digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

iPhone unlocked. AT&T loses iphone exclusivity!

engadget.com — t's high noon, Apple and AT&T -- we really hate to break it to you, but the jig is up. Last night the impossible was made possible: right in front of our very eyes we witnessed a full SIM unlock of our iPhone with a small piece of software. It's all over, guys.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • minorbug, on 10/10/2007, -129/+19(holds up data rod) ITS A FAAAAAKE!
    • evanmorris, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Read the article and watch the video before you start saying it's fake. Looks like they have first-hand experience with an unlocked iPhone.
    • Kardde, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21I don't know what's more sad. That you actually posted that as the first comment on the article, or that I actually know what it's in reference to.

      God, I think it's the latter.
      • ImOscar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5So what's the reference?
        • L0g1X, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2hehe you clicked through the comments all the way here
          • RpgActioN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I can't believe you still haven't figured out that you can auto expand all in your profile.
      • Kardde, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12DS9.
        • inukki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1??Deep space 9??
          • ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What's with all the question marks? Are you some sort of Spanish-speaking retard?
    • LiquidFusion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Digg up for the reference to one of DS9's great episodes: In the Pale Moonlight.
    • singlegirlgeek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1the kid in NJ that has taken credit for this is ebaying his phone. he even signed it in a similar signature to woz. ugh http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230164884672 I just hope he uses the money for college.
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wait, $14,242,524? That's got to be fake.
      • ae6ai, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The bidding is now at $26 million. This is fake.
    • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This was on CNN too, albeit a slightly different method. It's not fake.

      http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/08/24/iphone.unlocked.ap/index.html
      • stizz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not fake,..but most of the bids are. It was at around 4 grand when this only had 18 diggs
    • SweetMercury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4To everyone digging his comment down, it's a geek reference, not an accusation.
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3What's really sad is that you guys think that Apple is sad about this. I love how the poster takes a jab at apple as if apple isn't ***** their pants with glee right now. Sure, they'll post a software update for this, but there will be lots of people who don't apply it, and Apple will get the benefits of one of the only phones on the market which has access to every network.
      • Kalimotxo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Lots of phones have access to all networks. Unlocking a cell phone is not new.
      • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, not every network. It only has access to GSM networks.
    • hufer, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0http://themp3songs.net
      YOUR FAVOURITE MP3 MUSIC
  • Slippy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+278Best news i've had all day.
    • sleze, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8Trumpet sound to AT&T - Waaaa WAAAaaaaaaaaa...
    • diggmaddy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+64Probably the best news T-Mobile (and their users) will hear all day too :D.
      Honestly, evil AT&T was the ONLY reason I had not bought the iPhone till now. It's going to change soon (well, as soon as these guys release it to general public). I wonder how much they'll sell it for!
    • najdorf, on 10/10/2007, -24/+2I know in real life 2 guys that already had this working weeks ago (in Italy)... I dont know how they did it, still I dont think this is news...
      • potp, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2dont know why you guys are digging this down but there are fully unlocked iPhones already selling in Hong Kong. Once again the Chinese found a way to bypass this *****.
    • diggitizer, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I have been using an iPhone in europe for 4 weeks, just 'unactivated iPod mode + wifi'.

      Now being able to make calls on it... it's almost is a side issue!
    • Th3Wiiexpert, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1I dont know why you guys are digging this *****.I bet none of you motha fukas have the money to buy a god damn iphone
      • toppgun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12did you even graduate high school?
      • Th3Wiiexpert, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I graduated from the University of Your Mom's Vagina.
  • VideoExperiment, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Awesome
    • catmistake, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3yes, indeed cool. Now... what's completely retarded is that they joined T-Mobile... a company among the few in the US that is actually worse than AT&T! (but tmobile is reasonable in Europe and other places)
      • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I've had T-Mobile for a couple of years. Excellent technical and human service. If what you were saying were remotely accurate, nobody would be interested in this (in the US). Yet, it is huge. Plus, people would've said, "Thank goodness Apple went with at&t instead of T-Mobile".... Oh, well- I guess you're just full of *****.
      • pw1388, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I got T-mobile and i have been with them for 6 years. I am really happy about there service and there human support. ITs one company that have 24/7 human support not like sprint, verizon and sometimes AT&T. I know this because i work at best buy cellphone department. I can't wait to buy a iphone now!
  • Sarawanan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+213If Apple doesn't release the iPhone in Canada by the end of 2007, I'm buying this.
    • aprocter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31I'm with you on that one. They should also start offering TV shows and Movies on the ITS. I think they hate us :-(
      • potp, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Thats cause you are commies.
      • craftyshrew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's the CRTC...Not Apple, they need to make sure Corner Gas and The National have proper exposure. The CRTC can eat it...
    • joe90210, on 10/10/2007, -1/+116why would you want to use the iPhone in Canada? so those assholes at Rogers can charge you 45455656$ for 25megs a month and then charge another 456565656$ for every extra meg you use?
      • ttntyler, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35I'm just going to use WiFi for data and the Rogers network for phone calls.. Better than nothing..
        • Sarawanan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah, I'm think I'll do the same thing. Unless Rogers unveils data plans like what the US is getting.
        • mglmouser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Same here. Wifi + Fido (Rogers). Get that baby by me soon!
        • Prodigyman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yup same thing here.
      • morestar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22exactly, Rogers and every frucken provider in Ontario Canada is ripping us off...aboout 4.8 years ago Fido went all locals calls for free and less than 6 onths later Rogers bought them out and took away the option from their plans.

        Sick!
        • Prodigyman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Thats true but if you were on that plan, you still get it thats why I am never changing again, unlimited calls is sickk.
        • nitroburn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That is nothing. FIDO offered UNLIMITED DATA just before rogers bought them. And I'm not talking 50mb Rogers style unlimited. Full unlimited no extra charges for $50 a month. Damn I wish I was grandfathered under that contract.

