3G iPhone tough on unlockers

[RadioRaiders]

Apple still won't sell the 3G iPhone outright? (ie: without tied to a carrier plan)? Why don't they just allow for the sale of an un-subsidised phone for $400? All the other phone mfg's do (ie: Motorola, SonyEricsson, Nokia, etc.)

The AT&T customer service department is going to be swamped with calls from people buying the 3G iPhone and cancelling the contract the next day, just to re-sell the phone on ebay

Apple is abandoning the unusual arrangement under which the iPhone was being sold. Customers could buy them from a carrier or from Apple without activating them on a service plan, and that meant customers could go home and unlock the phones — and never sign up with AT&T.
....
The new phone will be subsidized by carriers, which accounts for its lower price: $199 for the 8-gigabyte model, down from $399. This brings the phone's marketing in line with standard industry practices.

The carriers plan to make back what they spend on the subsidy through service fees, which means they likely will require two-year service contracts from everyone who buys the phone. AT&T said buyers will have to activate service before leaving the store with an iPhone.
....
AT&T charges customers who break a two-year contract within the first month a $175 early termination fee plus the $36 activation fee. That would bring the cost of the new iPhone to $411 for an unlocker, just slightly more than the old model's $399 price.

That math may mean it is still attractive to unlock iPhones for use on other networks and that AT&T will lose money on unlockers. Analysts estimate AT&T plans to subsidize the phones by more than $200 each.

But Ralph de la Vega, head of AT&T Mobility, said Monday that it and Apple are working on "penalties" for users who buy phones and don't activate them within 30 days. AT&T could, for instance, bar buyers who repeatedly buy iPhones and break the contracts from buying more.

The Associated Press: New iPhone's business model is tough on unlockers

[Mobile Mike]

Someone somewhere will figure out a way around this, I have no doubt.

I'm glad I got the original version. Unlocking was a breeze and everything works fine.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

Someone somewhere will figure out a way around this, I have no doubt.

I'm glad I got the original version. Unlocking was a breeze and everything works fine.

I don't think you got the concept of the article. There was no mention of any new technology blocking the unlocking, but rather the unlocking process will be deterred because the phone will be only sold together with a subscription to a 2 year contract.

With the 2G iPhone, you could walk in a shop, buy 20 of them take them home and never sign a contract. The catch was the phone was locked to AT&T so you (supposedly) could only activate it with them. Now everyone who buys a phone will be forced to sign a contract before they can leave the store with the iPhone. This is the supposed deterrent, because you have to show ID and sign a contract with every purchace. But then if you pay $175 termination fee the next day, you can walk away and sell your phone

[RJB]

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

Someone somewhere will figure out a way around this, I have no doubt.

I'm glad I got the original version. Unlocking was a breeze and everything works fine.

Yeah Mike there will be a way someone will find a loophole in this process somewhere to get an iphone with out having to activate it there.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by RJB

Yeah Mike there will be a way someone will find a loophole in this process somewhere to get an iphone with out having to activate it there.

I think the "loophole" will be that people will buy it, activate it, and then pay the $175 termination fee the next day....

(Sorry, Mike, I thought you meant "way around it" referring to unlocking,... or did you mean this contractual loophole? )

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

I think the "loophole" will be that people will buy it, activate it, and then pay the $175 termination fee the next day....

But that will only give you a grand total of ONE iPhone. That's hardly a loophole for the number of iPhones a gray market reseller wants. You can probably try and do it again and again, but seriously, do you think AT&T is that stupid that will allow a single customer to resign and cancel over and over again? They'll put you on a black list ASAP! .....and then what? You'll have to find someone else who's willing to do the same thing for you two or three times. And then after that's done, you'll need to find someone else. Bottomline, this new procedure makes it tougher on the gray market.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by bobolito

But that will only give you a grand total of ONE iPhone.
....
You'll have to find someone else who's willing to do the same thing for you two or three times. And then after that's done, you'll need to find someone else. Bottomline, this new procedure makes it tougher on the gray market.

True, the new procedure does make it tougher, but re-sellers are resourceful, and I can imagine them: paying people a few $ to sign/cancel a contract for them....or maybe with fake ID's sign several contracts in several stores?

...why doesn't Apple just sell the phone outright to avoid this grey-market BS?

[bobolito]

I believe they will have a no contract price. I heard they haven't determined it yet. I believe this is true because if they said they are shifting to a more traditional selling model, then no contract sales have to come along with it.

But how is selling the phone outright going to avoid grey market? That's only going to open the doors wide-open to grey market, especially overseas. Although it will benefit AT&T in the fact that it will significantly reduce "phantom churn" because you won't see as many people doing the signup/cancelling scheme just to get an iPhone.

