Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Cracks Down On iPhone Unlockers

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the but-i-want-to-break-things dept.

Cellphones 565

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Apple and its wireless operator partners have finally figured out a way of cracking down on iPhone unlockers by making it a requirement to sign up for a contract before you can get your hands one. "It's obvious why this has happened though. This method means you're tied into a contract, or you're paying O2 and Apple a massive wad of cash for the privilege of owning a 3G iPhone. We're disappointed about this decision, but it does make business sense." Both ATT in the US and O2 in the UK are implementing the new activation system on July 11th, when the iPhone 3G goes on sale."

cancel ×

565 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Correction (5, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724003)

"a massive wad of cash for the privilege of owning a 3G iPhone" If you're not allowed to do what you want with the device, you do not own it.

Re:Correction (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724033)

If you're not allowed to do what you want with the device, you do not own it.

You can do what you want with it after you buy it. You just need a contract to buy it, slightly different.

Re:Correction (5, Insightful)

sirambrose (919153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724137)

You can also cancel your contract and keep the phone by paying a $175 termination fee. Since the new models are $200 cheaper than the old models, the new phone is still cheaper than the old one that cost $400.

Re:Correction (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724347)

Assuming that standard rates apply, which may not be the case. However, they're definitely doing the more traditional subsidized thing here so paying $375 (plus initial activation fees and probably a month's worth of service, so more like $475) to have an out of contract phone isn't far off the mark given the price point for the current iPhones.

Of course, you might just be able to buy it without contract at a huge "premium" like you can with any other phone and save yourself the trouble of doing that in the first place. Until someone pulls off another unlocking hack, it hardly matters.

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724529)

Of course, if you read some of the information from your contract. You may notice that a cell company often holds the right (at least via the contract, though not sure if it has been tested) to reclaim your phone since you did not fulfill the contract. I believe one cell company told me this period was cancellation within the first three or six months.

Re:Correction (1)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724619)

Actually I think you have to pay the monthly fee for the rest of the contract. So if you signed for a year and after 2 months you bail out you have to pay the sum for the 10 months. At least that's what i've been told here in my country (romania that is) because i asked every little detail when i subscribed.

Re:Correction (2, Interesting)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724051)

And if you knowingly accept the subsidy from AT&T/O2, you can't ethically use another provider.

Re:Correction (0, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724235)

And if you knowingly accept the subsidy from AT&T/O2, you can't ethically use another provider.
If I thought they were ethically producing the phone, making sure the third world employees made a living wage, etc. I might care.

Re:Correction (2, Insightful)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724409)

Your mother didn't teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? "He can do it so I shall too!" Grow up.

If people like you (and me, but I couldn't give two hoots), didn't purchase stuff made in third world countries under terrible conditions, it just wouldn't happen. We are the ones who demand unrealistic prices. Talk about misappropriation of blame.

Re:Correction (2, Insightful)

youngdev (1238812) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724581)

Since when was it Apple's responsibility to raise the standard of living around the world? The whole reason huge corporations move manufacturing to the third world is because it is so much cheaper. If it weren't so much cheaper, these Corporations would go somewhere else to manufacture their devices. Then where would the poor Darfurians be?

Re:Correction (1, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724381)

I damn well can. You don't set my ethical standards, I do. No matter how it happens I'll end up paying a premium to use it on another carrier (early contract termination fees, etc) that covers the subsidy so it's a financial non-issue; coupled with the fact that wireless providers have no standards whatsoever (ethical or otherwise), you'll have to excuse me for not going out of my way to please them.

Re:Correction (5, Funny)

howdoesth (1132949) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724535)

...wireless providers have no standards whatsoever (ethical or otherwise)...
CDMA? GSM?

Re:Correction (3, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724771)

I had more meant along the lines of business practices.

Ok, they do have one (and it never involves lubrication). You can fill in the blank.

Re:Correction (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724433)

If Apple cared about ethical behavior towards us, they would also offer an unsubsidized version for consumers at a higher price. Since they refuse to do that, why do we owe them anything?

