn't smile, necessarily, when they sell an iPhone that is destined to be unlocked.

It's this arrangement with partner networks that ensures that Apple take steps to keep the iPhone locked.

For the record, I think locking handsets is total bullshi*, and asked that the iPhone ship unlocked long before the iPhone shipped (when iPhone rumors were very young). That didn't happen and I think that a locked iPhone hurts everyone involved from Apple to AT&T to customers to shareholders.

And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case. Apple clearly has a problem on their hands, and as I've said from the beginning, it's their fault: they should have shipped the iPhone unlocked from the beginning. As a shareholder, I hope Apple proves me wrong on this.
post #49 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by cherrypop View Post

You're missing two crucial points. First, the number of unlocked iPhones has to be way above anything Apple initially calculated for. Secondly, Apple looses monthly revenue from each iPhone not activated on one of their partners' network.

I, for one, am not surprised at all by the high number of unlocked iPhones, but I do not think Apple (or AT&T for that matter) expected that as many as 1-in-4 iPhones would be unlocked. (I think that number is closer to 30-35% myself).

My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company. But I think both companies are sincerely surprised by what has happened, and that we'll see more aggressive locking attempts in the near future.

The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.

I say-and have said since the iPhone rumor stage-that this arrangement is plain wrong. I suggested that that the carrier, in this case AT&T, earn the iPhone activation by offering exclusive features, for example.

But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.

That said, Apple has a reason to keep iPhones locked. They earn monthly revenue stream from each legitimately activated iPhone. Estimates are that Apple earns as much as $10/ from each handset, so Apple actually doesn't smile, necessarily, when they sell an iPhone that is destined to be unlocked.

It's this arrangement with partner networks that ensures that Apple take steps to keep the iPhone locked.

For the record, I think locking handsets is total bullshi*, and asked that the iPhone ship unlocked long before the iPhone shipped (when iPhone rumors were very young). That didn't happen and I think that a locked iPhone hurts everyone involved from Apple to AT&T to customers to shareholders.

And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case. Apple clearly has a problem on their hands, and as I've said from the beginning, it's their fault: they should have shipped the iPhone unlocked from the beginning. As a shareholder, I hope Apple proves me wrong on this.


Nice post cherrypop. Great realization of the situation. Pretty soon a few Apple apologists will show up claiming how wonderful the locking of phones is and the great benefits that customers get with a locked phone. Locked phones, locked platform, locked OS's are not a benefit to anyone but the creators of these devices and software. Yup. Apple is in deep kemchi here for sure. They have an option to "really" lock out $399 to $499 guaranteed for each iPhone or a gamble with AT&T signing up customers (this goes for the other partners as well). Also, let's not forget the other phone guys are not going to just sit back. Nokia's TS UI phone is pretty nice as well and offers a ton more "real" phone features that users have been asking for.
post #50 of 74
Quote:
Sorry to ask but, what position are you trying to argue?

The position of truth, not a position of hyperbole.

Quote:
Also, do you think O2 would have signed those contracts if buyers had other opportunities, or AT&T would have sold as many?

I don't know how popular O2 is in the UK. The only alternative in the US is T-Mobile and they don't seem as popular as ATT.

Quote:
If I'm reading this statement correctly, what kind of crack are you smoking? AT&T notoriously has the worst rated customer service. Maybe Sprint is worse (big deal).

With 70 million subscribers ATT is doing something right.
post #51 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The position of truth, not a position of hyperbole.


Insert, circular argument.
post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Also, let's not forget the other phone guys are not going to just sit back. Nokia's TS UI phone is pretty nice as well and offers a ton more "real" phone features that users have been asking for.

Very good point. Another reason, clearly, why Apple looses when shipping a locked handset.

A one year exclusive with AT&T might have made sense, but the rumored (as it's never been formerly announced that I know of) 5 to 8 years will really give other handset makers an advantage.

The argument from the beginning has been that Apple needed to partner with a carrier "to learn the business." I think that might have applied to the mobile business in the 80's and 90's, but not anymore, as unlocked handsets are the norm in markets where networks are the most advanced.
post #53 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

With 70 million subscribers ATT is doing something right.

Windows has how much of the market? Doesn't mean they necessarily do it right.
post #54 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by beingnickb View Post

Windows has how much of the market? Doesn't mean they necessarily do it right.

I had problems with Cingular from years past but have been an extremely satisfied customer since getting my iPhone 6 months ago.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #55 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by cherrypop View Post

Very good point. Another reason, clearly, why Apple looses when shipping a locked handset.

A one year exclusive with AT&T might have made sense, but the rumored (as it's never been formerly announced that I know of) 5 to 8 years will really give other handset makers an advantage.

