GeoHot is right. The Dev team is greedy and closed minded. Apple will always have more time, money, and resources. Why not make the iPhone hack info available to as many hackers as possible?

Remember the law of hax?

I love the asinine comments from some as if this is an issue related to Apple.

They entered into an agreement with AT&T, for better or worse.

Instead the gallery is like the majority of the market in that the silence is deafening as the market as a whole has never demanded the portability of phones between service providers, assuming they are compatible!

One wonders why those idiots who are so vocal in their support of being able to steal copyrighted music are so silent regarding having the entire cell phone market allow for the portability fo phones that they actually buy!?

But as usual, instead we get to listen to so many head up their @ss fanboys.

This is an Apple issue. AT&T is not enforcing the agreement by issuing updates that render the iPhone useless if it has been modified after purchase... Apple is.

The silence that you speak of is actually deafening when you take into consideration so many that are willing to risk a dead iPhone in order to break free of the chains of a single carrier lock-in that Apple has deemed necessary, not AT&T.

To pretend that Jobs had no say in who would allow the iPhone on their network is ridiculous. Any carrier would have bent over backwards to be able to tout the availability of one of the most (over-)hyped electronics devices in history... AT&T was simply able to bend over a little further.

Exclusive means big money from those that Jobs shakes hands with, and that is what Apple is all about.

Look genius, people who bought the phone KNEW that the only LEGAL service provider, as established by contract between Apple and AT&T, is AT&T!!! So your rant that 'Steve' is responsible is insane! Of course he knew! You think that may have been a function of the contractual relationship between Apple and AT&T???? Duh!!!

And your oh so astute observation that Apple is a company whose purpose is to generate a profit is amazing...and I guess you think that is insightful.

Surprise!!!!!! Ya' think????

"Oh, but I bought it and then determined that I am entitled to use it someplace else, and I have the right to void the agreement I signed when I bought the phone and now because I determine that I am not bound by MY agreement, Apple is now at fault for not recognizing my own all-too-late decision to break the agreement as I am 'entitled'."

"I am such a victim...and stupid too!"

Look, I disagree with phones being locked. But then, I don't buy a phone that can't be used with the carrier I prefer!

But the time to refuse to take part in such an arrangement is BEFORE you buy and agree to the terms of service!

Are we going to fast for you?

Your whine of self-entitlement by the idiots who break their agreement while they rant about others not recognizing their contractual agreement and obligations is amazing infantile.

OF COURSE Apple made an agreement with AT&T! Duh! Apple knows it. AT&T knows it. And since the buyer AGREED to it as a condition of purchase, its time THEY figured it out as well!

If someone doesn't like it, then DON'T BUY IT! But don't come up with some "I'm a poor stupid victim because I intentionally tried to circumvent a contractual agreement I freely made and mean old Apple and AT&T disagree" defense!

Grow up and assume responsibility for your own actions! And maybe next time they should have their mommy explain the terms of use that they agreed to by contract.

Your adolescent whine blaming everyone else except for the idiots who intentionally try to set their own rules while expecting others to capitulate to them is incredibly asinine.

In the mean time use some of that energy to change the rules.

And then buy some other phone that provides the terms of use that agree with your prepubescent sense of entitlement that demands that others change their position and support you when you arbitrarily choose to violate the terms of use you agreed to. But since you object to a company being in business to make a profit, maybe you should buy your next phone from a charitable non-profit company next time.

...After your mommy explains the terms of use to which you agree until you decide to change your mind.

Grow up. Maybe its time BetaNews made those who post here verify that they are older than 12 years old.

"Maybe its time BetaNews made those who post here verify that they are older than 12 years old."

Aww, but that would mean that you would no longer be able to rant like one. Boo hoo... your little tirade make you sleepy now?

I wasn't trying to make a case for those that choose to intentionally break their contracts simply because they may not like AT&T.

Grow up yourself, you self-absorbed pretentious prick.

Why must you guys be so angry at each other...? One can argue without exploding at the other...(mostly referring to foxfyre).

In fact, it sounded like foxfyre was replying to someone else's comment just now. Funny thing is that I feel almost the same way he does about people who feel they are entitled to an open provider phone when they bought the iPhone (just not as intensely)--the iPhone is AT&T only and people should not expect anything greater. Still--he seems a bit too upset methinks...

...still not reason enough to call him a prick. Both of you need to grow up some!

To yountmj:

You are the lamest Apple hater and whiner i have ever seen. You cry and skew the facts to get your pathetic rants. Go grow up and stop whining about how you have to play by the rules.

"...still not reason enough..."