Re:Correction (5, Informative)

salmosri (1051404) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724753)

They do, in the UK you can purchase the new iphone on the pay as you go deal, which means no contract you pay the full price for the phone and you can do as you wish with it. Here [techcrunch.com] is some info from the O2 deal.

Re:Correction (1)

jslater25 (1005503) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724779)

Really? Are you sure about that? I thought that Apple and AT&T signed a contract stating that Apple would use AT&T for ALL iPhones. If Apple had not signed a contract with AT&T, I would be more likely to side with you. But with that contract, I think Apple should sell all iPhones with an AT&T contract.

Re:Correction (1)

freedomlinux (1072142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724625)

Believe me, my 'ethics' would not prevent me from accepting the AT&T subsidy and breaking the contract.
It is time for free choice of carrier for the iPhone.
I would gladly have a contract, but please let me choose the company (and maybe even CDMA).

Re:Correction (5, Insightful)

blackholepcs (773728) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724065)

That's the problem with companies today. They "lease" you the equipment, with hidden terms and rules, and bullshit marketing that omits important facts that relate directly to your decision to purchase (lease) their product. Cell phone companies are one of the worst for this.

Re:Correction (5, Insightful)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724393)

That's the problem with consumers today. They'd rather "lease" a discounted phone and pay more in the longer term with higher locked in rates.

Cell phone buyers are the worst for this, they more or less destroy the market for buying phones seperately.

Re:Correction (5, Funny)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724463)

That's the problem with cell-phone companies today. They subsidize the cost of the equipment, in the expectation that they might get some call revenue in exchange. Then they get all annoyed when you don't give them any call revenue. Weird that.

Re:Correction (0, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724085)

I own a baseball bat. Am I allowed to smack you upside the head with it a few times?

Re:Correction (1, Offtopic)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724139)

I own a baseball bat. Am I allowed to smack you upside the head with it a few times?
You do not have my permission to use my head in that manner.

What you do with your bat to your own head is your business.

Re:Correction (4, Funny)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724185)

I own a baseball bat. Am I allowed to smack you upside the head with it a few times?
Depends on if you are in the majors or just in the minor league

See what I mean? (0)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724321)

What did I say yesterday [slashdot.org] ? I said (repeat after me): he iPhone is a phone, not an iPod.

Bah. No one ever listens to me.

Re:Correction (2, Insightful)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724777)

Blame other cell phone buyers. People have decided that they would generally rather not pay upfront for the hardware and then find a carrier.

This means that carriers will subsidize phones and then look to lock them down to recoup their investment. They wouldn't have to do this if people had decided they liked buying phones the old fashioned way.

Just thank God that computers aren't sold this way or DRM would be even worse.

ER, non-story (2, Insightful)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724057)

Um, this has always been the case, since the first round of the first models started being resold without contracts Apple instigated this. Old news, non-story, and hasn't actually stopped anyone from doing this.

Re:ER, non-story (4, Informative)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724109)

Um, this has always been the case, since the first round of the first models started being resold without contracts Apple instigated this. Old news, non-story, and hasn't actually stopped anyone from doing this.
I think this is news to people in Great Briton. For those of us in the US, this is not news at all.

Re:ER, non-story (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724215)

I mean Great Britain. Not Great Briton. [wikipedia.org] Which, is apparently recognized by Firefox's spell check.

Re:ER, non-story (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724299)

How dare the spellchecker recognize a perfectly valid word!

Re:ER, non-story (5, Funny)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724541)

Great Britain is a country

a great Briton is an inhabitant of that country who is either (a)notable or (b)obese

And, ok, mod me off topic, I've got the karma to burn.

Re:ER, non-story (3, Funny)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724227)

Great Britain was the island you were looking for. 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' are also not interchangeable.

Re:ER, non-story (2, Informative)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724425)

'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' are also not interchangeable.

Yup. Just to clarify things, Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, but is part of the United Kingdom.

Re:ER, non-story (2, Informative)

anomaly256 (1243020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724379)

Yes you're right, this is sort of news for the newcomers. However I'm disputing the heading blurb's use of 'finally figured out a way'. a) they figured this out long ago, b) it's already been proved ineffective. :P I think it's just sensationalizing something that _everyone expected_ anyway.

