This is NOT an unlock for iPhone 3G -- at best, it's an unlock for the iPhone 2.0 SOFTWARE, requiring a first generation, original iPhone to execute it on.

It's highly unlikely that this will work on iPhone 3G. More like - NOT!

@Zink: Why do you think so?

Also, why is it 'for traveling with another SIM card'?

It's: 'to acticate the phone without using Apple's locked down providers, for the rest of us, that does not want to sign up for a stupid high contract'. !

And could we PLEASE now stop pretending this is ONLY used in the US at AT&T's network?

Well the problem now is that you can't buy an iPhone without signing up for a contract, so in that sense activating it will have to be done legitimately. The only use of this app now is to allow you to use a different SIM card i.e. one from a different carrier, for example when travelling.

To say it again, if you don't want to sign up for a contract then you have to buy it off contract (in countries that allow it) for $1000 odd, this then can function on any network. It is no longer possible to buy the phones like with the 1G version and never activate it - you MUST activate in store.

As much as I love the AppStore, it is still nice to have an option to load whatever App I want on MY phone, and configure MY phone however I want.

Will a jailbroken phone that can run unapproved apps (alright, let's get that p*** cataloguer going!) also be able to use the app store?

This moves us one step closer to a ripe court case on tying in the cell industry. Imagine if Ford said you had to sign a contract when you buy a car from them, one that required you to only use only Exxon gas, or they would remotely and permanently disable your car without compensation. (In essence this arrangement reduces the purchaser to a renter who is bearing the full cost of the rental property, BUT with no control over it. In other eras such arrangements are commonly referred to as serfdom or manorialism.) Imagine now that Ford said they wouldn't even sell to you without this agreement. This would be a classic example of a breach of the anti-tying provisions of the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts. It is anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior pure and simple -- and Apple, and Steve Jobs, of all people, should be ashamed. This is not a system "for the rest of us," at least not in the sense the long-haired, sandal wearing Jobs of 30 years meant it. It is sad the difference a few billion dollars can make in a man.

I wonder what my 1.0 phone is worth now...

TheSnarkmeister, you are absolutely right! I love Apple and their products (I have them pretty much all!) and they should be ashamed of trying to make us all bend over. But i guess this is what happens if you go from almost bankrupt to float in cash :(. Imagine where Apple would be today if they would have sold the original iPod exclusively with an iTMS subscription...? Not around, but that's only my guess ;)

TheSnarkmeister: right on !! great piece