The argument from the beginning has been that Apple needed to partner with a carrier "to learn the business." I think that might have applied to the mobile business in the 80's and 90's, but not anymore, as unlocked handsets are the norm in markets where networks are the most advanced.

Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.
post #56 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.

While I agree that is does set a precedence, they are also breaking the precedence that cell phones should be subsidized devices with only features sanctioned by the carrier. Furthermore, I don't think it will be hard to sell the iPhone as an unlocked device through any electronics retailer once the contractual period is.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #57 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Exactly. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent with this forced locking issue.

iphone sales are iphone sales. unlocked phones show proof there is a much larger demand out there. When iphone lock contracts run out down the road, the iphone will literally be everywhere... legally and legit.

people want iphones so bad they go through the trouble of aftermarket unlocking. do you see this type of deman for sidekicks or blackberries (where people go through all that trouble just for a phone)? No, you don't.
post #58 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbwright View Post

You're missing a crucial point. The vast majority of unlocked phones would never have been legitimate sales if unlocking weren't an option as many are going abroad. Only a small percentage of unlocked handsets are in use in official iPhone countries, and of these, although some may have wanted the iPhone 'at any cost', surely they would just pay the official price anyway? Even in official countries, those with the iPhone unlocked are those unwilling to pay the official price or to be locked in to an 18 month agreement - they would have simply purchased a different phone if they couldn't have unlocked an iPhone.

So unlocking IS win-win for Apple. Better receive a lower amount for a phone that will then be unlocked than receive nothing because the purchaser decided to buy something actually available in their country, or something cheaper in an official iPhone country.

No, I didn't miss the point. I just didn't address that point. I was replying to nvidia who didn't see what the financial analysts were afraid of. I pointed out that 1.3 billion dollars in potentially lost revenue would make any financial analyst look up and take notice.

Now as far as the rest of the discussion. In another thread I wondered who first presented the idea that Apple should get ongoing monthly fees for every iPhone account. Apple or ATT? Was Apple squeezing ATT for more money at the cost of cutting their customer base? Or did ATT offer ongoing fees as a way to bribe Apple to stay out of the gray market? Who benefits by the locking/unlocking of the iPhones?
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #59 of 74
Quote:
My guess is that Apple and AT&T sat at the negotiating table and estimated that perhaps as many as 10% would be unlocked, as a certain number is inevitable, and wouldn't really hurt either company.

The situation is out of hand, and I think it's going to be up to Apple to fix it. Clearly Apple has an exclusive relationship with AT&T which requires Apple to take steps to prevent AT&T from loosing revenue, and AT&T is likely putting pressure on Apple to enforce their end of the deal. But, as I point out below, given the agreement between the companies, Apple wins when they keep the iPhone locked, so that will grease the wheels, so to speak.

But that's not the reality. Apple has an exclusive with AT&T and I fully expect to see Apple make it harder and harder to unlock the iPhone starting as soon as 1.1.4.

And if Apple and AT&T think 25% of iPhones running around unlocked is bad, wait for the 3G iPhone. I would toss out an unlocking estimate of 50-60% in that case.

These aren't good points. This is nothing but speculation, conjecture, and assumption based on no supporting facts.

There is no evidence ATT is putting pressure on Apple to stop phone unlocking. Why would they? The far majority of unlocked phones are in other countries.

What would Apple do in 1.1.4 that they have not already done? Why would they suddenly take some drastic action that they have not already taken?

Most of the unlocked phones are in countries that have no official support for the iPhone. In that case your only option to use one is unlocked.

Your unlocking projection is ridiculous.
post #60 of 74
Quote:
Insert, circular argument.

I don't see the circle.

Quote:
Windows has how much of the market? Doesn't mean they necessarily do it right.

There is no way to dominate 90% of a free market unless you did somethings very much right. Windows provided solutions that the market needed and no other OS available was able to provide.

In the case of AT&T. They added 10 million new customers in one year. You don't add that many new customers unless you are doing something right. AT&T now has over one third of the 253 million mobile phone users in the US.
post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

These aren't good points. This is nothing but speculation, conjecture, and assumption based on no supporting facts.

There is no evidence ATT is putting pressure on Apple to stop phone unlocking. Why would they? The far majority of unlocked phones are in other countries.

What would Apple do in 1.1.4 that they have not already done? Why would they suddenly take some drastic action that they have not already taken?

Most of the unlocked phones are in countries that have no official support for the iPhone. In that case your only option to use one is unlocked.

Your unlocking projection is ridiculous.