Re:ER, non-story (1)

oz_paulb (617486) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724719)

Um, this has always been the case, since the first round of the first models started being resold without contracts Apple instigated this. Old news, non-story, and hasn't actually stopped anyone from doing this.

What are you talking about? Up until this point (in the US, at least), it's been possible to purchase the iPhone hardware without a contract (purchase direct from Apple). Using 'jailbreak' software, you could bypass the software requirement that the phone be activated with an AT&T contract.

It now appears that you need to sign an AT&T contract before you can get your hands on the iPhone 3G. This is different from before.

Apple, cracks (1)

iMac Were (911261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724067)

'Apple' and 'cracks' in the same sentence. Well I never!

It was only a matter of time (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724073)

A nontechnical solution to an ultimately nontechnical problem.

One has to wonder, is ATT really such a necessary evil or can innovations like visual voicemail be rapidly available other ways than lock-in?

Re:It was only a matter of time (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724181)

A nontechnical solution to an ultimately nontechnical problem.
iPhone competitors sales to go up in 5... 4... 3...

Re:It was only a matter of time (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724443)

They probably were a necessary evil to make the VV happen in the first place; I'm sure it's non-trivial to implement, but I doubt it's rocket science either. At this point, it's almost certainly just contractual obligations - remember, Apple+AT&T are in bed for, reportedly, five years from the initial iPhone launch. That means iPhone+AT&T only (within the US) until June 2012.

Of course by that point it won't matter, as all of the cell companies will have bought each other up, and then will proceed to purchase the FCC.

Re:It was only a matter of time (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724815)

AT&T and t-mobile are the only two GSM providers in the USA. So yes they are necessary.

that way apple only has to build one phone, instead of one for GSM, one for CDMA-verizon, one for CDMA sprint, etc.

Its (-1, Redundant)

mismetti (1169567) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724081)

ITS partners, not "it's".

Read parent.... (0, Offtopic)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724213)

Read parent in gollum voice for maximum amusement.

Re:Read parent.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724449)

Read parent in Darth Vader voice for maximum amusement.

Re:Read parent.... (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724731)

Read parent in Krusty the Klown voice for maximum amusement.

Seems reasonable (3, Interesting)

ReiDragon (1018072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724087)

This seems like a normal practice to me to be honest. Almost every smartphone that people will buy will come with a contract at the time of purchase to get the price lowered to a point that is reasonable. It happened with my old 8525 to get the $600 phone down to $285, and now it's happening with the iPhone to get the $400 phone down to $200. It just seems to be the industry standard, and before people start to complain about not being able to use it with t-mobile or another GSM carrier, I just want to say that you don't NEED to get an iPhone. You can get whatever smartphone comes with your service. If you want to travel with a smartphone, then you can get a different one too to put different SIM cards in and only pay for those times you use it.

Re:Seems reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724273)

First person that speaks with sense...
Congratulation to you, Sir!

Oh, sorry I forgot, it's /. ;)

Re:Seems reasonable (5, Insightful)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724343)

It happened with my old 8525 to get the $600 phone down to $285, and now it's happening with the iPhone to get the $400 phone down to $200.
Only reasonable if you don't realise that $325 price drop was taken out of your fees for the next x years of contract.

We'd be much better off if mobile phones were sold as items like computers or telephones, without contract, and the phone companies concentrated on providing a good service, instead of 'adding value' by gimping phone software, charging insane amounts for data, or tying users into long term contracts.

$500 is a reasonable price for the technological marvel which is a modern cellphone, if you can't afford that, perhaps you can't afford a highly priced monthly contract either.

As it is in the UK the iPhone may be available without a contract from O2 via the Pay as you Go packages, but they're being remarkably coy about that, they probably want to sucker people into signing 18 month contracts for 30-75GBP a month first before unveiling PAYG.

I see why Apple has done this (as you say it's standard practice) but that doesn't make it any more palatable.

PS Can't translate a £ symbol !! WTF Slashdot, this is 2008.

Re:Seems reasonable (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724509)

Getting cell phone companies in the U.S. to abandon the "locked-in" model at this point would require a new law or high-level legal ruling. And, since the telecoms basically own Congress and the Presidency, it ain't gonna happen.

