 |
 |
Apple says unlocking is bad for your iPhone's health
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pittsboro, NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
I thought the laws were changed that stopped cell phone makers from locking the cell phones to one particular carrier?
Randy
|
|
2010 Mac Mini, 32GB iPod Touch, 2 Apple TV (1)
Home built 12 core 2.93 Westmere PC (almost half the cost of MP) Win7 64.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
IANAL, but they can lock the phones down all they want. It is not illegal, however, to unlock your own phone.
That said, if apple releases a firmware update, they can make whatever software changes they want to it, which may re-lock. or worse, brick your phone.
Remember, they can't force you to update, but they can force you to agree to new terms in order to install an update.
But then again, I'm no lawyer.
|
|
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Mac Mini, 32GB iPod Touch, 2 Apple TV (1)
Home built 12 core 2.93 Westmere PC (almost half the cost of MP) Win7 64.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by bearcatrp 
That exception to the DMCA makes it legal to unlock a phone. It says nothing about the carriers right to lock it to their network in the first place. That is to say: it's perfectly legal for a carrier to lock a cell phone to their network.
IANAL
|
|
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
In any sane place this would be anti-competitive practice.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Mac Mini, 32GB iPod Touch, 2 Apple TV (1)
Home built 12 core 2.93 Westmere PC (almost half the cost of MP) Win7 64.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by peeb
In any sane place this would be anti-competitive practice.
do you dare presume the world is sane?! 
|
|
/Earth\ Mk\.\ I{2}/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cambridge
Status:
Offline
|
|
Unlocking the phone is legal, so long as your only motive for unlocking it is using it on a competing carrier's network. So, if you've already unlocked your phone and it works, you're home free.
That said, if you've unlocked, you won't be able to upgrade your "firmware" (which is really the system software) until the dev team or someone else figures out a way to hack it. Likely, you may have to restore your baseband firmware and restore the software to the original state before applying any new hack. Only time will tell, but I'm guessing that it'll be hacked again.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Francisco
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't think this crosses any legal lines. You can unlock, they can update the software. They are under no legal obligation to you to update the software in such a way as to ensure that your phone operates regardless of what you have done to it. That would be crazy. People can do just about anything and they don't have to run your modifications against their updates. They are giving you fair warning about it too. Seems nice of them.
I don't really care about unlocking the phone, but I do enjoy some of the third party apps that are available. I will miss the voice recorder and a few others, but I don't think apple has an obligation to make sure their software works with my third party apps. It would be great if they did or if they offered their own solution for third party developers, but I don't see that they are obligated to.
kman
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Cambridge
Status:
Offline
|
|
Agreed. No one is obligated to upgrade their software. In a sense, Apple is telling people what to do to keep their iPhones unlocked. Anyone who unlocked their iPhone thinking they would be able to update their software willy-nilly is kidding themselves. I unlocked one, and I knew this all going in. It's just that the iPhone, as it is, is better than any phone I have previously used.
That said, I think it would be a bit rotten of Apple to require new iPhone software to upgrade iTunes or use the iTMS. We'll see on that one.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
I guess I'm a simpleton, but if you're not willing to move to AT&T, why bother?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by No Time 4 Love Dr. Jones
I guess I'm a simpleton, but if you're not willing to move to AT&T, why bother?
Because it's a great phone and people are enthused about using it on their carriers without the hassle of switching.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
People seem to miss the point: Apple's agreement with AT&T subsidizes the manufacturing costs of the iPhone over the effective life of the purchaser's service contract. The net effect is that Apple sells their product for less than they otherwise would have.
People bitched because they felt burned by Apple's price-cut. The reason Apple can cut price on the iPhone is because they're reaping the benefit of the user's two-year agreement with AT&T.
Unlocking the phone avoids the subsidy and ultimately reduces Apple's profit margin. And you people wonder why Apple would be opposed to unlocking.
This of course, does not even begin to consider the terms of their contract with AT&T. Apple likely contracted to take reasonable steps to ensure that the iPhone remained locked in with AT&T.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by bobablob
People seem to miss the point: Apple's agreement with AT&T subsidizes the manufacturing costs of the iPhone over the effective life of the purchaser's service contract. The net effect is that Apple sells their product for less than they otherwise would have.
Not according to any component cost and margin analysis I've seen. Apple makes a profit on the hardware. Skimming off the contract is butter.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Cold Warrior,
Whether Apple would turn a profit on the sale of an iPhone at $399 without the AT&T contract is completely irrelevant. Their profit margins are harmed if the unit does not return the value of an AT&T subscription over two years time.
Established companies may elect not to develop and manufacture a new product that does not return a satisfactory profit. That a company might profit is irrelevant. It's how much they profit that matters. iPhone unlocks cut into the profit margin. End of story.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
You're not considering how much Apple benefits from additional iPhone sales for unlocked models. If it effectively enforced AT&T and select carriers abroad, it would sell fewer models. Apple sells more units if they can be unlocked. More unit sales add to the halo effect (as the iPod has done), driving longer-term Mac computer sales.
Apple is positioning itself as it has done since Jobs came back: a hardware-software integrator that makes money off of hardware.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Cold Warrior,
The day that analysts settle on soft figures like the ones you're apparently relying upon is the day that companies like Apple fail. At any rate, another concern not addressed is that Apple probably contracted to take reasonable steps to maintain AT&T's exclusivity. Breaching would be in no one's interest.
(
Last edited by bobablob; Sep 24, 2007 at 11:13 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
"Soft" figures be damned.
Someone posted a scenario over on TUAW that sums this up (a "Kiwi" is someone from New Zealand.) (New Zealand is home of Xena: Warrior Princess. And hobbits.)
Scenario 1: Kiwi doesn't buy an iPhone. No $599 for Apple, and no $11/month revenue from Apple profit-sharing with AT&T. One less iPhone sale catapulting towards the 1 million in the first quarter mark.
Scenario 2: Impatient Kiwi DOES buy an iPhone and unlocks it. $599 for Apple, no $11/month, 1 extra sale to brag about.
Strikes me that Apple does better from scenario 2 than 1, no?
International buyers helped get Apple to 1 million so quickly, and brought in money they wouldn't otherwise have. There's nothing soft about that, analysts or not!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
You're totally soft. You're relying on figures that someone made up in a thread. Anyway, you still aren't considering the likely existence of a "reasonable efforts" clause in Apple and AT&T's contract.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
Because it's a great phone and people are enthused about using it on their carriers without the hassle of switching.
I suppose I meant my question to be a bit rhetorical, but if there is a risk that buying a iPhone and having to "hack" or unlock it because you're not willing to switch to AT&T will turn it into a $299-$599 doorstop in a future firmware update, why do it? Yes, it's a great, feature-rich phone. I just can't fathom someone going to all the trouble and risk over it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top