You have a good point. Considering that they broke the security in the SECPAC, I am not sure what else they can do, and as you state there is no evidence that Apple is going to even try. If they can still make money on iPhones without annoying their partners, I am sure this is the path they will go.
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.

You don't get it. Apple doesn't need to make an "offer" for the discussions to break down.

Apple: We want to sell the iPhone through China Mobile, but you will need to split the contract profits.

CM: We don't split profits. And our customers won't buy a locked phone.

Apple: This idea would benefit us both. AT&T in the US projected profits of a gazillion dollars in the first year, and 6 gazillion in the second year, with year-on-year growth for the duration of the contract.

CM: This is not the US market. Our customers will not buy a locked phone without the intention of hacking it. Our customers do not sign on to 18 month contracts. We will sell your iPhone just like we sell any other phones. Unlocked, with a contract-free option.

Apple: No. We will only sell the iPhone through you if we can share the profits. And the phone must be locked, with an 18 month contract.

CM: Well then I guess you won't sell it through us.


I have a strong belief that something exactly like this went down.
post #63 of 74
Apple could could be making it tougher for the unlockers and jailbreakers. But they aren't.

Instead of bricking unlocked phone with each and every update they went out of their way and warned that a particular firmware update would brick unlocked iPhones. And then, with the next firmware update they fixed the phones that were bricked.

Instead of tweaking the OS with each update to screw with third party apps Apple does nothing.

No, Apple is not concerned or upset about unlocking or jailbreaking the iPhones.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Apple could could be making it tougher for the unlockers and jailbreakers. But they aren't.

Instead of bricking unlocked phone with each and every update they went out of their way and warned that a particular firmware update would brick unlocked iPhones. And then, with the next firmware update they fixed the phones that were bricked.

Instead of tweaking the OS with each update to screw with third party apps Apple does nothing.

No, Apple is not concerned or upset about unlocking or jailbreaking the iPhones.

Could it be that we are all correct in that locked or unlocked this is a win-win for Apple? Unlocked they get cash in hand, while locked the cash take another route. They get paid no matter what happens as long as the phone is purchased.
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You don't get it. Apple doesn't need to make an "offer" for the discussions to break down.

Apple: We want to sell the iPhone through China Mobile, but you will need to split the contract profits.

CM: We don't split profits. And our customers won't buy a locked phone.

Apple: This idea would benefit us both. AT&T in the US projected profits of a gazillion dollars in the first year, and 6 gazillion in the second year, with year-on-year growth for the duration of the contract.

CM: This is not the US market. Our customers will not buy a locked phone without the intention of hacking it. Our customers do not sign on to 18 month contracts. We will sell your iPhone just like we sell any other phones. Unlocked, with a contract-free option.

Apple: No. We will only sell the iPhone through you if we can share the profits. And the phone must be locked, with an 18 month contract.

CM: Well then I guess you won't sell it through us.


I have a strong belief that something exactly like this went down.

tonton,
You are making the assumption that it is Apple that is driving this business model. It could be ATT. To keep iPhones off of T-Mobiles' network ATT could had insisted that Apple not sell unlocked phones anywhere in the world. (Yes I know about Germany, but that was by court order not by agreement.) If so, your conversation may had gone the way you wrote but there would had been no way that Apple could had agreed to China Mobiles' terms.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

tonton,
You are making the assumption that it is Apple that is driving this business model. It could be ATT. To keep iPhones off of T-Mobiles' network ATT could had insisted that Apple not sell unlocked phones anywhere in the world. (Yes I know about Germany, but that was by court order not by agreement.) If so, your conversation may had gone the way you wrote but there would had been no way that Apple could had agreed to China Mobiles' terms.

I tend to agree with tonton. As pointed out, Finland had a chance for the iPhone but as it was not 3G, it is illegal to have as long as it is tied to a subscription. The Finns would not change the law to suit Apple so there was nothing further to discuss. When Nokia released the N95 here, many operators tried to tie it with a subscription but many opted to pay full price for it rather than being tied down for 24 months.
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Could it be that we are all correct in that locked or unlocked this is a win-win for Apple? Unlocked they get cash in hand, while locked the cash take another route. They get paid no matter what happens as long as the phone is purchased.

But we are talking about two piles of cash here. The first pile is the initial purchase. Apple gets that if the phone stays locked or is unlocked. The second pile is a monthly fee that Apple gets only with locked phones. And as I pointed out earlier this is a substantial amount. It appears that Apple isn't very upset about losing portions of this second pile.

