“The legal status of unlocking an Apple iPhone is somewhat murky, as the main law in this area is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forbids the circumvention of copy-protection technology. But last year the copyright office created an exemption ‘for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network,'” Richard Koman reports for NewsFactor.
“The battle of the iPhone hackers erupted over the weekend, after teenager George Holz released a YouTube video showing his iPhone connecting to the T-Mobile network. Apple’s iPhones come locked so they only operate with AT&T’s network,” Koman reports.
“Following Holz’s announcement on Friday, several other groups announced software hacks [including] iPhoneSimFree [and iPhoneUnlocking who intended to sell the software],” Koman reports.
The law “clearly protects people like Holz, who has said his sole interest in the hacking project was to be able to use his iPhone on his family’s T-Mobile service. But the DMCA might not protect groups such as iPhoneSimFree and iPhoneUnlocking,” Koman reports.
Full article here.
If ATT gave out unlock codes to iPhone users as they do for other phones, this would not be a problem.
For Business travelers, ATT Roaming rates are extremely high even with their “World Traveler” plan.
One thing I noticed is that when you first use the iPhone after you wake up, it accesses the EDGE network first and stars downloading, before it switches to a Wifi network.
There appears no way to turn Edge off like you can turn WiFi off when you are traveling. You can be hit with a huge data bill when outside the US without knowing it.
More Money For Apple.
ATT will be the only one trying to stop this if at all.
Don’t forget that reverse engineering (something essential to all methods so far) is probably included in the agreement of all who activate their phones. Breaking that contract is breaking the law.
@Illegal
It’s a breach of contract, not against the law. Never heard of a law that covers private contracts. I doubt the Feds would show up at your door if you broke a EULA.
Think about it!
FREE THE iPHONE!!!
It’s about customer choice.
1: Customers don’t like being ripped of features. iMove ’08
2: Customers don’t like a glossy screen only option.
3: Customers don’t like phones that are locked to only one carrier.
Apple is starting to strike out.
Everything is eventually about money…so why doesn’t Apple just allow other networks to join the party? They’ll get more customers and therefore more money.
Just imagine how many people would buy iPhones if it was available to Verizon and T-Mobile! Steve’s precious stock numbers would shoot through the roof.
@ M@c,
Yes, it is all about money. That’s why Apple would rather not have the iPhone hacked. It would increase sales, but it would eliminate the shared revenue that they are getting from AT&T for iPhone users. That can add up to a significant amount.
@ M@c
Because Apple had to sign an exclusive contract with AT&T in order to get them to make the network modifications that make the iPhone experience what it is (one of those things is voicemail).
If I pay $600 for an iPhone, I should be able to strap it to my forehead if I want to. The idea that the seller can severely restrict what you do with an item of merchandise when you leave the store is absurd.
Steve was never concerned about stock, that was partly what has held Apple (AAPL) back, he has little regard for the merchants and dissed The Street one time in an interview, I bet that pissed them.
The Street thinks they know best and they control the purse strings of the avaricious, often they are care about control than profit (you need to understand the VERY BIG picture). Most of The Street profits from the number of transactions rather than stock value gains, that’s the shareholders, volatility hence high volumes of stock trades is good for the merchants (bad for investors).
Some Street members are however coming to realize that a company that serves it’s customers first can be a good company for investors. Maybe not as good as volatile companies whose shareholders are in for the quick profit and trade a lot and hence produce a lot of commissions.
The limiting of the market to at&t is more complex, the service providers needed to upgrade their systems to provide the customer service Apple was looking for. Maybe the others (I understand at&t were second choice) were looking at their short term downturn in profits whilst they invested. Battery life was also an issue in selecting networks, it was a very complicated judgment.
iPhone has achieved an unparalleled satisfaction rating, it seems to me Apple got it just about right. New features etc will be added as and when possible which includes other service providers catering for a better service for their customers.
@Newyorkrules,
Perhaps you should read the license agreement rather than just clicking through without reading. If you did, you would see what you are agreeing to.
It’s not a matter of whether you paid $600, $2 or $10,000. You made the free choice to purchase and accept the terms. If you don’t like the terms, don’t purchase. These business deals (Apple/AT&T) are set up for a reason. You don’t have to like it.
Go find another company that invests hundreds of millions into a phone (Apple) and a network (AT&T) that is willing to give you free reign. I bet you would be paying a hell of a lot more than $600.
Wake up people and stop acting like the world friggin owes you something.
Sheesh!!!!!!
Americans just have it too easy these days. For years, we had to fight for rights – slavery had to be abolished, women’s suffrage, the abolition of Jim Crow laws, civil rights, a great depression had to be overcome, World Wars had to be fought…
Now, our big fight is to “free the iPhone”.
Consumers do have a choice, Glossy. They can choose to be responsible buyers and read the conditions and capabilities of what they purchase. If you don’t like AT&T, there are dozens of other phones out there from other carriers to choose from. There is no “cell phone clause” in the bill of rights.