          I just love how $200 can get you 500mb on rogers, but it takes an additional $2,500 to get to 1GB. ($5 x 1MB overage) = $5x500= $2,500 + $200
      • johnnykalma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9i went over by six megs with rogers and it was almost $500!!!!! and there service sucks
        • vanden9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You could have got a iphone with that...
        • nitroburn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3lol, you must have got hit at $25/1MB which is their highest overage charges. It is cheaper to use your cellphone roaming in the USA then it is at home.

        • pw1388, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Holy Crap! Thats crazy!
      • kentifer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I have a bell cellphone. $7 for unlimited data on a 1x network.
        I download the 4 free songs per week every week. (:
        • BossX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Uh where do you see Unlimited Data on Bell? http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpWls_RtpLanding.page
          • icoup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I had the same thing... just ask for it. I think the price went up a little though. Might be $10 a month now.
          • nitroburn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Could be grandfathered...

            Cheapest unlimited data in Canada (only unlimited data in canada) is globalstar satellite phones @ $75 a month unlimited North American Calling & Unlimited internet access.

      • issachar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I remember reading an article that suggested that this was why there wasn't any real timeline for selling the iPhone in Canada. Apple doesn't see itself as selling hardware, they sell an experience. And at the data rates in Canada, the iPhone experience would suck. So Apple doesn't want to attach their name to an experience that sucks. That's the argument anyway.

        (Last I heard, Rogers wasn't even the confirmed reseller, but they are the only GSM provider).
        • johnnykalma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1fido buddy. fido is gsm. telus and bell are cdma
        • Bananas21ca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fido is owned by Rogers
      • max420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I am with rogers, and one month I guess I accidentally hit a combination of keys by accident when the phone was in my pocket (I have a bad habit of forgetting to lock it) ANYWAY, I was billed almost 75 dollars.... for data I didn't even realized I had used. Rogers sucks... so does Bell, but bell unfortunately do not use sim card phones.
      • ch4os1337, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your so right ;-( ***** rogers... I pay 120$ a month for internet and tv from them and if i get there homephone and wireless plans too it will be like 400$ a month what a ***** rip-off
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1I can't get it working on Sprint or Verizon ;)
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why would you want to?

        • elsagacious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Because Verizon has the best service in the only place that matters... New York.

          That's right, digg me down, bitches!!!!
    • mechamat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Canada should allow international communication companies in. Rogers and Bell do not deserve the freedom to gauge they have now. I called around asking about the iTunes stuff and a rep mentioned the holdup has to do with our legal issues. Probably the CRTC. I say screw favouring canadian content (most of it sucks), give me the world. Who's with me :D Rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble...
      • Damienk, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Canada's a bunch o' pussies...

