Free the iPhone from AT&T

Acererak was one of several readers who noted that DVD Jon has released information on unbricking an iPhone. You sacrifice all cel phone functionality of course, but you have an iPDA that will work on your WiFi. Currently the hack is windows only but it doesn't look very complicated.

Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[HouseArrest420 (1105077)]

Why would you pay that much money for a PDA, when you can get other devies whose only purpose it to be a PDA for less?

Re:Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[Simon (S2) (600188)]

hy would you pay that much money for a PDA, when you can get other devies whose only purpose it to be a PDA for less?

Because of the "I" prefix.

Re:

[thebrieze (1102809)]

Cool factor, User Interface, Wifi, Almost full featured browser, Full screen, Video player.

Granted its still an expensive, but there isn't another device that does all of the above with quite as nice a user interface, and which has quite as much cool factor.

Re:Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Tapwave Zodiac :)

Cool factor > Still looks cool to this day!

User interface > Yup its pretty nice touch screen interface

Wifi > With an SDIO card yeah

Almost full featured browser > yup got that too

Full screen > tis a pretty big screen

Video player > hardware mpeg4 decoder built in :D

plus it plays emulators and has tonnes of over features :)

f*ck the iphone get a Zodiac off ebay now!

Re:Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[Minwee (522556)]

Cool factor, User Interface, Wifi, Almost full featured browser, Full screen, Video player.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "prosthetic eNis".

Re:Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

iPeen

Re:

[Lumpy (12016)]

Nokia N700 or the new N800 does all of that.

No it does not play DRM locked iTunes music but it does everything else including play doom.

Oh and it's been out for far longer than the iPhone.

does it have the yuppie metrosexual iconic look? No but in a way kinda, every time I use mine with my phone (BT data) or for other reasons (far bigger screen than the iphone so movies rock and makes websurfing very tolerable) I get tons of questions about it.

Re:

[wealthychef (584778)]

Synchronization is important to me. I hate my Treo 700p because it sucks as a phone, but I need it because it syncs my calendars and contacts with my Mac. The only reason I don't buy an iPhone yet is I haven't been able to see one in person.

Re:Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[Sparks23 (412116)]

I admit, from toying with one that a friend picked up, the N700/800 tablets look quite nicely usable. They do not, however, look like something I can slip into my purse, or the pocket of my jacket, for easy transport as a phone. (Especially as they need a Bluetooth phone to use for GPRS connectivity, and don't do normal GSM calling.)

I haven't taken the plunge and enslaved myself to AT&T for an iPhone, but I know that my desire for it is a tradeoff of several things. Windows Mobile just plain feels like I'm fighting with my PDA most of the times (I will spare you my rant on the astonishingly poor UI design of the Connection management screen in WM5), and most of the more-usable PDA-type devices are, like the N700, just too darn BIG to carry around conveniently for me, especially if I also have to carry a phone with me.

So all flashy 'woo' factor aside, the iPhone seems to have a very usable interface, do most of what I actually want from my PDA-phone (with, alas, the exception of IM... what were you THINKING, Apple?) and would fit in my jacket pocket much more conveniently. It's just that (ugh) AT&T requirement that's kept me from taking the plunge; T-Mobile's been fairly good to me.

Re:

[appleguru (1030562)]

It's not just a PDA. It's a SWEET solid state iPod... In fact, it;s currently the only flash based iPod that can play videos; and it has a kickass screen and touch interface to boot... the iPhone is apple's best ipod to date. While the price may seem high, there is clearly a demand for an iPhone-like iPod, and I imagine one at a lower price point than the iPhone will be released soon. Time will tell if the new ipod has any connectivity features built in (wifi, bluetooth, etc), but I hope so!

Re:Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[Bemopolis (698691)]

YEAH! Someone should find a way of making the iPhone work without having to sign a 2-year contract with AT&T. Even if they have to sacrifice the cellphone functionality. I sure hope that when someone does that it becomes a story on SLashdot. Of course then, I'd probably have to respond to someone too dense to Read The Fucking Title.

Re:Yeah make it worthless, then I can afford one!!

[niceone (992278)]

Well, because you get to have a cool iPhone.

