Unlocked iPhones pulled off Singapore shelves after Apple legal threat

22 Comments

According to Singapore retailers, Apple theatened to take leagl action against them for selling illegally “unlocked” iPhones,” Leung Wai-Leng reports for The Straits Times. “The phones are unlocked by hacking into their software so that local SIM cards can be used.”

“Sim Lim Square retailers and even some online local sellers have stopped selling the gadget,” Wai-Leng reports.

“A retailer in Sim Lim Square said shops there, including his, received a warning e-mail from Apple about a month ago,” Wai-Leng reports. “It threatened legal action should they continue to sell ‘hacked’ iPhones, which could make them liable for $1,000 per iPhone sold.”

“A Straits Times check with 12 electronics shops and cellphone sellers in Sim Lim Square found none openly selling the gadget,” Wai-Leng reports. “But one retailer on the fourth floor said the sought-after phone could be ‘brought in’ for interested buyers.”

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Mike in Helsinki” for the heads up.]

22 Comments

  8. Apple today announced a partnership with rival Microsoft to allow all Windows-based software to run natively on OSX by incorporating Win32 code. Dubbed the “Cupertino-Redmond Application Programming Interface”, or “CRAPI”, it is being hailed as the universal answer to everything. “This is the biggest Apple partnership since the ROKR,” proclaimed CEO Steve Jobs. “I’m really looking forward to working with Microsoft’s CRAPI programmers.”
    Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, was similarly optimistic. “The four most important things right now are CRAPI, CRAPI, CRAPI, CRAPI. We’ve already got tons of CRAPI developers lined up.” There was no word yet on how much CRAPI code had already been written, but it is rumored that Microsoft has been selling CRAPI products for some time.
    Industry analyst Robert X Cringely took credit for correctly predicting this inevitable union in his blog. “It’s exactly what I thought it would be, ” he wrote, adding, “in a few years everything will be CRAPI, now that OSX is both a floor wax and a dessert topping.”

    Reply

  11. It is shortsighted by Apple to try to make a few bucks from the providers, instead of selling millions of iPhones worldwide and making it the same as the iPod phenomena.

    Would the iPods have sold like this, if you could only play music from iTunes on it?

    No! Steve, wake up and smell the roses.

    Reply

  14. @ Leveldown

    Apple didn’t “autorised” such things as modifing software or else. But where is the singaporian LAW that give this 1000$ to Apple if not applied?

    “Illegal” and “not autorised” are two different notions in Law philosophy. The first is public and the last is private.

    Remember that : in U.S., (Digital Millenium Law’s exceptions) Canada, Europe, it’s absolutly legal to unlock your iPhone, Nokia, etc. You lost your garantee indeed, but it’s legal…

    What is the fuzz to replace “not autorised” by “illegal”? Did fud or chilling tactics are the new marketing culture of Apple?

    Reply

  16. @MacGuy

    You’re the one being short-sighted because you think all Apple is after is the dollars per sale. Because Apple is confident that no one is going to have a super-responsive multi-touch interface until at least 2009 and maybe even later, Apple is going to take advantage of iPhone’s popularity to wring concessions out of its carrier partners in exchange for helping those carriers acquire new subscribers. It’s these concessions that Apple is after; concessions that change the carrier industry. Things like activation, service, branding, unlimited data at reasonable prices, and eventually, VoIP, iChat and iTunes use, and full open Web access. (Google is also after open Web access as well). At some point, I believe Apple will trade its share of revenue for iChat and iTunes use on its carrier partner networks – possibly not until the carriers have the capacity to allow it. That would again leave those who have unlocked and using iPhone on another carrier network at a disadvantage, and create another win-win for Apple and its carrier partner.

    Apple (and Google) are confident that full access to the mobile Web is around the corner, and that that is what people really want. Apple is sure iPhone is the best pocketable device for that. Once its carrier partner starts stealing subscribers from other carriers for exactly this purpose, the competing carriers will have to change (except they won’t get iPhone until later). So 4.5 years from now, it’ll change and every carrier will have iPhone, and carrier competition will revert back to who has the best network, not for phone calls, but for Web access (including VoIP calls).

    You need to think bigger. Apple is already deferring revenue; it’s clear they don’t find it necessary to add iPhone sales and plan revenue to their bottom line today.

    Reply

  17. “The bit in the software licence agreement which says you’re not allowed to modify the software, and certainly not sell it modified.”

    And that makes selling illegal how? I’m sorry, but once I buy something, I own it. I can do anything I please with it. If I break any kind of license agreement or other policy, I lose the warranty. If I modify a product, I certainly can’t expect Apple to support it. But there’s nothing stating that I break the law if I modify the code on a product I bought (unless of course my modifications allow me to otherwise break the law- say, listen in on other people’s phone calls or something).

    Or do you think that people are “licensing” their iPhones?

    Then’s there’s always the first sale rule. At least in the US, you can always legally sell something you’ve purchased. If I buy an iPhone, I can certainly sell it for a profit if some one is willing to buy it, regardless of what any software license says.

    Reply

  19. @ dave

    While reselling the iPhone in its locked state doesn’t violate Singapore laws, hacking the software to unlock it violates copyright laws.

    Keystone Law Corp associate director Han Wah Teng commented “What you pay for is only the licence to use the software. You still need permission from the software owner to reproduce or modify it.”

    Reply

  20. Seems to me that once I buy something, it’s mine to do what I want with it. Apple’s control ends at the cash register (I know they don’t have actual cash registers anymore, and won’t actually take cash. That’s another discussion. I’m talking about the figurative cash register). Now Apple can refuse to provide future services that were bundled with the device, like warranty repair, if I violate the terms of the sale and I’m good with that. But if I drive a truck over it (or alter the software) and can find a willing buyer, Apple is not part of the equation.

    But I don’t think that is what Apple is concerned about. I’d bet they’re concerned about the couple of pallet loads that vanish off of the loading dock at the factory or out of the truck on the way to the airport, or maybe the factory forgetting to shut off the production line after they completed the number of iphone’s ordered by Apple. Or the emergence of a very functional knock off. Grey market electronics are not a new thing, even in the US. I think Apple is really trying to protect the consumer experience of their products by interrupting the flow of Apple hardware through unauthorized resellers.

    Reply

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.