        and yes im canadian.
      • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2rabble rabble rabble rabble
      • max420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I agree that the CRTC is stupid, and they really should just ***** off. Let all of the american companies in, it would do wonders for competition. And besides, canadian content sucks for the most part anyway. And yes, I am also Canadian.
        • IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well I'm an American, and I'd like to see the Canadians come and give us some competition too. (I also live on the Canadian border and it would be nice to get a cheap plan that works across both borders :P )
    • jpcompagnone, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0The iPhone will be coming out in Dec 2007 carried by Rogers
      • Damienk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Don't tease me like that.
        • vemerge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Tease you like that? It's ***** that Rogers has exclusivity on this. Rogers is the single worst cell provider in the country, no matter where you live. They suck in the west and they suck in the east. They should have given it to someone else, I don't even care who. I'll probably still get an iPhone, but ***** I am not looking forward to signing a contract with Rogers.
          • nitroburn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't have a choice with a GSM phone in Canada. Rogers will HAVE to change their ways for the iPhone, it will die without unlimited data as the market that wants the damn phone doesn't have $2700 a month to pay rogers for 1GB data transfer. ($200+$2500 overage charges)
        • atarijedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think you should learn more about the cellular technology in Canada, Bell and Telus use CDMA, the iPhone is a GSM phone, and Rogers is the only GSM provider in Canada as far as I know, all the other GSM providers are subsidaries of Rogers.
      • avanisle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Are you serious? I'd love to know your source. I knew Roger's is the only
        provider with the "right equiptment" but had read there were no plans to
        extend to Canada. This is good news.......... but I think I'll start brushing up on
        my defensive driving skills now.
  • canewediggit, on 10/10/2007, -28/+8question- if you have to sign 2 yr service agreement w/ at&t for an iphone, if you unlock and switch carriers (say t-mobile for ex), are you now paying for 2 service agreements?
    • nitrousconsumed, on 11/03/2007, -7/+70Or you can just buy the iPhone at the Apple Store, thus eliminating you signing any contract.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -27/+3But they sell you the phone WITH a contract so....
        • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30No they don't, you set up your contract when you activate it.
    • sanarchy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Just buy the iPhone at an Apple Store and use iActivator or any other number of tools to bypass activation through AT&T. Read the article my friend.
    • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2The idea is generally "***** the service agreement", but there are ways to get around it legally.
      @nitrousconsumed: buying it from an apple store isn't one of those ways...
    • TruckStuff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Pay-as-you-go service.
    • championchap, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Question though, does it ALL work?
      Like.. one feature of the iPhone is the whole easy access to voice messages thing, well T-Mobile aren't set up for that are they?
      So isn't this just like having an even more limiting iPhone?
  • obeezy, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2Wahahhahahahaha it was only a matter of time. The iPhone was the best thing AT&T had going. Now if we could just fix the battery replacement issue...
    • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7And the cut + paste issue and the 10 million buttons to get special characters issue...
      • KennMac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Unfortunately you can't fit 104 keys on a small touchscreen. You're going to have to get over it and move on.
  • neiltc13, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4If this is real I'll be buying one of these things on my trip to the USA in September.
  • ronin691, on 11/05/2007, -15/+339...Uh oh, someone just ***** in AT&T's cereal. Sincere thank you to the l33t guys who worked so hard to unlock the iPhone.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -6/+47No one likes ***** in their cereal.
      • AnotherBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But we like the idea of ***** in AT&T's cereal.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23Theres always someone though......
      • Charron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23"I eat pieces of ***** like you for breakfast!"
        "You eat pieces of ***** for breakfast?"
    • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Does this even matter for AT&T? I mean, if this break only works for people outside the US, isn't the I-Phone contracted out to different carriers outside US borders? Maybe it's great for canadians/mexicans (I don't even know if AT&T carries there.) But if you live in the US or Europe this doesn't really matter, for the end user or for AT&T
      • grieks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3sigh...
      • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1could you answer my question instead of digging me down? the article says that this hack "should make the iPhone fully functional for users outside of the US." Either that means something completely different for you or it's a poorly written article.
      • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1(doublepost)
      • Cine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It works for people inside US too, should you wish to use other carriers than AT&T. (Like T-Mobile)
      • pw1388, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nub! AT&T isnt the only GSM provider here in the usa. there t-mobile which i have. so now i can use it for t-mobile.
    • samy26, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1It's 1337, tired of people spelling it wrong - n00b.
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Yeah! ^.^;; Thanks, guys. I was a critique of the topics on iPhone being unlocked being on Digg about 3 times a week. This is far enough progress for me to say congrats to the hard working gurus out there.
    • Dankoozy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I hope it was very runny *****. the kind of ***** they use in diarrhea bukkake parties
      • LonesomeFighter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i've never been to those parties, but i will take your word.
  • wurk4fude, on 10/10/2007, -17/+65*explosion* the rebels just took out the death star.
    • daeggman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34What the **** is an aluminum falcon?
      • robotsongs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16where the ***** did that come from ?! Dugg for randomness.
  • taylorcarrigan, on 04/02/2008, -3/+44Nice. I was on AT&T before the iPhone came out, so I didn't have the ambition to switch to another network when I got my iPhone, but it's great news for those outside the US. Also, yeah, you can just walk into an Apple store and buy an iPhone--no signing contracts or anything.
    • MartyMcSly, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1You sure about this whole walking into the store and buying a phone with no contract malarky? I thought you HAD to purchase/sign for a contract when buying an iPhone? Please can someone 100% confirm this for me (and millions of other people who won't bow down to the demands of fat, greedy mobile network operators!) Cheers.
      • KSUdesigner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Yes you can just walk into the store and buy an iPhone, sans contract. You HAD to have a contract in order to use the iPhone...but not any more.
      • bloominoctober, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Even before the unlock, you could walk in a buy an iPhone, sans contract. The contract gets 'signed' during the initial activation via iTunes. This unlock circumvents the need for a contract.
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I am an AT&T subscriber and love this so I can actually use the phone if I travel abroad without getting anally raped by AT&T's international charges.
      • mogus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Now, if there was a way to put two SIM cards into the phone at the same time so you could select which you were using via software, that would be sweet.
        • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does any phone allow that? I've never heard of that, but it'd be really cool.
    • DangerDee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not for long now.... And I wonder if Apple will soon require a service contract before you leave the store with one?
      • LonesomeFighter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1probably, they get money from AT&T's revenue. So both AT&T and Apple will hurt by this, but more so AT&T since clearly Apple will make a few bucks either way.
  • in2deep, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24This is crazy....should be interesting to see what happens from here!
  • sanarchy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5This is awesome. I'm actually surprised that 6 guys beat the entire iPhone Dev Team (however I'm sure they'll be there pretty soon themselves, especially as unlocking the iPhone was one of their last goals to accomplish).
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17I highly doubt the entire iPhone Dev Team spent all their resources trying to make the phone unlockable. The only company having the phone remain closed benefits is AT&T. I'm sure some at Apple are quietly excited by this because it will only increase the demand for iPhones.
      • cyberoidx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Or, Maybe, Under the contract, aple will be forced to release a new patch with more features, which shuts down the hacked phone... and then asks you to goto AT&T... where you have to pay a gazillion bucks cause you swtiched the network, voiding the agreement.
        • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I doubt that Apple would allow such a clause in any contract they signed. This would require too much money and resources to be contractually bound to keeping the phone "locked."
          • hove, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7In Steve jobs essay Thoughts on Music http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ he says that Apple did have such a clause in the contract that they signed with the music labels, in order to distribute music on itunes

            "a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store."

            So I don't doubt that Apple would allow such a clause.
      • XtremeBain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0sanarchy was actually referring to the iPhone Dev Wiki Team -- http://iphone.fiveforty.net/wiki/
    • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8It's easier to hack something than to make it impossible to hack. That should be a pretty simple piece of knowledge.

      "He made it unhackable, but that doesn't mean we don't hack it." ~Bioshock
      • jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Yeah
        That makes sense, and makes us all warm and fuzzy about the security of OS X, seeing as its "easier to hack something than to make it impossible to hack".
        That could explain why the iphone was hacked so easily by a webpage, and now hacked to use other carriers.
      • danielman94, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg for the Bioshock quote, lol.
      • thrallie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Isn't it irony..a hacking quote in bioshock..yet people are working on hacking bioshock to use SM2.0 on the X850 series of cards.
    • GoodBrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I find it hard to imagine that these commercial teams weren't collecting every scrap they could from the iPhone dev team. Decrypting the firmware image, hacking activation, jailbreaking the phone to provide easy access to the whole filesystem, creating the toolchain for native apps. Not to mention all the nice big "dead end" signs they put up when they tried something and it failed.
  • MrMinit, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Old news for me. A guy at the Norwegian community Mac1.no has done it a week ago.
    • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I know this guy in person, actually. While he was the first in Norway to unlock the iPhone, he didn't use a software unlock. He used the supersim method.
  • boomchockalocka, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2As an Apple investor I want them to succeed, but is anyone else concerned that so much of the iPhone seems to be hackable? They aren't exactly showing how secure they are.
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Hackable != Crackable
      • Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1That statement pretty much proves that you don't understand either term, one of which is overused and ambiguous and the other arbitrary. They don't have anything to do with each other and in many cases, yes, they really are synonymous.