This mod has a couple more advantages for the slashdot crowd:

1) you won't have to talk to people.
2) it makes it harder for 'them' to track you

Re:

[Zaatxe (939368)]

"The difference between a man and a boy is the price of their toys."
-- My mom

Re:

[Otter (3800)]

Because the way you get to be "DVD Jon" is by bragging about trivial "hacks" to high-profile Apple hardware and services.

OK, you get to be him by taking credit for someone else's DVD player hack. But you stay "DVD Jon" with noisy, pointless attacks on Apple gear.

Why "Of course"?

[l-ascorbic (200822)]

Why is it assumed that phone functionality must be sacrificed? Why can't another SIM be used?

Re:Why "Of course"?

[jonwil (467024)]

The iPhone almost certainly contains a network lock (where it will refuse to talk to any SIM card that isn't from AT&T)

The interesting question would be if you could use any AT&T SIM card in the iPhone after activating it with this hack (or if not whether the hack could be changed so that becomes possible). If so, this allows you to completely avoid the "lock-in contract" by obtaining whatever the "I already have a suitable phone and I just want an AT&T SIM card with no lock in contract" plan is.

Re:Why "Of course"?

[russ1337 (938915)]

I personally think it is fair that a telco wants you to sign up for a 2 year contract when they give you a subsidized phone, especially when they want to give you an expensive phone at (what appears to be) a bargain.

What I think is a little unfair is paying full price for the device and being locked in for 2 years to a company that appears is not subsidizing the phone. AT&T must have wanted the lock-in for them to justify spending money on the extra services the iPhone offers such as video mail, which they would have made money on anyway if they were first to market or offered the best service.

In a truly competitive market the iphone would be free to connect to any telco (and because the phone meets FCC requirements they should not legally be allowed to turn the customer away). Problem is, the Telco's are too accustomed to locking down their services and features and couldn't bear the customer having a choice.

IMHO of course.

Re:

[inviolet (797804)]

Good post. Just one gripe:

In a truly competitive market the iphone would be free to connect to any telco (and because the phone meets FCC requirements they should not legally be allowed to turn the customer away). [emphasis added]

Don't equate 'truly' with 'instantly', or else you'll inadvertently summon the regulators, akin to accidentally blurting out Beezelbub's name and having him appear before you in a cloud of cinders.

Re:Why "Of course"?

[LearnToSpell (694184)]

Here's a choice: DON'T BUY IT.

Jesus. /. drives me nuts sometimes. Everybody wants an iPhone for 99 cents, with 10,000 free minutes a month, unlimited texting, unlimited bandwidth, and a personalized letter from Steve Jobs thanking them for making a difference in the world. How the fuck is any of this unfair? There are other phones. There are other PDAs. Want a competitive market? Get Samsung to make a hot phone, and hook it up to another network. Talking about how you don't have a choice is truly idiotic.

Re:Why "Of course"?

[l-ascorbic (200822)]

Pretty much all phones in the UK are sim-locked. It's legal to get it unlocked by a slightly dodgy bloke on a market stall for a tenner though.

Re:Why "Of course"?

[mzwaterski (802371)]

The iPhone doesn't use SIM cards.

It doesnt? http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305 746 [apple.com]

Re:

[linuxci (3530)]

The iPhone doesn't use SIM cards. You have to "activate it" via iTunes.

It has a sim card, but it's a weird one.

No it's a standard SIM card. The phone is just locked so it can't accept other SIMs. Once you have your AT&T account setup you should be able to use your iPhone SIM is any unlocked GSM phone.

Re:Why "Of course"?

[K8Fan (37875)]

Which begs the question - if this hack unlocks it, does it also remove the sim lock? And if not, could it.

This hack doesn't do anything about the phone part of the iPhone. All he did was patch around the activation step and fool the rest of the iPhone into thinking it has already been activated. But I'm pretty sure that someone will take the software apart and figure out how to use it as a standard quad-band GSM phone via the SIM card. The question is if it will have web access via the carrier's data network...and if it would be any faster than AT&Ts EDGE system. The real tragedy would be losing the very cool "Visual Voice-mail". I wonder if Asterisk could be made to serve a Web 2.0 emulation of it?