Re:Seems reasonable (5, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724637)

If I'm going to be locked into a contract either way, I'd much rather have my phone subsidized (new plan) than not (old plan).

I was all set to buy one of the new iPhones until more data started leaking out. You know that nice iPhone plan they had? 450 minutes, unlimited data, 200 SMS for $60 a month?

Gone

In what can only be described as "easier", you now have to use the standard AT&T model. Their lowest plan is 450 minutes which is $45. You have to add $5 to get 200 SMS messages (note: this seems to include MMS and other things too, which is different). Then there is the iPhone data plan that you are required to buy: $30 a month.

So instead of a simple little $60 plan, they now expect me to pay... $80.

So let's see... $20 difference per month X 24 months = $480. Take out the cut they were paying to Apple (wasn't it like $5?) and that's another $120.

So AT&T's revenue goes up $600 per two year 3G contract.

I'm not so sure I want to pay $80 a month for an iPhone. I was hesitant with $60 but this makes me question things much more.

Congratulations again AT&T. You took the must buy product of the year for me and managed to screw it up.

Re:Seems reasonable (1)

ReiDragon (1018072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724763)

I agree with you. One of the main reasons I went over to the iPhone is that for unlimited data/sms it was around $25 cheaper (IIRC) than the plan I had on my old smartphone.

That alone made me switch. I end up saving far more on service prices than the cost of the phone over the course of the 2 year contract. With me the contract isn't a huge deal, as A) I've been with AT&T for around 5 years and B) I'm perfectly happy with the service around my area and I have no other issues that would cause me to look down upon the service.

If the 3G model has the same pricing plan as my old smartphone, I may not bother getting that on top of my current EDGE iPhone. It's already faster than my friends 8525 when browsing the web and serves my purposes rather well, especially when the app store launches and the push service comes in september.

Re:Seems reasonable (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724505)

Almost every smartphone that people will buy will come with a contract at the time of purchase to get the price lowered to a point that is reasonable.

I bought my BlackBerry Curve from T-Mobile with no contract. T-Mobile gives you a choice.

...not really (1)

xalorous (883991) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724679)

The US should adopt the European model. You purchase the hardware and then use the SIM chip from your provider. Don't get me wrong, if the service providers want to provide a phone free with a contract, they should do so. But it would be nice if they would all recognize our right to OWN our hardware and choose the provider we wish. Just like you do with land line, cable and internet.

Nonsense (-1, Redundant)

kraemate (1065878) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724089)

I have a Jail-broken iphone and i run Linux fine on it!!! Infact^!T#P*!T* NO CARRIER

Re:Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724465)

It was nice of your phone to click "preview" and then "submit" for you, Mr. FunnyManWithOriginalJokes

Going to be hard in most european countries. (4, Informative)

splutty (43475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724093)

Apple is going to have a serious problem applying this in a lot of European countries. They have laws that actually forbid this sort of tying 2 vendors into 1 product.

I know for a fact that France and the Netherlands have laws for that, and if I remember correctly, Germany has as well.

So either they're not going to be able to sell iPhones there, or they have to be sold seperately, which then opens them up for unlocking anyway.

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724189)

Denmark has these laws too, aswell as a 6 month maximum contract length.

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724275)

Vodafone sued T-Mobile/Apple (in Germany) over that and lost [During the lawsuit, they sold an unlocked iPhone for 999 Euros]. Orange (France) sells an unlocked iPhone for 749 Euros vs 399 locked. So nothign will change (except maybe a lower price for the locked version).

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724295)

No problem, they will sell the unlocked version at 999â and the problem is solved. Right now they are doing it in France.

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (2, Interesting)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724373)

Denmark has laws against how long you can tie a person into a contract.

And the minimum total spend on the contract has to be clearly listed in the commercials.

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (1, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724405)

So either they're not going to be able to sell iPhones there, or they have to be sold seperately, which then opens them up for unlocking anyway.
I doubt Apple will sell the iPhone in those countries. Because of the laws you stated above, people have access to phones with far superior [wikipedia.org] capabilities [wikipedia.org] to the iPhone. Not that the N95 isn't available in the US, but it's not subsidized by the voice and data plan, so you pay a penalty for buying one.