Agreed. His unwarranted condescending attitude brought that on, but you are correct... that was out of line. Sometimes it's difficult to deal with someone who's simply looking for a reason to slip into attack mode.

I was not trying to make an argument for or against anyone who decides to either honor or break their agreements with Apple / AT&T. I can actually step back and see both sides of the argument, and agree with points on both sides of the fence.

This wouldn't be an issue (or as much of one) if the USA followed the lead of other regions regarding the ridiculous lock-in practices that are becoming so commonplace... but that's life I suppose.

Unwarranted?

We listen to this same whine everyday, be it from the MS/Apple fanboys, the victims who illegally download thousand of copyrighted songs without the sense to even obscure their identity, and of early adopted who whine that the model is updated, and of those who are aghast they they cannot openly flaunt their disregard for the very legal usage agreements that they themselves agreed to.

What seems to amaze the poor victims most is that some companies like Apple AND MS have repercussions for violating the legal usage agreements that some delight in breaking. The nerve!

And the whine continues.

If you don't like the terms of use, fine. Then act responsibly and don't agree to the terms of use and buy the product.

But as that would come dangerously close to making sense, instead we get to listen to the other side cry who lack the insight and self control to not buy that which they feel is so heinous and unacceptable.

Again and again and again and again...

A discussion of the issue IS possible. But a rationalization of those who choose to violate usage agreements claiming to be a victim is not.

And it nothing to do with what the US does or does not due. Each company can structure their usage agreements in any way they choose, assuming they are legal. If you or someone else doesn't like it, don't buy it. And to the degree you are interested, contact the company and their advertising underwriters to communicate your displeasure.

Or, in a positive manner, contact the various parties and request that they enter the market in order for you to use their services.

But I realize that this concept is evidently just too kompleekated for the oh so sad victims to understand and implement.

It does NOT justify self-righteously breaking the EULA in order to assume the role of victim. Nor does it make rationalizing it valid either.

Unwarranted, yes.

You speak as if I somehow was defending those who choose not to honor their usage agreements. I did no such thing, however your page-long rants suggest otherwise. I simply understand and acknowledge the reasons for doing so.

Look, I happen to agree with what you have said, though not necessarily with the way in which you chose to say it. Self-righteous... interesting label you chose.

I do not own an iPhone, and I probably never will. It does not mean that I do not have opinions on issues pertaining to it... and the topic of this article are but one of many reasons why I will most likely not buy one.

Back to the topic of my original reply (one that you seemed to misinterpret), I believe that the sheer number of people (if the estimation is correct) who have purchased an iPhone but not registered it through AT&T speaks more loudly than if those very same people had simply not purchased the iPhone at all. By their actions, I believe it is expressing clear discontent and disapproval for Apple's decision to make AT&T the exclusive carrier... and that is just from the people who are savvy enough to perform the procedures to make it happen.

Is it right? Certainly not, as the agreement they entered into expressly forbids it. However, history has proven that the best way to get your message across does not always involve playing by the rules.

There's no telling how many others are just as dissatisfied with the restrictions, but are unable to do anything about it? If anything, it should send a message to Apple that there are potentially millions of more people who would have purchased the device had those stipulations not been put in place. There are probably countless numbers of people out there who have family plans in place through Verizon, or Sprint, yet find it unfeasible to switch simply because someone in their family wants an iPhone.

Like I said, I do not endorse breaking the terms of service agreement, but I understand some of the motivations involved for those who choose to do it. Just because a rule exists, it does not mean that its existence is just.

yay

Why bother?

"At least the Frogs get it there in France. French laws prohibiting carrier-locked phones and exclusivity. The iPhone has to be sold unlocked for those who wish to choose their own carrier."

How ironic! This SOCIALIST regeime has a better idea of the US Anti-trust laws than the corrupt Bush Adminstration. Maybe a new president and a new "JustUs" Department will consider enforcing those damned laws.

Anti-consumer APPLE can become extinct tomorrow and I won't miss them either...

I guess that was supposed to be a reply...

Surprise!

The government was corrupt before 1-20-2000.

Wow...from an article about unlocking iPhones to a political slur...one more point to the anti-Bush camp for finding creative ways to spread their propoganda...

Be sure to tell all the folks at tomshardware how much you hate bush and how evil his corrupt regime is to, just in case you forgot them. (/end sarcasm)

Maybe try Sprint SERO, $30 a month for a whole package. 500 min peak, 7 to 7 night and weekend. Unlimited text and data. I mean unlimited, unlike other carrier say unlimited if you only use to check email or other restrictions.

With Sprint's business tactics, there is no such thing as a worst mobile phone carrier.