        Why are you trying to polish Apple's rep with obfuscated rhetoric anyway?
        • FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because hacking the device to be used in a way other than designed is not the same as cracking the security of the device, unless you hack it in way that bypasses intentional security measures. Hacking it to be usable on another network does not mean that the security of the device has been compromised (such as allowing third parties to get a hold of your account information or address book contacts or..) The boomchock... made a correlation between the device being hacked and the security of the device, and those two issues are only slightly related (only related at all if someone cracks something that Apple intended to be secure)
    • Kardde, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It would be a smart business move on Apple's part to not only make being able to switch carriers possible through a hack, but to leave that "security hole" open. Being exclusive with AT&T was a very poor business decision on Apple's part, as it instantly eliminates a massive amount of potential customers who would want an iPhone, but didn't have AT&T. Either they didn't want to pay to get out of their contract with another carrier, didn't like AT&T, or AT&T wireless simply wasn't available in their area. That's probably why the iPhone hype died down so quickly.

      If I still didn't have a year and a half left on my Verizon contract, I would have bought an iPhone on launch day. But I'm not willing to pay some absurd penalty to get out of that contract. That's a lost sale on Apple's part, and I'm sure there are a lot of people in similar situations.
      • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Smart business move? You have no clue what the ***** you are talking about!

        If you sign a contract with business A that gives them (business A) exclusivity and gives you profit sharing for the next two years with each phone why in the world would it make sense to sell an unlocked version with no potential for profit sharing?

        • Kardde, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Would Apple rather get a few bucks from AT&T for the customers who bought an iPhone...

          Or would they rather sell tens of thousands of more iPhones due to more people being able to buy them, and potentially reshaping and conquering the cell phone market like the iPod did for portable music?

          Exclusivity contracts have a time and place. This isn't one of them.
          • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Lets see:

            (We will use some made up numbers)

            10,000 iphones at $100 profit each = $1,000,000 with no data revenue

            5,000 iphone at $100 profit each = $500,000 + {$25,000 ($5 per data plan per device) * 24 months} = $1,100,000

            And thats with the assumption that half of the people that would buy an unlocked iphone would go to tmobile or some other international carrier.
    • ElumEnopee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I was thinking the same thing. I can see it now: "It's not the phone it's the SIM card that's hacked".
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Every phone is "hackable." It's just that the iPhone is so high-profile that you are hearing about it more.
    • skatastrophy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This is neither good nor bad for Apple and bad for AT&T, fyi. In fact, they'll probably sell more iPhones this way
      • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In a sense, this is the sort of factor which began the iPod's meteoric rise to ubiquity. Remember, when the iPod first was released, and actually for a while after, it was only supported on the Mac. It took other people figuring out how to get music onto the iPod, and then figuring out how to make that happen outside of the Mac OS environment for Windows users to be able to use the iPod. And even during this period the purchases of iPods was heavily biased in favor of Windows users. Once Apple started putting out software (admittedly make-shift) for Windows users, the iPod began to sell in numbers that Apple's initial efforts and marketing strategy would NEVER have achieved. Now, one can make the argument that Apple wanted this to happen, and one can equally well make the argument that Apple has privately wanted the same thing to happen with the iPhone, but nevertheless here we are, once again, with outside parties helping to make Apple's products more successful.

        I just hope Apple doesn't try to and isn't forced into doing something to shut this process down. Hopefully they'll just let it ride for as long as they have to, and then come back and say "Ok, we're going to open this up now."

        "Time will tell. It always does." -- The Doctor.
        • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except this time at&t is the predominant gsm carrier in the US (as opposed to mac being a niche OS) so its not a minority product trying to be accessed by a majority but rather the other way around.

          If the iphone was able to be used on other networks like cdma or iden then I would say we would or could have something happening similar to the iphone as we saw with the ipod. We don't and we won't.
    • CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There is very rarely such a thing as a perfectly secured system.
  • fishbert, on 10/10/2007, -4/+279I guess iPhone software version 1.0.3 will be coming sooner than expected...
    • mccarron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+124As we discuss this, everyone at Apple is discussing how they were just told they are working the weekend. ;)
      • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Um, yeah, I'm going to have to ask you to work on Saturday this week. We've lost some security and we need to play a little catchup. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I'm going to need you to come in on Suuunday too. Okay? Great. Thanks!
        • LonesomeFighter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that is why i try to leave work 15 minutes early each day.
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3The article states it is immune to updates!
      • jayssite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It says "resistant". There's a difference.
      • Lixie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Apple knows their own software better than anyone. They'll find a way to "counter-hack" this unlocking software to disable it on already installed iPhones, and protect locked iPhones from being unlocked by it.

        It's going to play out very similar to Sony and the PSP hackers, where one keeps undercutting the other, and the result is that we the consumer have to deal with constant firmware updates.

        My only question is how is Apple going to force a firmware update? Can I prevent the iPhone from updating?
    • kaykfrink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Even if Apple patches the hack, the new software is just going to get hacked again. Once the software is out in the wild there are hundreds or thousands of people who are trying to break it, and it usually only takes between a week and a few months for somebody to figure out how to creak it. Honestly, I wish companies would spend some time thinking about this and realize that their efforts to prevent people from cracking their products is pretty much pointless and that all it really does is provide a big pain in the ass for their consumers.
    • gwalbridge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2FTA: "Again: we can confirm with 100% certainty that iPhoneSIMfree.com's software solution completely SIM unlocks the iPhone, IS RESTORE-RESISTANT, and should make the iPhone fully functional for users outside of the US"

      Restore-resistant. Cool.
  • mathguru1, on 10/10/2007, -22/+7This is stupid. Who wants to use a phone that has half of the luxuries missing. Good luck with the data bill that you will get from the other carrier.
    • signal15, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17TMO has unlimited data plans for like $20 a month.