But if this second pile cash that Apple is not collecting is from purchases in countries were Apple does not have a network partner, it doesn't exist and Apple is not losing anything. Plus they do get to collect the first pile of cash.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

But if this second pile cash that Apple is not collecting is from purchases in countries were Apple does not have a network partner, it doesn't exist and Apple is not losing anything. Plus they do get to collect the first pile of cash.

Yes, the old "bird in the hand" argument.

If Apple can get x amount for sure vs. x amount based on an variables (AT&T signing up people, people willing to switc, etc....), Apple said "show me the money".
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

I tend to agree with tonton. As pointed out, Finland had a chance for the iPhone but as it was not 3G, it is illegal to have as long as it is tied to a subscription. The Finns would not change the law to suit Apple so there was nothing further to discuss. When Nokia released the N95 here, many operators tried to tie it with a subscription but many opted to pay full price for it rather than being tied down for 24 months.

sapporobaby
I don't think we are far apart here, just coming at it from different angles. Your example of Finland doesn't mater if by contract with ATT Apple can not sell unlocked iPhones. Apple would approach networks everywhere, including Finland, with locked phones and the ATT business model. If, like in Finland, it is illegal to sell locked phones Apple and the local network would be unable to come to an agreement and Apple would not be able to sell iPhones in that country.

I am getting stronger in my belief that locking the iPhones is an ATT idea. They, with their local competitiveness, are the only beneficiaries to the locked iPhone.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

sapporobaby
I don't think we are far apart here, just coming at it from different angles. Your example of Finland doesn't mater if by contract with ATT Apple can not sell unlocked iPhones. Apple would approach networks everywhere, including Finland, with locked phones and the ATT business model. If, like in Finland, it is illegal to sell locked phones Apple and the local network would be unable to come to an agreement and Apple would not be able to sell iPhones in that country.

I am getting stronger in my belief that locking the iPhones is an ATT idea. They, with their local competitiveness, are the only beneficiaries to the locked iPhone.

Hi aresee,

Our angles have converged. I am 2.9239348384776 blazillion percet sure that AT&T is behind this. If Apple is true to its mantra of "Think Different", they would like nothing less than to have unlocked phones by the millions out there. However, I will say that I think in there desire to enter the market, they made a deal with the devil. It could be that they were unsure of the selling potential of the device and wanted to spread the risk. Now that the iPhone is a hit, Apple has shown they do not really need any operator to sell iPhones.
post #71 of 74
If that's the case then the rest of the world simply needs to wait for the ATT contract to expire.

I don't think we'll get an official iPhone release anywhere in Asia, except maybe Japan, until that happens.
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

No, I didn't miss the point. I just didn't address that point. I was replying to nvidia who didn't see what the financial analysts were afraid of. I pointed out that 1.3 billion dollars in potentially lost revenue would make any financial analyst look up and take notice.

Now as far as the rest of the discussion. In another thread I wondered who first presented the idea that Apple should get ongoing monthly fees for every iPhone account. Apple or ATT? Was Apple squeezing ATT for more money at the cost of cutting their customer base? Or did ATT offer ongoing fees as a way to bribe Apple to stay out of the gray market? Who benefits by the locking/unlocking of the iPhones?

The simple point that I was making is that a high percentage of unlocked iPhone sales are sales that Apple would never have had if the iPhone had been impossible to unlock. Therefore there is no 1.3 billion lost revenue as that figure assumes that those unlocking their iPhones would otherwise have taken a legitimate partner carrier contract.
post #73 of 74
This is hilarious. Courtesy of Google, just below the posting of the 1 million unlocked iPhones there's on my computer an ad for unlocking the iPhone.

OF COURSE there are so many unlocked phones. Here in Europe I have a several friends who use the iPhone, cracked and unlocked. Apple must have foreseen this when they decided to go exclusive on the rest of the world, which was stupid.

Give us a 3G/HSDPA, unlocked iPhone with open software platform and then take over the market completely.
/p
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbwright View Post

The simple point that I was making is that a high percentage of unlocked iPhone sales are sales that Apple would never have had if the iPhone had been impossible to unlock. Therefore there is no 1.3 billion lost revenue as that figure assumes that those unlocking their iPhones would otherwise have taken a legitimate partner carrier contract.

Ah, but that's not the way the money people in the record industry, Hollywood and Wall Street see it. They focus on that 1.3 billion in uncollected revenue and see it as a loss. They see all you unlockers as thieves. Now you and I (and maybe Apple) see this as an outside revenue source bring in extra money that would not have been there if it wasn't for the unlockers.

BTW, last week a non-Mac news organization (was it the NYT?) ran an article that the unlocking hackers were getting inside help. Maybe the blue-box ethos hasn't gone completely away.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Unlocked iPhones may total 1 million, see help from insiders