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

True, the new procedure does make it tougher, but re-sellers are resourceful, and I can imagine them: paying people a few $ to sign/cancel a contract for them....or maybe with fake ID's sign several contracts in several stores?

I don't think you can sign up with fake ID because of the credit check. And even if that's the case, don't forget about the deposits they sometimes require. They can be anywhere between $200 and $1000 depending on the case. A person looking to get a quick iPhone isn't going to go through all that.

[treotosh]

Originally Posted by RJB

Yeah Mike there will be a way someone will find a loophole in this process somewhere to get an iphone with out having to activate it there.

Yup, just like the first kid

[clock3687]

Originally Posted by treotosh

Yup, just like the first kid

Knowing George Hotz (the kid that did it the 1st time), itll be done within the 1st couple of weeks.

[bobolito]

Originally Posted by clock3687

Knowing George Hotz (the kid that did it the 1st time), itll be done within the 1st couple of weeks.

You know him? He lives around here.

[Eric47]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

I think the "loophole" will be that people will buy it, activate it, and then pay the $175 termination fee the next day....

(Sorry, Mike, I thought you meant "way around it" referring to unlocking,... or did you mean this contractual loophole? )

dont forget, if they had a deposit they will have to pay that also and then wait for a paper check refund.

Also expect for them to track the name and social of people that buy and cancel. they will probably block them from doing it again without paying a large deposit.

[Simon5282]

The iPhone situation is all screwed up. To bad Apple could not just realize the potential in selling it by themselves. People gladly pay up to $350 for an iPod classic, and up to $500 for an iPod touch. I think that the original price of the iPhone, $500 and $600 would have sold very well. They would be able to sell it everywhere on the world without dealing with carriers. Maybe they could have given one carrier in each country a license to support the visual voice-mail.

One more off topic thing. Why won't Apple support MMS?

[RJB]

Originally Posted by Simon5282

The iPhone situation is all screwed up. To bad Apple could not just realize the potential in selling it by themselves. People gladly pay up to $350 for an iPod classic, and up to $500 for an iPod touch. I think that the original price of the iPhone, $500 and $600 would have sold very well. They would be able to sell it everywhere on the world without dealing with carriers. Maybe they could have given one carrier in each country a license to support the visual voice-mail.

One more off topic thing. Why won't Apple support MMS?

Well I guess Steve did not want to have this included at the present. To me this is very strange and idiotic to not have.

[Simon5282]

Originally Posted by RJB

.......To me this is very strange and idiotic to not have.

To you and everyone else.

[cheddar]

Originally Posted by RJB

Well I guess Steve did not want to have this included at the present. To me this is very strange and idiotic to not have.

Considering how well the iPhone's been selling... I don't think they're too concerned. They'll probably include it at some point when they're looking around for more features to get people to upgrade.

[bobolito]

From the iPhone, can't you just send an email with picture attached to the destination 10-digit-phone-number email address? And to receive a picture message in the iPhone, just send an email with picture attached to the email address account of the iPhone. Shouldn't that work exactly the same as MMS? In the end, that's the same thing MMS does anyway.

I send and receive email messages with pictures to and from my V9 using email instead of MMS. Works the same way. The only difference is that instead of using just a 10-digit phone number, I just use the complete 10-digit-number email address of the destination, like 0000000000@mms.att.net

[clock3687]

Originally Posted by bobolito

You know him? He lives around here.

He went to RIT for a little while, I met him a couple of times. He did some stuff aside from messing w/ the iPhone, like hacking his student ID/RFID to give him access to every door on campus. He stopped caring about classes after ~4-5 weeks and started working on different side projects. He left shortly afterwards.

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by bobolito

From the iPhone, can't you just send an email with picture attached to the destination 10-digit-phone-number email address? And to receive a picture message in the iPhone, just send an email with picture attached to the email address account of the iPhone. Shouldn't that work exactly the same as MMS? In the end, that's the same thing MMS does anyway.

I send and receive email messages with pictures to and from my V9 using email instead of MMS. Works the same way. The only difference is that instead of using just a 10-digit phone number, I just use the complete 10-digit-number email address of the destination, like 0000000000@mms.att.net

Yes, I agree. From what I've read on the web and apple's site, this is what people do. I've done it with my Nokia 6131.

In fact, I'm thinking Apple's logic is that MMS is going away. With my Nokia, my 1.3Mpixel camera image always gets scaled down to 640 x 480 (1/3 Mpixel) before sending with MMS through ATT.
With an email attachment, there is no such limit. So this method sounds better with Smartphones, unlimited data plans and higher quality cameras.

It is only a little cumbersome, or rather different, for someone sending you a picture, and not knowing before hand that it should be send via email, not MMS.