      Additionally, the only thing that doesn't work when on TMO is the visual voicemail. You can still call your VM box though. Even the Youtube stuff works if you know how to activate it.
    • stickywheelz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13T-Mobile offers unlimited data at a fixed rate. So I don't think it will be much of a problem.
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Well one would expect that you would sign up for an unlimited data plan before using this, or just use the wifi. There are a lot of people that will want to use this phone, like anyone that doesn't have AT&T and wants the iPhone!
    • Kardde, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10So much for being a math guru. From the article, only visual voicemail doesn't work. That's one feature.

      Last I checked, the iPhone has more than two features.
    • blazzik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7They aren't missing...just hidden. The iPhoneDevTeam has opened a new world to the iPhone and now it will do almost anything my MacBook does...
  • kaiserollofdoom, on 10/10/2007, -23/+2now do all the features like visual voicemail work. Cause if they do, thats my next phone.
    • pranavchavda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11nope, not visual voicemail - because it's an att network feature
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12RTFA!
    • qwickone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Why dont you RTFA before you post questions that are answered there?
  • mrrish, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6I am disappointed its going to cost money because if Apple and AT&T DO find an update that kills it, the people who paid good money will be left in the dust. I personally have a 4GB iPhone legally under AT&T and I am absolutely satisfied with the great services I am getting. I think it's worth the money; though, i guess Europe can't wait :D
    • justinviger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3We can't wait here in Canada either.
    • csopelario, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3"I personally have a 4GB iPhone legally under AT&T and I am absolutely satisfied with the great services I am getting. I think it's worth the money" AMEN to that!
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then don't do the updates until others can confirm that it doesn't kill the unlocking. The iPhone doesn't FORCE you do to the updates.
  • mobilehavoc, on 10/10/2007, -10/+33Nice...more sales for Apple = higher AAPL stock price = PROFIT!!!!
    • plizard, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2dividends! w00t
    • cesig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Unless AT&T is subsidizing the cost of the iPhone so Apple can sell it at a lower cost. In which case, this is less money for them.

      But I doubt that. And I don't really actually care either way. Screw you, AT&T!
      • swoosh_bnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'm sure apple does get a hefty premium from AT&T for having them the sole network for the iphone.
    • johnnybluejeans, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Lets not forget that Apple sees a healthy piece of every AT&T contract for the iPhone. This revenue makes up a sizable chunk of the iPhone profits.
    • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Ha ha! You guys are funny AND clueless!

      Not only does apple and at&t make money off of the phone but apple also gets profit sharing (from the data plan for two years!), the only one getting screwed by this is apple who now will be loosing out on what once was guaranteed profit!
      • qwerter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Selling gobfulls more iPhones sounds like guaranteed profit to me.
        • sinrtb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not really its like consoles, consoles are manufactured and sold at a loss which are then made up through games sales/licensing. Here Apple is doing the same but are making up their lost money by getting a share of the contracts through AT&T.
  • osteo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Now I can use my iphone overseas with my International pre-paid SIM card that has much better international rates.

    Did the AT&T Death Star just blow up?
    • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, as you just pointed out it just made switching to at&t a little more palatable because it took away one of the reason why people wouldn't want to switch to at&t and use an unlockable phone.
      • qwerter, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Sorry, what? I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm apparently retarded.
        • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You are retarded but that's ok, now that you have admitted it you can seek help.

          And just in case you don't remember what you typed, my comment was in response to this:
          "Did the AT&T Death Star just blow up?"
      • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1How does allowing people not to have to switch to AT&T make switching to AT&T more palatable? I guess I'm retarded, too.
        • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because one of the reasons people did not want to switch to at&t was because of the international roaming rates and having a locked phone means they are locked into those rates as opposed to being able to use their own UNlocked iphone and a local carriers cheaper rates.
    • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I wish someone would photoshop the AT&T logo going nova, Star Wars style.
  • FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Unless you can get access to all the features, what's the use? The whole purpose of going wiht one carrier was because that carrier was offering new features on their network specifically for the device. Are Sprint and Verizon and... going to offer all the same features on their networks, now, just because some hacked an iPhone to use those networks?
    • diggmaddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15There's JUST ONE exclusive feature for iPhone on AT&T network and that is Visual Voicemail. Apart from that, ALL other features are easily accessible on any other network! BTW, Verizon and Sprint use CDMA (and iPhone is GSM, if you're not aware of that yet), so no amount of software/hardware hacking can make the iPhone work on those networks. Within the US, it's great news for T-Mobile users who were drooling over the iPhone and didn't want to switch (which includes me.).
    • willynilly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes, the incorrectly named "visual voicemail" is not enough of an incentive to do anything.
  • ElumEnopee, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Questions:
    1) Your still locked in to a two-year contract with AT&T, correct? What is the early termination fee for the iPhone?
    2) Seem like another carrier would be reluctant to sign up an "illegally" hacked iPhone.
    3) Doesn't AT&T have data plans exclusive to the iPhone that another carrier have not have or support?
    • bradleyjx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+131) You can purchase an iPhone without a contract.
      2) Most carriers only charge you for a plan and give you a SIM card for a phone. They don't care what phone that card goes into.
      3) The plan is mostly just an "X minute, unl. data" plan with random other perks; other carriers have similar plans, just without the exclusive perks.
    • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21) You can buy an iPhone right now without any contract. It seems they have managed to allow you to activate features without signing up with ATT at all. So no contract.
    • wupike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2why would this be any different than another carrier's plan with any other unlocked cell phone?
      • youareretarded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Its not any different.