I don't think it's unlimited text, maybe free IM throught the data plan, but I belive you still need to pay an extra 10.00 a month if you want unlimited text. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

edit: The unlimited text promotion expired 12/31/07

T-Mobile is $40 a month. It's cheap, it works, I am never switching (been 6 years now). I can wait.

Hopefully Apple will either relock the iPhone through a firmware update or brick all of the unlocked phones soon. Apple has every right to tell consumers that they can only use the iPhone with AT&T. If you don't like it then don't buy the iPhone. Besides, AT&T has better coverage in the USA than any other carrier (especially T-Mobile).

I thought Apple made unhackable, secure products!

Microsoft has every right to tell you you can only use your PC with Windows. They have every right to tell you you can only use Internet Explorer to get Windows updates or Windows downloads, well you can use other browsers for downloads, but it's a multi-step process that doesn't work all the time. And you can forget about Silverlight working in Firefox.

AOL has every right to tell you you can only use their ad-laden client to access AIM. (Luckily they don't but I think one of the big players in IM services tried to block other clients at one point?)

It's called vendor lock-in, it's a bad thing.

(I am an AT&T Wireless customer, but only because they ate Cingular.)

Seriously... while I support "to each his own" in regards to opinions, it is exactly this mentality that has allowed corporations to bully the consumer into high pricing and lack of choice.

You buy the phone first and then decide on your provider. Not the other way around... It simply amazes me that people can still walk around with this "locked-in" mentality...

I have to say I agree. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy giving my BlackBerry away for an unlocked iPhone, thanks! :D

I have some updates to this story.. so anyone trying this based off our coverage, please take notice of this, and just perform the unlock if you dare. DON'T UPGRADE to 1.1.3 yet. It is important enough to prevent your $399 investments from becoming iBricks.

Your out of your mind!!!! They don't have the right to force someone to choose a carrier.

At least the Frogs get it there in France. French laws prohibiting carrier-locked phones and exclusivity. The iPhone has to be sold unlocked for those who wish to choose their own carrier. And that's the whole point, to give the consumers the choice. Not to say that you can't buy a cheaper carrier-locked phone, you can do that too.

It is unhackable.. these stories are lies.. Apple will sue Betanews soon to have them removed. (Oh wait they aren't talking about the 64G iPhone coming out next week are they??)

I find the idea that intentionally bricking phones is malicious intent, and should be legally actionable through class-action suit.

Customers are within their legal rights to unlock the iPhone (or any locked carrier locked phone according to the US Government!!!), no matter what kind of exclusivity that they try to force down the consumer's throats.

Apple is evil, fascist, arrogant, and quite simply, inferior because of their anti-consumer, you-are-sheeple-because-we-know-what's-best-for-you mentality.

AT&T Wireless is just as evil for selling the iPhones unsubsidized and locked into only their network with such outrageous prices on data plans.

if you so like locked phones, come to Japan.
where each carrier uses a different signal so that even if you manage to unlock somehow lol... you still can't use them on other carriers... sigh

Silverlight works just fine in Firefox... as long as it's not on Linux.

Geez,
WeezulDK, you have me very concerned, have just ordered a Macbook Air with the SSD. Figured it's about time I learned to use a Mac.
Your comments do not instill a great deal of faith in Apple.

Indeed works a treat, even the current Beta release.
Mazz, you might like to follow this link, MS even provides a wmp tute for install.

http://www.microsoft.com...stallation-win.aspx#4_7

Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone. When you do business with a company you are doing business on their terms. If you don't like their terms (iPhone requiring AT&T) then you have every right to do business with someone else.

I really don't have a problem with the Mac OS per se. I've used it and supported it on occasion. It's different. It's just that, *different*. But what takes the cake with me is the mentality behind it at Apple and the closed-mindedness of the fanbois, the mentality that Apple has with their lock-in to their hardware, and the zealous grip they have over the OS.

Their ads in addition to their claims of stability are arrogant to the extreme. If I only had to develop an OS for a limited number of configurations, I'd have a very secure OS as well (try XP embedded, Windows Mobile, Xbox/Xbox360, PS3, PS2/PSX, etc for example, just as stable, just as locked in to the hardware!). Apple won't ever release OSX for general PC installation because it would reveal how unstable the OS really can be. They cannot make the same compatibility claim as Microsoft, and they never will.

In that light, Apple OSX, in my eyes, is no different than a "console" operating system on an Xbox360....

