Bad logic

"Apple is said to have become frustrated, however, by the number of people buying iPhones and unlocking them for an unofficial carrier, thus depriving Apple of shared revenue streams."

Since Apple is no longer getting shared revenue on the iPhone 3G — just a standard subsidy — this argument no longer holds water.

What Apple wants to ensure is that customers get a consistent, reliable experience AND use the Apple-provided ecosystem for obtaining applications. After it realized just how big international demand really was, and witnessed a cottage industry doing nothing but unlocking iPhones, it redoubled its international efforts, and that's precisely why you see the number of countries Apple is planning on launching in, in addition to the new efforts to prevent people from walking out with hardware and no contract from the carrier that is subsidizing the phone.

In other words, how every single other subsidized/locked handset in the US market has always been handled. The only gripe, if any, is that Apple isn't selling an "unlocked" variant of the iPhone. And guess what? They don't have to.

And everyone is free to decide whether they buy the phone, and what they do with it afterward. You just also have a contract to deal with.

I hate that you have to

buy them 'in store,' but that doesn't change my buying one. It just delays it for a couple of weeks. (yes, I am that busy)

I can't wait...

Addendum

When I said:

'The only gripe, if any, is that Apple isn't selling an "unlocked" variant of the iPhone. And guess what? They don't have to.'

...I should be clear that I am talking about the US market.

And what about Europe?

Will be interesting to see the price for an unlocked iPhone in France, Denmark and else where were they Have to sell it without contract as well.And also the contract-bound price, since it's only legal to lock people for 6 months here (DK)...

Apple are annoyed?

"Apple is said to have become frustrated, however, by the number of people buying iPhones and unlocking them for an unofficial carrier, thus depriving Apple of shared revenue streams."

I have become frustrated due to stupid contract issues, and the fact that they are only released in the States (until the iPhone 3G comes out)

I think Apple could have avoided this whole thing by making it not locked to a network... e.g. some discount if you sign a new contract with AT&T, otherwise, make it $100 more and get it unlocked.

Really they would, and will, sell SO MUCH MORE should they do that.

$100 more??

The contract subsidy for the phone is said to be around $300-400 - so the contract free version would be selling for $500-600 at least.

Exactly, rytc

Just as the unlocked first-gen iPhone was selling for 500-600 Euros.

Revenue sharing agreement (and lack thereof with 3G) wasn't the cause of Apple's frustration. Unlocking was. When people were able to walk away with an iPhone for $400, both Apple and AT&T were losing money. Apple could have done the same as with 3G (upfront subsidy, instead of partial spreading of that money over 24 months), and the problem would have continued to exist.

Mandatory signing of 2-year contract at purchase is the game-changer here. Now, just like all other phones, if you want subsidised price, you have to sign away your soul (at least for the next two years). If you don't want to sign, in many countries, you'll be able to put up all the money upfront, to the tune of $500-700 or so.

The only people who will unlock a locked (i.e. subsidised) phone will be those who travel and occasionally want to use it with another SIM card.

subsidy

Since Apple is no longer getting shared revenue on the iPhone 3G — just a standard subsidy — this argument no longer holds water.

Well, it doesn't, except it is probably the main reason they no longer share revenue. They were losing too much money. So they now get the money all up-front

The contract subsidy for the phone is said to be around $300-400 - so the contract free version would be selling for $500-600 at least.

That's just rumor/speculation. The thing is, only Apple and AT&T know how much they're getting. (Note: For those who complain about the lack of affordable call plans for any phone, look no further than understanding everyone pays for the subsidized phones, even if you don't own one).

And a contract-free phone wouldn't cost "subsidy contract price". They would definitely throw an extra $$$ on top, just to penalize those who don't want to join the subsidy bandwagon.

more bad logic

What Apple wants to ensure is that customers get a consistent, reliable experience AND use the Apple-provided ecosystem for obtaining applications.

Wait, they want to ensure a reliable and consistent experience? When did they switch from AT&T??

But, to your point, Apple wants to kill unlocking because they lose control. And they like control. They want to control everything you can do with the device. And with control means they make sure they get paid. And that what it comes down to it (not that there's anything particularly wrong with that, it's just people always make it sound like Apple's all about 'the experience', not the money).

itunes

didn't the original phone require you to connect via itunes at least once before you could use it?

And probably it will be needed to get the latest software installed.

WRONG!

Apple is said to have become frustrated, however,
> by the number of people buying iPhones and
> unlocking them for an unofficial carrier, thus
> depriving Apple of shared revenue streams.

Unlocking, and the hackers opening and unlocking iPhones previously, were merely 'useful idiots' to Apple, allowing them to take the iPhone to markets that Apple wasn't initially in - this was often pointed out previously.

At this point, with the iPhone reaching 70 markets by the end of the year, the 'useful idiots' have outlived their usefulness, and are now being methodically locked out -- by removing the incentives to unlock, by supporting as many countries, and the incentives to jailbreak, by the App Store.

Sure, there will still be a few that will jailbreak, but by and large, after July 11th, the jailbreak community will be marginalized, and unlocking will be limited to only those traveling between countries - something that will also eventually be addressed.

WRONG!

Apple is said to have become frustrated, however,
> by the number of people buying iPhones and
> unlocking them for an unofficial carrier, thus
> depriving Apple of shared revenue streams.

Unlocking, and the hackers opening and unlocking iPhones previously, were merely 'useful idiots' to Apple, allowing them to take the iPhone to markets that Apple wasn't initially in - this was often pointed out previously.

At this point, with the iPhone reaching 70 markets by the end of the year, the 'useful idiots' have outlived their usefulness, and are now being methodically locked out -- by removing the incentives to unlock, by supporting as many countries, and the incentives to jailbreak, by the App Store.

Sure, there will still be a few that will jailbreak, but by and large, after July 11th, the jailbreak community will be marginalized, and unlocking will be limited to only those traveling between countries - something that will also eventually be addressed.

Oh, and ...

...the MacNN commenting system is really starting to grate....

AT&T Unlock

I had a locked Treo 650 & now a 680 (both bought at subsidized prices and 2 year commitments) - I simply called AT&T and they gave me an unlock code for the phone.

Who’s to say that AT&T will not offer an unlock code for the iPhone to those loyal costumers who need it for traveling?

CVB

Precisely!

I've been saying this all along. Now that the iPhone subsidy model is same as for all other phones, I won't be surprised if they begin giving unlocking instructions to all who ask, just like with all other subsidised and locked phones.

so.....

does this mean that you can thenonly get the phone thru an AT&T location?

No more Apple Store or Apple Online purchases?

ETF

People complaining about being "locked into contracts" simply have never had a phone worth owning before (or costing so much). A phone with comparable features, the Nokia N95, goes for $700 unlocked. I'll repeat that: $700. Even if you pay AT&T ETF fee of $175 plus $75 for the first month (you can't cancel during the first month without returning the phone, though you get a full refund), it's cheaper than when the phone ORIGINALLY launched a year ago.

And for other people that don't know, the value of the dollar has really tanked in the last year. Regardless, even after you jump through a couple of loops, people who really want to buy one will be able to do so for maybe $550-600 outside of the US. And for those people that complain about being locked into a contract, you're phone won't be much use on any other network (T-Mobile doesn't have a compatible 3G network, and don't even think about CDMA carriers like Verizon and Sprint).

Anyway. the phone is what it is. Nothing more.