It's not the iPhone's capabilities that make it successful, it's the fact that Apple made a phone as capable as the iPhone compatible with AT&T's business strategy. Was the iPod the first portable MP3 player? No, it was a combination of user interface, styling, and business model, that made it what it is today.

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724533)

You're way off the mark. The news with the iPhone 2 is that it's a complete platform that you can develop against.

The real competitor here is Google's Android. But no commercial devices built on that platform exist.

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724671)

If you think the Prada phone is anything close to the capabilities of the iPhone, you're delusional. I should know, I worked on the Prada phone.

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724553)

So has Belgium

Re:Going to be hard in most european countries. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724649)

Well, you Europeans will just have to change your laws then. You wouldn't want to displease Steve Jobs, would you?

What happens in places where it must be unlocked? (1, Redundant)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724095)

What happens in places where it must be unlocked?

Re:What happens in places where it must be unlocke (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724183)

If a local company doesn't seel it with their hefty contract attached to it then Apple didn't intend for it to be sold there.

Re:What happens in places where it must be unlocke (1)

k2enemy (555744) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724219)

From my understanding, nothing is preventing you from getting it unlocked. The official carriers are subsidizing the hardware and to recover that cost, they require you sign into a service contract. Once you have the phone you can use it however you like. You're paying for the service, but you don't have to use it. You can probably even pay a cancellation fee and get out of it. Either way, the carrier recovers the hardware subsidy.

places where phone can't be lock service contract (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724617)

There are places where the phone can't be locked to service contract so how will apple deal with that?

Re:What happens in places where it must be unlocke (3, Insightful)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724309)

They will be sold unlocked, probably at a higher price than the $199 which is going to be price in most countries. And certainly many of those phones will find their way to countries where you can only buy iPhones that are tied up to a operator. Still, none of this will prevent Apple from cashing in a very thick wad of cash from the sheeple that buy one in countries where they are tied up to operator X.

So much for that (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724123)

I was seriously considering getting one of the new 3G iPhones, but now I will definitely not.

The more they tighten their grip, the more customers will slip through their fingers...

I don't see how it makes good business sense (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724175)

O2 are crap, most people in the UK realise this, it's one of the main reasons the iPhone has failed to take off in the UK.

At least before they could make some money on the handsets selling them to unlockers, now in their greed to get people on the contracts as well they're going to lose sales.

Unless Apple can get Vodafone/Orange on board with the same processes in place this is only going to make the iPhone even less common in the UK.

That said, presumably this is why the new 3G iPhone will only be £100, because unlike before, they're following the same route as other phone suppliers by using the contract itself to cover the rest of the handset costs. I'm not convinced they'd be making a loss selling it for £100 though still, I'm pretty sure they can manufacture, box and get them in stores for a lot less than that so the previous situation would still surely have been better for sales.

Re:I don't see how it makes good business sense (4, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724243)

O2 are crap, most people in the UK realise this, it's one of the main reasons the iPhone has failed to take off in the UK.

Nah, it has more to do with the fact that the iPhone is ludicrously expensive AND you must lock yourself into an expensive 18 month contract.

Perhaps that strategy works in the US. It doesn't work in Europe where you can literally have any phone for free on the sorts of tariffs and contracts the iPhone ties you to.

Re:I don't see how it makes good business sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724337)

O2 are crap, most people in the UK realise this, it's one of the main reasons the iPhone has failed to take off in the UK.

No, it's because in most of the rest of the world, the iPhone is nothing special. They have had phones that do everything the iPhone does, for a lot less, for years.

Re:I don't see how it makes good business sense (1, Flamebait)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724629)

This is only true if you are just comparing bullet points of features. The iPhone is the only mobile I've used with an interface that doesn't completely suck (it's not perfect, but it is a lot better than the competition at the moment). I am not really interested in a phone that's that locked down (I want a developer platform, and that doesn't mean one with an SDK full of arbitrary restrictions), but this isn't an important concern for a lot of people.

This makes sure the new iPhone is NOT CHEAPER. (5, Interesting)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724199)

The contract lock-in insures that the new iPhone is more expensive than the last.

