...& 'information' might be worth contemplating...?

They aren't going to start anything. They're going to be to busy in court. This is illegal and they know it and AT&T knows it so they aren't going to sell anything to unlock or sell unlocked phones. End of story.

I don't believe AT&T has any legal right here in regards to a company offering an unlocking service for a device manufacturered by a third party, not by AT&T. Even though the software start-up would have some logo/text indicating the device is being used on AT&T's network the reality is that it's an "Apple" iPhone not AT&T iPhone. Also customers who purchase the Apple iPhone "own" the device and can do what ever they want with it. The warranty coverage is through Apple, not AT&T. It's really up to Apple if they want to press the legal card on whether or not to allow their customers to unlock their hardware, not AT&T.

why would you buy and iPhone in order to use it with a service that doesn't provide most of why you would buy an iPhone for to begin with?

Its like hacking my MAC so I can run DOS as the operating system.

To have an iPod and Phone in one, and a cool touch screen.....

The only real advantage that I see that one wouldnt have using it on tmobile would be the visual voicemail and I already have an adequate version of that with YouMail.

See, maybe I could understand the corporate bullying from AT&T if they offered some sort of subsidy for the iPhone, but they dont. They charge full price for a phone that they lock you into for 2 years.

My local paper reported on a kid who made some hardware and software modifications that i think i'm going to look into.

I think more than the Visual Voicemail and 10% bonus that Apple receives is the fact that AT&T gave Apple full control over the device.

Some of the things Apple got away with are unheard of with U.S. carriers. For example, the beautiful, clean exterior of the phone with not a -single- carrier (AT&T) logo, or even more importantly, the lack of 'crapware' that all US carriers insist on installing on a phone. The iPhone only has outstanding, desktop-class apps, no advertising junk, and one single tiny AT&T reference in the top left of the screens.

In fact, I'll go as far as saying that the iPhone would not be the elegant piece of equipment it is without that agreement with AT&T. Since AT&T got the 5-year lockdown, they were willing to concede things such as interface.

Perhaps now that Apple has set the precedent, other carriers might be willing to give phone-makers more control over their own equipment! The results, clearly, can be stunning.

Legally they can't do what they thought they could do. AT&T and Apple have an exclusive contract which prohibits any other carrier from giving service to the iPhone period. Knowing how to unlock it doesn't give them the legal right to use it, sell it, break it. So that's why they won't be doing any business period.

Well said. THAT is the issue here. AT&T shouldn't be preparing itself to go up against small companies with a piece of software. They should legally insist that all other carriers disable access to their service via the iPhone.

Although I'd much prefer having the ability to unlock an iPhone.

"why would you buy and iPhone in order to use it with a service that doesn't provide most of why you would buy an iPhone for to begin with?"

It's only been explained a million times what the advantages of having an unlocked iPhone are:

1. People in the US who spend most of their time outside of an AT&T coverage area can use the phone, with the exception of one nice but not really necessary function (visual voicemail) with a provider that gives them better coverage for their needs.

2. People outside of the US who would like to use the iPhone now, and not have to wait for Apple to "get around to" releasing it in their country.

3. People who travel and switch SIMS to avoid exorbitant roaming charges (especially data in the case of the iPhone).

I guess you're just another US-Centric American who just doesn't get the concept of the wants and needs of this global society.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the unlocking so I can use my local SIM cards when travelling in Thailand and Europe, so as to avoid paying AT&T's idiotically expensive data roaming, and voice roaming charges (5 cents a kilobyte!!! and $1.29 a minute - s**** that).

When in the US, I don't particularly care being on AT&T or T-Mobile (albeit T-Mobile has much better customer service), as both plans cost comparatively the same (AT&T actually ends up being cheaper), and both provider the same voice service, and in either case, I have to pay for the same type of service, every months, so the 2-year commitment doesn't bother me (and if it did, the $175 cancellation fee is much less than paying $2,000+ for 2 years of service, so whatever).

Being able to use it abroad, and while travelling, with local SIM cards for pennies per minute is a far better deal (especially where a provider in Thailand offers prepay GPRS/EDGE cards for timed usage, not per/kiobyte usage).

couldn't have said it better

I think Apple had to lock itself with Cingular/ATT because Apple required the provider to modify its network to suit the visual voicemail. Cell-Phone network providers were never used to having a phone manufacturer dictate such terms.

The only change they needed was for 'visual voicemail', which, if they published it as a spec (which, unfortunately, would mean that others could use it as well), then every provider could offer the service (but then apple wouldn't have the 'total control' they like over their tech).

why would you buy and iPhone in order to use it with a service that doesn't provide most of why you would buy an iPhone for to begin with?

The only things that wouldn't work are (a) visual voicemail, and, uh, what else? If that's all you bought the phone for, then just stick with AT&T then.

I think more than the Visual Voicemail and 10% bonus that Apple receives is the fact that AT&T gave Apple full control over the device.

Some of the things Apple got away with are unheard of with U.S. carriers. For example, the beautiful, clean exterior of the phone with not a -single- carrier (AT&T) logo, or even more importantly, the lack of 'crapware' that all US carriers insist on installing on a phone. If it cost $100 less, I think a lot of people would put up with a lousy logo on the device (and there is a logo, its on the screen!).

In fact, I'll go as far as saying that the iPhone would not be the elegant piece of equipment it is without that agreement with AT&T. Since AT&T got the 5-year lockdown, they were willing to concede things such as interface.

That's garbage. Apple sells the phone. They decide what goes on it, not the carriers. The carriers only get to decide if they subsidize the phone. If you bought the phone from Apple, then signed up with Verizon, they have no right or ability to put anything on the phone, lock it down, etc.

Perhaps now that Apple has set the precedent, other carriers might be willing to give phone-makers more control over their own equipment! The results, clearly, can be stunning.

Again, it comes from not subsidizing. If customers were so concerned, they'd be buying unlocked phones separate from service. But its hard to get people to care to spend $300 for a phone rather then $50.

I'm glad they called him on it. Unlocking the iPhone is not a mystery. Apple and/or AT&T could unlock it at any time they choose. There is a reason it is locked and it should remain that way until they choose to unlock it.

If you don't want AT&T as a provider then don't buy the iPhone its that simple. By a Treo or a BlackBerry instead. If he does release it I hope they sue his pants off.

The issue here isn't the phone, it's the contract; not the consumer's contract, the one between Apple and AT&T. That is where the scrutiny will bear fruit, or rather cake.

they get barred from "selling" the software - s**** the company trying to make a buck off of the un-lock_

There will be enough folks passing out alternative mthods of doing the smae thing free or thru open-source anyway - I can wait_

"They aren't going to start anything. They're going to be to busy in court. This is illegal and they know it and AT&T knows it so they aren't going to sell anything to unlock or sell unlocked phones. End of story."

The DMCA contains an exemption to make it legal to unlock cell phones. End of story.

RTFL (law) before you post.

So all of you "unlock" fans are going to buy a $500+ device so you can be a cheap-a** in every other aspect of your service? Dumbasses - just buy a $15 set for your "roaming" non-US needs.

And as far as being "Ameri-centric" why shouldnt I be? That is where MY needs are, I don't really care what yours are.

Doofuses.