You are not smarter but dumber... If you pay $400 for a phone, you should be able to use it as you please. You woid the warranty, it's ok, you are on your own then, but bricking the device because you do not use as they want? No way! You *should* choose AT&T if they give you the best services for the money you pay and not because they force you to do so.
I think AT&T is still crying about the +1M iphones "missing", mine is one of them.
Apple must show to ATT (O2, etc) that they make their effort to relock the free phones again and again, but sooner or later, hacking will succeed. Last time it lasted a couple of months, let's see how many times take the next one. It is really nice to see the cat'n'mouse game!

Perhaps bricking the phone is a bit much but it would be nice if Apple could develop a more permanent way of keeping the iPhones locked to AT&T. Apple has as much of a right to tell consumers that the iPhone requires AT&T as they do to tell consumers that they can't run Mac OS X on a non Apple computer.

I am unable to see your point. Do you work (or own) AT&T? Why do you want iphones locked to them? I cannot see any advantage on that...

Mac OS has other reasons about why it is not released for x86. Probably the most important one is the huge mess of driver compatibility problems it may suffer and that cannot happen with iphone. iphones clones anyone? (that cheap chinesse garbage does not count).

I happen to agree with what you said above... but I think you may be missing his point.

I do not believe that he suggested that iPhones should remain locked to AT&T. He merely stated (if I understand correctly) that instead of having a half-assed approach at locking them to a single carrier, Apple should have developed and implemented a more failsafe method. Instead, the measures put in place as of right now are apparently easily bypassed, but the consequences of doing so involve much greater risk of making the device useless afterwards. They should have done a better job at eliminating the potential for resorting to drastic measures in the first place... at least that's what I believe.

Locking products to certain services or vendors (no matter how much many people may disagree with the practice) is unfortunately perfectly legal, and Apple and AT&T are well within their rights to attempt to maintain that bond during the course of their customer's service agreement... questionable and unethical methods of enforcement not withstanding. Nevertheless, by agreeing to their terms of service, no one has the right to circumvent what the agreement explicitly states is forbidden.

And customers who unlock the iPhone knowing this (which seems at the moment to be around 27% of them) could care less. A significant and telling amount of people considering the risks involved.

When you have a significant amount of your customers giving you the finger, maybe it's time you change your business model? Companies that forget who's really in charge (the customer) always pay in the end, and Apple has put itself in a really bad position as a result of this.

It has about reached the point where Apple would do more harm to itself continuing it's locking strategy than it is worth. Yet it has banked on this strategy to far too much of an extreme to back down either. Apple's created it's very own personal "rock and a hard place". Glad I don't own Apple stock, as it's already being effected negatively by Apple's inability to expand it's revenue sharing/locking strategy.

"Apple should have developed and implemented a more failsafe method."

Yup, its the bank's fault that they got robbed! It's SO unfair to blame the robber as their locks weren't sophisticated enough to deter a determined criminal...

Locking phones is legal but enforcement of this is "unethical". Yup. And if it is against the rules to pay to enter a theater, if you sneak in, the theater is obliged to give you frre Coke and popcorn too.

Grow up you. The whiny victim mentality, while it becomes you superbly, is just a bit old!

I think apple actually wasted a lot of time (money) to lock the iphone. Iphone protection and update procedure for their firmware is very strong, no joke. The boys (hackers) actually made a very good job this time, working for months before getting results.
It is very similar situation on what DRM means for music: If Apple invest their money in improvements over the services instead of focusing to limit usage forcing choices the results could be *very* diferent:

1) Better results due less critical "development"
2) Less complains about voided warranties (legal actions included)
3) More development for weak areas (productivity, corporate use)
4) Happier users leading to
5) More sales that leads to
6) Lower production costs

WIN-WIN situation, but seems that Apple does not learn as fast as we wish... Will Jobs ever get it?

"If you pay $400 for a phone, you should be able to use it as you please."

Says who?

What if it were $300? $200? $12? Does the price determine whether you can do what you want with it or not?

Nope. Unfortunately, even if it were $4,000, you can still only use it lawfully...er, you COULD use it however you want to I suppose...but Apple has every right to brickwall their devices, and to do as much as they wish to prevent them from being unlocked.

It is Apple's right to brick the iPhone. If you don't like it--don't buy it.

> "If you pay $400 for a phone, you should be > able to use it as you please."
>
> Says who?

Says the almost 2M users already out of AT&T plan.

Lawfully does not include to be reasonable in US. fortunately in other countries is illegal to sell blocked phones. That makes sense! You already paid what Apple wanted for its phone, so you have the right to use it as you want, just like that.
I like the phone, I do not like Apple&ATT agreements. They are plainly wrong

anything done can be undone.

well done that man... !