If you do the iPhone math [tech-recipes.com] , the new phone will cost you more than the older phone despite the "half the price" ad campaign.

If AT&T really drops free sms, it'll cost even more.

I don't mind paying more. However, for somebody like me not in a G3 area, why should I have to pay the G3 transfer higher prices?

Interesting but it can't stand (2, Informative)

Demena (966987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724207)

It was announced today that two carriers (at least) in Australia (Optus was one) will be offering the new iPhone on "prepaid" schemes. i.e. No contract. How much the phones will cost is not mentioned but if they are just $A/$US equivalent then they will be very cheap phones for the price. Enough to drive most others off the market.

Please learn to spell "its". (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724211)

With an apostrophe, "it's" means "it is." Without an apostrophe, "its" means "belonging to it." The distinction is important.

You don't write "hi's" or "her's." So don't write "it's" when you mean "its." The rule is easy to remember, if you care to bother.

Bad grammar is a sign of poor education, makes your writing harder to read, and is disrespectful of the audience.

Re:Please learn to spell "its". (1)

Timberwolf0122 (872207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724495)

Can't we all just get along.... also snippy correction is disrespectful to those of us who have legitimate problems with not being able to see misspellings/bad grammer... also this is just a message board, chillax. Now let us have no more on the matter.

Re:Please learn to spell "its". (0, Offtopic)

BigMamaJoe (1175909) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724583)

Gee thank's guy! This editors blatant disrespect and poor education offended me so much. Its too bad we dont have more bold, courageous fellow's like yourself to stand up to tyrant's like these. You deserve a medal, honestly! From the bottom of my heart, thank'''''''s!

As far as I recall... (5, Informative)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724293)

As far as I recall, Apple was actually shopping around for a few different providers. Apparently when they were in talks with Verizon there were too many demands on Verizon's end. (Surprised?) AT&T was the largest carrier available willing to let the phone be what Apple wanted it to be. Just something to think about.

Too bad. (0, Troll)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724345)

Too bad. I was going to buy one.

Contract Cancelation (1)

s31523 (926314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724357)

Don't most contracts have a 10 day clause in them, or some time frame? Also, what is the termination fee? For Verizon, it is $175. I believe once the contract is signed I have like 10 days to cancel it without paying the fee. What is to stop people who want the iPhone from doing the same thing?

Re:Contract Cancelation (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724517)

You can cancel your contract without paying a fee, but you must, alas, in that case return the phone.

Re:Contract Cancelation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724539)

in order to cancel under the ten day rule you have to return the phone.

Re:Contract Cancelation (2, Informative)

grumling (94709) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724543)

you have to give back the phone, in new condition.

Re:Contract Cancelation (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724575)

the fact that the cancelation clause in the contract probably also requires returning the phone?

What about enterprise customers? (1)

arhar (773548) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724437)

I'm sure if a company wants to get Iphones for all of their technical support people, they don't want to go to the store and activate each freaking one in turn ...

UK are giving them away for FREE!?!?!? (1)

Shadow_139 (707786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724471)

Since the new iphone will be FREE in the UK if you sign up to special tariff with will be either 45£ or 75£ a month, I can see this been enforced....

Thank goodness for Android (5, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724513)

While carriers might still be able to lock Android phones, there will undoubtedly be unlocked phones available, since there is no monopoly on the platform.

Apple + AT&T = single point of failure

Think about how absurd it would be if, in the old days, you had to buy your computer from the phone company because it had a modem?

Re:Thank goodness for Android (1)

Shadow_139 (707786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724683)

Android is going to be 100% open source so it will be really easy to unlock ;)

Quoting people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724537)

If you are going to quote someone, you need to say who you are quoting. "The summary of this article just puts things in quotation marks at random."

I'm not new here, and I know it is the same every single day.

Just wait ...for ...it ...from the Chinese! (4, Insightful)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724551)

Time will likely solve this issue as Chinese reverse-engineering development teams (and "ghost shifts" at probably the same factories making current 'official' 3G iPhones get to cranking out 'overages' lol)

Then again, if the killer app is not the device but the method by which it is unlocked.... surely this will not increase handset theft or there is always the 100% 'honest' 3G iPhone vendor unlocking the phones in house for some under the table cash?