        Which is why its funny that all these commenter's think this some how screws at&t.
    • SubFuze, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Unlocking phones in the US is LEGAL:

      http://digg.com/tech_news/It_has_Been_LEGAL_to_Unlock_Your_Cell_Phone_Since_November_2006
    • ElumEnopee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Holy *****! Dugg down for asking a simple series of questions? Oh, that's right right -- this is Digg! Guess my questions rubbed some fan boys the wrong way.
      • Jholder112233, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No but if you RTA you'd realise that your questions have been answered in the article.
      • SubFuze, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You weren't dugg down for asking simple questions. You were dugg down for asking questions that are common knowledge and don't contribute to the discussion.
  • Laurent, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39This, of course, doesn't changes anything for us poor canadians... We'll still be stuck with Rogers, the only GSM Network provider here!
    • eatsleeptrumpet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2as a canadian currently living in the states, i have to say that rogers is possibly the most unreliable network ive ever been on. talk about dropped calls...
    • johnnykalma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2FIDO IS GSM!!
      why does everybody forget about Fido?
  • fiorenza, on 10/10/2007, -8/+28TMobile here I come.
    • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3no don't do it. I had a 911 phone call get dropped right in the middle of Atlanta from TMobile. Their coverage is literally the worst of all of the big companies...
      • jonshipman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2They roam on at&t now, so they have coverage where at&t has coverage

        PS. it always helps to have an 850Mhz band phone too, I picked up US-101 in kirksville on the 850Mhz band
    • skyscape, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4My tmobile works in the woods.
      • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thus answering the question "If a T-Mobile falls in the woods, will it make a sound?"
    • johnnybluejeans, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Hahaha, tmobile has to be the worst carrier in the country.
      • sherwinn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You are certainly the authority on this matter, johnnybluejeans.
  • FireAtWill, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7I'm taking this thing to Canada! AhA!
  • GoodOldJacob, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Meh. Call me when it supports SIP.
  • stickywheelz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2AND now we see AT&T shares sliidddddddde!
    • mdeppi01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yeah.. because the average user is going to have the know-how and ambition to do this themselves.
  • Clay3521, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Now if we can just get it to work on Alltel's network I'll buy two tomorrow. Still, great work guys!
    • colincornaby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Alltel is CDMA. The iPhone will never work on Alltel because it is a GSM phone.
  • xpose, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4This isnt like hacking a console or modding one.

    This is an Apple cell phone. You aren't so anonymous. This is something that will get a lot of updates and a phone that has an exclusive deal with one phone carrier. So don't expect this to be easy and work for very long.
    • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1It is IMMUNE to updates
    • _skin_, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"The iPhoneSIMfree.com guys claim this method is restore and upgrade resistant. We have no way of knowing whether Apple will be able to disable this SIM unlock with future iPhone software updates, but we can confirm that it is restore-resistant." (http://www.engadget.com/)
  • BigBobW, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0rock on!! At&T can $ u c k it!! That's what they get for coughing up private consumer information to the Feds! (little Eichmann's, all of them).
  • mobilehavoc, on 10/10/2007, -7/+60Does anyone realize apart from Apple/AT&T going after the iphonesimfree.com folks they can just as easily provide a list of iPhone IMEI numbers to T-Mobile to stop people from using them on T-Mobile's network? Everytime you register on a GSM network your SIM ICCID and handset's IMEI are registered as well. Makes it easy for carriers to block/blacklist phones if they want. This is all assuming they can't just release an update that resolves this.

    In other words, I highly doubt the longevity of this hack.
    • fixyourthinking, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1Exactly ... I could if I wanted to (RIGHT NOW AS AN ATT&T EMPLOYEE) call a number and have ANY IMEI number shut down whether it be TMobile/Suncom/AT&T
      • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12*****... maybe if the phone was stolen. UNLOCKING is LEGAL. You'd be breaking the law.
      • willynilly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Try it, and your next post will be as a FORMER AT&T employee.
    • mateo60, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6I'd hate to spend $800 for an unlocked iPhone and then Apple patches the phone via software update......
      • robotsongs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I'd hate to spend $800 for a phone!
        • Sparkster185, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5But it has "i" in it's name, so it will make you cooler.
    • diggmaddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+53But why would T-Mobile do that? This is in fact good news for T-Mobile. Less people will switch to AT&T just to use the iPhone.
      • mobilehavoc, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Why would T-Mobile do that? Because if they didn't I'm sure Apple/AT&T could legally go after them. Keep in mind Apple gets a cut of revenue for every AT&T iPhone subscriber so people who buy iPhones to use them on T-Mobile are bad for Apple.
        • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7AT&T would have no legal ground for going after T-Mobile for that, unlocking phones is legal.
        • chiller2002, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Apple gets a cut of revenue for every subscriber? You mean the profit from the phone wasn't enough?
      • toetagger, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Not only would T-Mobile NOT do that, they are not allowed under the law!
      • virtualball, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I believe it's more about company loyalty. Obviously, Apple had plans to use T-Mobile because of all the menus and carrier icons and stuff, how would Apple like it if T-Mobile refused to blacklist the IMEI numbers? They'd probably hate it and never really look at T-Mobile the same. T-Mobile aren't idiots, they know not to upset Apple because they want a couple thousand more people.
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Would they be able to stop them, with the law allowing the unlocking of cell phones? From my understanding of that law, it's not illegal for companies to make phones locked to a network, but it's ALSO not illegal for people to unlock them.
      • kodek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2The question is, if one has to crack some type of encryption to unlock the phone, wouldn't this be illegal under the DMCA?
        • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1As far as I have heard, providing a means to yourself for using a cell phone in an otherwise legitimate fashion (that is, signing up for a paid-for account) is not a violation of DMCA. In fact, for some reason I want to say it's one of the relatively few examples of an exception to DMCA.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35Why, exactly, would T-Mobile willingly prevent people from using their service?
      • sn00kie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Apple and AT&T could take them to court.
        • godofpumpkins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11why would T-Mobile be required to enforce a contract between two other companies?
          • sn00kie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2For the same reason you aren't supposed to put osx on a dell.
    • uidzero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Not all that likely. Apple would still be getting sales and not have the motivation to pursue it and T-mobile would more than likely be lack in enforcement seeing as it's keeping people using their network and paying them who other wise would have switched to AT&T to use said Iphone.
    • l33tsauce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Why? its perfectly legal to unlock your cellphone. Apple still get all procede from selling the phone.
    • Codee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why do you crush my dreams so. Let me live man!
  • bumblefoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13good news, for the record alot of people on the engadget page commented on at&t or apple sending cease and desist letters to the hackers, they wont, unlocking a product you already own is perfectly legal, the only grey area would be if you hacked it to use on at&t but bypass any charges for it in some way and im not even sure it'll invalidate your warranty as your only circumventing a software lock, (in the uk it doesn't invalidate warranty so i assume its the same in the us) if you broke the case open and hardware modded it however it would.
    Another point is that from the article i got the impression that every function worked on it apart from the visual voice mail, that's not a big deal for alot of people :-)
    • IceIX, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2You need to read up on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Whether or not you agree with the law, bypassing a security barrier is illegal, even if you are doing it on a device you own. That company will never make any money selling this item and anyone who expects to use this will end up disappointed. I don't like it any more than you do, but thats how things are until we get it changed.
      • thomasjcollins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7actually, you should do some reading...there is a provision that specifically ALLOWS unlocking cellphones, for now at least.
      • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This is not a case of circumventing COPYRIGHT, which is what the DMCA covers as far as code that removes features..
      • sinrtb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2DMCA applies in UK, are the brits our colonies now?
        • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ye olde fashioned pwnage. Yo, Lizzy, what up?
      • bluesdealer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know... I work for AT&T, so this event affects my job negatively. That said, ***** THE DMCA! Even if there was no provision to allow unlocking (not the case), citing the DMCA (an unconstitutional document) is no way to back an argument.