Apple needed a starting point for the iPhone in the U.S. and wanted to begin with a higher degree of control – thus the exclusive carrier approach. I don’t like it, but I can see where Apple/S.J. is coming from in attempting to kick off an ambitious entry into an established market.
From my very limited interaction with various cell phone companies over the years (Sprint, Cingular and T-Mobile), there isn’t anything simple about the US cell phone industry. I can’t imagine the difficulties associated with arranging the iPhone rollout. I wish the U.S. market provided more flexibility and standarization with respect satellite services, broadband internet services, and wireless phone/data services. As a consumer, I am tired of being boxed into prepackaged plans, exclusive service alignments/packages, and long term contracts.
May I remind Apple that locking a cellphone is ILLEGAL in Europe so if they want to start selling there, they will have to change this attitude.
@ MadMac, So you’re saying I couldn’t unlock the phone, pay the ETF and be on my way? Dipshit.
Hey Alex, I think you are the one that’s the DIPSHIT!
If you take the time and use a 4th grade intelligence level you would see that the issue is not actually paying and unlocking and doing what you wish. The response clearly pointed out that no one is ENTITLED to have these things without paying for them. I hardly think that priced at $600 and the small contract fee, that the product is expected to roam free. Check your business 101 book if you need to.
Next time, read for compression before posting pap.
> It’s about customer choice.
Actually NO, Apple succeeds because it limits customer choice. Decreasing (1) confusion about what to choose, (2) fear of making the wrong choice, and (3) remorse for later thinking you made the wrong choice… that increases customer satisfaction and sales.
Apple follows this philosophy relentlessly. Look at how many choices Creative provides in MP3 players compared to the number of iPod types Apple has. Which company is more successful?
@Joe,
My understanding is that if you remove your SIM card, your iPhone will not surf on EDGE when you are overseas, but will still function over WIFI. That’s a way to avoid those ridiculous data charges.
@Glossy Screens
Yeah, Apple is about to strike out! Apparently, on Sept. 5, they are going to announce they are shutting down and are returning all the money to stockholders.
This whole “phone locking” thing seems to be a problem for you US people …
Here in Australia, the only “locked” phone’s are the ones sold for pre-paid services. Most phones are completely separate to the contract & carrier, as the agreement between you and the Carrier is for the SIM and access to the network. The phone is either:
a) sourced independently; or
b) part of the contract (such as a mobile repayment plan – note: the phone is not network locked, you have just agreed to a repayment plan for the device).
None of the phones are “locked”. This will be an issue for Apple here as it is current customer expectation, and the way the Australian Mobile Phone networks function. Hell, I can transfer my phone number from carrier to carrier, change my contract for a better deal, while never having to change my phone or phone number.
This is customer choice, and it should be paramount in a competitive market. If it is not, then you are trying to create a monopoly (and there are separate laws for this type of behavior).
2 cents …
Benjamin Lachkar wrote: “May I remind Apple that locking a cellphone is ILLEGAL in Europe so if they want to start selling there, they will have to change this attitude.”
——————————
Benjamin, thank you so very much for “reminding” Apple of the facts of life in Europe. I am ever so certain that they were quite unaware of these things, and you have no doubt done a wonderful service for Apple. They should send you a check for lots of money. Or else, maybe a fresh skunk turd.
AJ wrote: “None of the phones are “locked”. This will be an issue for Apple here as it is current customer expectation, and the way the Australian Mobile Phone networks function.”
______________________________
AJ, no it will not be an issue for Apple. It will be an issue for the Australian people if they want to have ALL of the functions of the current iPhone. You want visual voicemail? Good luck with that! It has to be impemented at the carrier level.
And by the way, you don’t know the meaning of the word monopoly. Educate yourself, kangaroo boy!
And Benjamin, it also really helps that you put the word “illegal” in all caps. You really know how to drive the point home, you ever-so literate European shit wit.
Seriously, every time the Europeans start telling us “yanks” what side of the bread you’re supposed to put the butter on, we end up having to bail their effiminant asses out of one thing or another.
“Educate yourself, kangaroo boy!” … what a weak response that is – so weak that you can’t even put a name to yourself. Shows your level of education.
And no, it will be an issue for Apple. A non-3G / 3.5G device? Too slow, and the ability to connect to a carrier across Australia will be extremely limited, as well as Japan and a majority of non-US countries as they are all moving away from 2G / 2.5G. If the only thing I have to live without due to carrier requirements is Visual VoiceMail, I can live without that … it’s nice, but if that is the only thing you base your handset decision on … well, good luck to you.
So, to the (unnamed) individual who seems content on attacking everyone for an opinion, get a life. You need to remember that the world does revolve around the US …. you need to respect other cultures and beliefs. That’s a lesson that (I believe) you are really struggling with …
To more… more important than unlocking iPhone are unlocking simple features that Apple hasn’t:
– Video recording capability
– MMS
– User-generated ringtones (not that important to me particularly)