Just what is so technically savvy about the new unlocking method or is this simply some lawyer-authored bulletproof contract that one must sign in fresh blood?
I for one compliment the cloners in order to avoid those ridiculous lock-in contracts. This is the world of competition, and the nature of global competitors.

How useful would it be for Asus' eeE PC to only work under contract and only from an Asus Wi-Fi router? It is a matter of time before someone creates a truly unlocked Wi-Fi handset that VoIPs whenever possible with Vonage et al, and other times uses the SIM for whatever carrier you choose to use that day. I can use my laptop with a variety of pay ISPs even at the same time. A few more evolutions of these devices and stiff competition will likely leave consumers getting a better product not crippled deliberately. This is why I despise the iTunes lock-in on iPods (and will not own one as a result). I remember when MP3 Players were as easy to access as USB memory sticks and they played nearly anything despite its source... Given Apple does make some sharp looking items, but they are not consumer-friendly due to their hardware lock-ins. I'd love to use Tiger or Spotted-Leopard or whatever it is called these days on my Intel PC hardware, I'd love to just use windows explorer to copy MP3 files onto my Nano. I'd love to swap SIM chips in my iPhone and use whatever carrier I am using at the time... But NO.. They are lawyer-empowered consumer-restraining capitalists above all else. So I pay for and own NONE of the Apple devices mentioned above.

Re:Just wait ...for ...it ...from the Chinese! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724827)

When has a Chinese knockoff ever bumped any successful item from its throne? It's not gonna happen.

attention all fanbois! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724569)

steve jobs got you where he wants you again. keep throwing cash at the new emperor! hail caesar!

UK Iphone on Pay As You Go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23724587)

In the UK O2 have said the iphone 2 will be available on Pay as You Go. Which is effectively the same as going into the shop paying for the phone and walking away with out signing a contract :) They haven't yet said how much the phone will cost on pay as you go. But Apple did say $199 was the most you would pay for the basic model. So we can only hope.

Piss on 'em (1, Insightful)

PontifexMaximus (181529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724593)

I'm sick to death of being some big company's bitch. I don't get dinner and a drink before they ask me to drop trou, grab my ankles and spell run. The hell with Apple and AT&T. It's a bloody phone, people! It is supposed to make and receive voice calls. Instead, it's a portable porn viewer that makes calls. Idiots. When will upgrade fatigue hit the Mac fanboys?

A new phone (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724613)

I have been looking for a new phone starting last week. My first choice was a iphone, oops cannot
get one anywhere even the old model since everything has been showing out of stock for the last month. So I said the hell with apple and bought a lg vu. If it turns out I do not like the vu it
is getting returned for a good ole reliable always kicks ass only needs charging every 4 days software rich blackberry for $99.

Re:A new phone (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724655)

I have been looking for a new phone starting last week. My first choice was a iphone, oops cannot get one anywhere even the old model since everything has been showing out of stock for the last month. So I said the hell with apple and bought a lg vu. If it turns out I do not like the vu it is getting returned for a good ole reliable always kicks ass only needs charging every 4 days software rich blackberry for $99.
I'm assuming, much like the new iPhone, that's with a contract?

The Free Market (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724711)

I thought the free market was where the customers dictated which direction the market should go. Apple should see this as a problem with their partnership and not a problem with their customers.

I don't really like apple anymore. (-1, Flamebait)

KenRH (265139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23724791)

I have an iPod, i bought my girlfriend an iPod. I really like the design of the lastest iMac's and apples laptop computers.

But I dont like the way apple tries to force the customers bying their hardware into using it only the way they like it.

Like apple tries to make it hard to use anyting but iTunes to load music onto the iPod. Not only by not disclosing the file-formats needed to load the music, by when it was reverse enginered they starded making cryptogaphicaly signatures on some of the files to make it imposible to write third party software for this purpose. (Anyone know if this has been cracked yet?)

I think this as well as the way they treat the iPhone owners disclose an unhealty attitude towards their customers.

I will not buy any apple produkts in the future.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>