        Just know that you can wave goodbye to the warranty and any support if you do this to your phone, though... and future software updates downloaded OTA may or may not brick your phone. ;-)
    • GoodBrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And why, exactly, would T-mobile want to blacklist iPhones?
  • NoSalt, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11So ... how long until AT&T throws a hissy fit and brings the lawyers down on these guys??? Im not a pessimist, just a realist.
    • chiller2002, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Unlocking software for cellphones are common and legal in the U.S. T-Mobile was unable to stop people from selling RAZR unlock software when they used to have the exclusive locked phones. This is no different, even for corporations as greedy and sue-happy as Apple and AT&T.
      • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It depends HOW it was unlocked. (See : DMCA)
  • lsmaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Does any one here know the answers to these questions after reading it??

    Does that mean if you buy it and unlock it that you can not update it or what?? Also, you can install your TMobile SIM card, and get service, but how to do it unreleased yet?
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There's no way to tell if a future update will remove the unlocking until they release one. In the meantime, they've proven that doing a full restore of the phone keeps the unlock in tact, which is a good sign.
      • lsmaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you do not have to have an AT&T sim to get the updates from Apple, correct?
        • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This remains to be seen. No questions about "what will happen when Apple does this" can be answered until we see first-hand.
    • avanisle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Never mind updates.... even unlocked, your service provider needs to be compliant.
  • BandarBush, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1copyright infringement?
  • dasunst3r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+43This brings up fresh memories from this article: http://consumerist.com/consumer/iphone/iphone-locked-to-cingular-but-bad-guys-might-unlock-it-228168.php

    These iPhone unlockers are not the bad guys. AT&T and Apple are the bad guys for making a defective by design, locked-down phone, and I sure as heck do not pay $600 for anything and have someone tell me what I can/can't do with it (so long as I don't deprive other people of the resources they paid for).
    • jun2san, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"I sure as heck do not pay $600 for anything and have someone tell me what I can/can't do with it"

      You mean like a gun?
      • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Guns fall outside the normal definition of a tool. The only two ways in which they can reasonably be defined as tools, apart from maybe using one as a lever or a mallet, would be in the course of hunting for food, or as a defensive tool. And even then this skirts a very, very fine line.
    • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Hell yeah.
    • kelly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Thats fine... as long as you realize that your way of thinking will inevitably result in a higher priced iPhone for everyone else because Apple isn't getting ATT kickback money.

      Everybody point at the guy that helps raise prices for the rest of us.
      • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not likely as such, and the reason is that iPhones are commodities, not necessities. Food, water and gas are "necessities", along with car and home-related insurance. If you look at the entire range of consumer electronic devices, prices have fallen over time, both respect to "real dollars" and "value for money".

        Two things specifically make price escalation on the iPhone unlikely:

        1. It is *not* an entrenched product.
        2. It is only capable of being sold at a price the market will bear.
  • batmant, on 10/10/2007, -3/+171I bet Steve is laughing his ass off right now. He made the Jesus phone Asia could never produce. Then he signs a 5-year exclusivity deal knowing full damn well what his community will do with the thing once it's on the market. Then, it all comes to fruition and iPhone sales go up even further (at least through the Apple store). Ten bucks says Apple doesn't do a thing to prevent this (a la Apple TV).
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+51I can see it now:

      Steve: "We're sorry guys, there's nothing we can do to re-lock this phone."
      AT&T: "Ugh"
    • iceberg299, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Umm, actually the iPhone is manufactured by a Taiwanese company. Just saying...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Design_Manufacturer
    • superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12By "Produce" he means "Design" which is true.
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And why WOULD Apple do anything to prevent this? It'll only increase the sales of the iPhone.
    • jgcrawfo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Jobs has long been at odds with record companies over the iTunes store, because despite his horrible iBranding of everything, he really cares about making the customers happy with their purchases above all else. Say what you will against Macs, but it's undeniable that Jobs wants none of this single network nonsense if he can avoid it. He needed their help to begin, and now he's got in he's OK.
    • bluesdealer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course, AT&T could just say, "You're no longer holding up your end of the bargain... say goodbye to the kickback you're receiving from network usage until you patch your phone."
  • batmant, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26well eBay certainly benefits from this
    • lsmaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Haha true true. Hacked iPhone - 5,000 dollars. Lazy bastards.
  • inthecityof, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0I e-mailed http://iphone.cell-unlock.com and they say they will be reselling iphone unlocks within the next week.
    • joebaloney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Or you could have read their website, but either way...
  • apologeticus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Couldn't this just be undone with a firmware update?
    • Coucho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0No, because the hardware OR is still on the circuitboard. Software cannot remove a firm piece of magnet wire.