Right

[suv4x4 (956391)]

So "unbricking" the iPhone means losing cell phone ability. What kind of unbricking this is?

How about a guide how to free my PC from Internet security vulnerabilities. By blowing up my modem with a hand grenade.

Re:Right

[arivanov (12034)]

If I understand the idea correctly this allows you to use it without activating it and having a mandatory contract. This does not remove the SIM lock though. If a hack comes out to unlock the SIM lock these two will make a total unlock possible. Anything else aside, this allows you to use the iPhone for something without registering for 2 years contract while you are waiting for the second hack.

The latter is only a matter of time, after all you do not expect a device with a general purpose OS where everything runs as root to last long, do you?

Re:

[linuxci (3530)]

The latter is only a matter of time, after all you do not expect a device with a general purpose OS where everything runs as root to last long, do you?

What's Windows got to do with this? :)

Seriously, what makes you think everything runs as root on the iPhone?

Unlocking a Cell Phone is LEGAL

[MCSEBear (907831)]

From Ars Technia -- November 24, 2006

The newest list of exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is out, and the Register of Copyrights is recommending six exemptions this time around. If you've been hankering for the legal authority to remove Sony's rootkit or to unlock your cell phone, then this will be big news. If you were hoping for the ability to make backup copies of your legally purchased DVDs, you're (still) out of luck.

Exemptions are allowed for 1) the educational library of a university's media studies department, in order to watch film clips in class; 2) using computer software that requires the original disks or hardware in order to run; 3) dongle-protected computer programs, if the the dongle no longer functions and a replacement cannot be found; 4) protected e-books, in order to use screen-reader software; 5) cell phone firmware that ties a phone to a specific wireless network; and 6) DRM software included on audio CDs, but only when such software creates security vulnerabilities on personal computers.

You are allowed to unlock your cell phone no matter what Apple or AT&T think about it. They can't sue DVD Jon for breaking their bullshit attempts to control hardware that they have sold. The purchaser can do what they want with their own phone.

Whole article is at: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061124-8280 .html [arstechnica.com]

Re:Unlocking a Cell Phone is LEGAL

[MCSEBear (907831)]

It's just a function of the fact that telecoms have buckets full of money and congress-persons like buckets full of money.

You notice that congress never said telecoms can't reduce consumer choice by locking cell phones. Instead, the head of the copyright office decided to make an exemption to the DMCA to cover unlocking cell phones. Perhaps the telecoms forgot to offer the head of the copyright office enough buckets full of money. Heck, I suppose it's even possible that this official is honest and has the consumers best interests in mind.

Sadly, the US totally lacks a political party that is willing to protect consumers when there is the possibility of gaining access to said buckets full of money. There was a lot of talk about network neutrality from the Democrats before they took control of congress. Now that they are in power and those buckets full of money are in the offing, they seem to have suddenly shut the fuck up about the importance of network neutrality. Sigh. Libertarians, anyone?

Re:Unlocking a Cell Phone is LEGAL

[IamTheRealMike (537420)]

It's not a legal thing, it's a commercial thing. SIM locking makes a lot of sense and is one of the features that allowed for such a massive and fast rollout of ubiquitous GSM communications. Essentially it means the providers can heavily subsidise the price of the phone, making an advanced piece of electronics extremely cheap (and therefore affordable to lots of people), while still turning a profit. Everybody wins. But without locking, subsidising such a phone is equivalent to simply giving away money - so robust locking (a form of DRM in a way) is pretty important if you value everybody having a mobile phone. As phones usefulness is very much related to how many people have them, I'd say that's pretty important, especially as many countries now have laws around how long a phone can remain locked for and on some contracts (like mine) after you've had it for a year you own the phone and can get it unlocked.