      The only thing they have to do with a firmware update is wipe the current firmware and reinstall.
  • astanhope, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7Now what will we use Digg for?
    • garoda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I was just thinking the same thing, but after next week when Apple re-locks we´ll have a use for digg again.
    • ikzeidegek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2For burying Ron Paul stories?
  • Visceral, on 10/10/2007, -7/+57Next Weeks headline: Apple re-locks iPhone. Suck it.
  • ncaauwe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Hooray! Now I need a GSM carrier...nothing but CDMA around here =(
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Where the hell do you live?!
      • ncaauwe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Northeast Nebraska. We used to have Cellular One, which was bought out by AT&T recently, but the Cell One in OUR area was bought by US Cellular years ago, at which point they switched their network to CDMA. Funnily enough, T-Mobile SIM cards and Pre-Paid cards and phones are sold in stores here, even though there is no T-Mobile coverage =P

        Yup, Sprint (as well as Helio), Alltel, US Cellular, and crappy local carriers around here...all CDMA. I plan on moving down to Lincoln, NE in the next year or two, so I'll be able to sign up with pretty much any large carrier down there =)
        • AdamFromMyspace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow, that sucks.
        • MikeTheC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually, having been with both SprintPCS and Cingular/AT&T, I much prefer CDMA to GSM. Reception is in most cases far superior, and audio quality is perfectly maintained out to the point of total signal loss. I don't get that damn interference on my computer speakers when I get anywhere near my home office while talking on my cell phone on Sprint's CDMA system, and about the only time I have a reception problem is at work when I'm in the bathroom. And, frankly, when I'm sitting on the can, I've got better things to do than talk on the damn phone.
      • ikoul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Maybe Vermont.
  • BaylorDawg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24uhhh... I doubt ATT is too concerned... considering the VAST majority of Iphone users will be using ATT. I would be surprised if more than 1% of people choose to use the Iphone with a different carrier.
    • TimmyGUNZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think the companies that are probably ***** themselves the most are the European manufacturers trying to get rights for the phone. They may lose a bulk of sales to people who import unlocked phones.
    • darlyn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're totally right. Relatively speaking, most iPhone owners don't have a clue about this. Those who do know about this would be naturally cautious, even with Engadget's many reassurances (or, at least I would be, if I had an iPhone 0_0 )
  • waymatter, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16Nice...way to stick it to those monopolizing bastards. :)
    • kelly, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Nothing wrong with monopolies. Actually, monopolies are good as they achieved that status by creating good products.


      It's companies that acquired their monopoly illegally, abused their monopoly and then leveraged that monopoly to gain monopolies in other markets... then abused that monopoly position as well that are bad.

      In essence... it's just Microsoft.
    • jedi0utkast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You are punishing them buy buying their product?
      I fail to understand the point. please explain it to me.
    • Gee1004, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I guess you never worked or had your own business. No one is forcing you to buy their products.
    • airhead75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Um, how is this a monopoly? I mean exactly how is it a monopoly?

      Your comment is ludicrous.
      • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Apple has a monopoly on iPhone, duh
        • bluesdealer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They're a carrier... they do not have a monopoly on cell service. Every carrier has exclusive phones. Apple, as the manufacturer, has the right to choose which network can use their phone. What's your point, again?
    • Quix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The iPhone has like .05% of the cell phone market and somehow this is a "monopoly?"

      *Someone* needs to look up the word in the dictionary...
  • griz, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2OK, so how do you buy an iphone without the AT&T contract? Doesn't it still need to first be enabled on AT&T?

    I guess if you activate it, switch networks, pay the $175 contract break fee, you now have a very expensive iPhone.
    • lsmaster, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Yea, don't you still have to have an AT&T sim card to first activate it?
      • garoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2There are several free applicationes of activating the iPhone without att, such as iactivator.
        • lsmaster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2But I really want to know if you have to rehack the phone for every update.
    • _skin_, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The iPhone comes with an AT&T sim in the box.
  • SirBotchness, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4that is until the next iphone update comes out next week.
    • skyscape, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0thats right, and it is going to be a crucial feature update every iPhone maniac needs, and a hidden security update
      • Gutterpunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1With so many things "missing" on the iPhone, I have no doubt that they can make it appear crucial.

        Whats better? A iPhone that you can roam onto any network or a iPhone with third party app or MMS?

        Hey it would be damn amazing if they release "must have" update every time the phone gets unlocked!
  • Night201, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18What about this article from MSNBC about a kid in NJ who cracked it (but had to solder it though)?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20424880/
  • rgaino, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1QUESTION: does AT&T sell the iPhone without having to sign the 2-year contract? If not, besides this being cool hacking, what's the advantage?
    • kris33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Not sure about AT&T, but Apple sells the iPhone un-activated. You activate itself at home via iTunes.
    • chiller2002, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My understanding is that ALL iPhones (sold at AT&T, Apple, or online venues) come with no activation. All activation is handled at home through iTunes, where you select your plan and do credit checking etc etc.
    • khail250, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0is this your first day on digg to ask such a niave question?

      that or go to ebay.com and see a million iphones..
  • Godlike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You know what? I would rather peck and crack at a secured iPhone than have one that works out of the box because I love just doing it. Not everyone (in fact most people) would disagree with me, but there is a subset that enjoys that sort of thing.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.