Now, in this case, there are some things that aren't really clear. The first is how much AT&T are subsidising the cost of the phone. My Sony Ericsson W800i, which is now about 2 years old and has most of the features (if not the nice ui) of the iPhone cost me 30 UK pounds when I bought it on contract (locked for a year), which is about $60. But the high end iPhone costs 10 times that. I can well believe it's more expensive to make, as it's newer, has a nicer screen etc, but is AT&T subsidising the cost at all? If they are then I guess Apple have serious problems with the manufacturing price. If they aren't doing so then the original rationale for allowing locking (which is otherwise an unwarranted distortion of the free market) disappears, and it should be looked at closely.

Re:Unlocking a Cell Phone is LEGAL

[MCSEBear (907831)]

I don't think Sim locking makes sense to any reasonable person. Now if a provider wants to subsidize the cost of a cell phone and then make me reimburse them for ONLY the cost of said subsidy if I cancel my contract early, that makes perfect sense.

In any event, AT&T is not subsidizing the cost of the iPhone in any way. Locking the iPhone to their network when they are not paying any portion of it's cost for the consumer is just plain evil. Apple, by extension, is also guilty.

Unlock??

[brunes69 (86786)]

I am much more looking forward to unlocking the iPhone so you can use it with any GSM card - including those up here in the great white north.

Re:

[SpinyNorman (33776)]

Even if that becomes possible, I think you'd lose the "Visual Voicemail" feature (email-like random access to voicemail messages) since they said at the launch that it required AT&T back end development, and minimally has to be closely tied to the AT&T way of retrieving voice mail messages.

Re:

[Zebedeu (739988)]

You're right!
The iPhone is totally useless without this "Visual Voicemail" feature!

Or...

[dwightk (415372)]

1. Buy the phone 2. activate it through Apple 3. Cancel the plan within 2 days [alexking.org]

Re:Or... Not

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

Cancel within 4 days and you get the activation fee refunded; and since you are within 30 days there is no early termination fee.

Essentially you are buying a very expensive iPod/WiFi web browser.

Well

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested in a hack that allows tunring my nano into a phone. Let me know when this happens...

I have one

[BlackCobra43 (596714)]

It involves an elastic band, a free cell phone from the carrier of your choice (look around. They all have at least one model that's free) and your nano..

iPhone shuffle

[Elsapotk421 (1097205)]

I'll take one!

voip

[metroplex (883298)]

would a voip webapp be feasible? then the iphone would be pretty cool even whitout gsm functionality

Windows Only?

[srwalter (39999)]

There doesn't appear to be anything windows-only about this hack. The Phone Activation Server is written on .NET. If this is anything like DVD Jon's other .NET programs, it will have no problem running under Mono in Linux. The only other part to the hack is to redirect a hostname to 127.0.0.1, which is also easily done in Linux.

I'd be happy to verify this theory if someone wants to send me an iPhone ;)

The service providers are the problem.

[MaWeiTao (908546)]

My hope is that the iPhone would bring into the limelight how restrictive all mobile phone service providers are. They do nothing but restrict progress and rip off the consumer. I think they're responsible for why phones in the US market lag behind the rest of the world in terms of technology. If US consumers had access to what's available elsewhere I think people would generally be less impressed by the iPhone.

To me the activities the US carriers engage in is just as bad if not worse than DRM. It's a big problem and unfortunately I don't see many people calling attention to it.

Why risk it?

[NMerriam (15122)]

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just use 999-99-9999 as the SS# when signing up for AT&T, which allows you to buy a prepaid phone plan? Then you pay $30, get access to the iPhone, have no AT&T contract, and can even use it to make phone calls if the mood ever strikes you. You also don't miss out on the software updates and new features Apple has already said are coming, and someday when someone offer unlocking for $50 you can get that done as well.

Re:Why is DVD Jon focused on Apple?

[Aladrin (926209)]

He earned his name long ago. He has no need to 'justify' himself to anyone, and he certainly doesn't owe us anything. He can do whatever he damned well pleases, and you should be thankful for anything that happens to help you, instead of disrespecting him for the stuff that doesn't.

Re:Why is DVD Jon focused on Apple?

[suv4x4 (956391)]

He earned his name long ago. He has no need to 'justify' himself to anyone, and he certainly doesn't owe us anything. He can do whatever he damned well pleases, and you should be thankful for anything that happens to help you, instead of disrespecting him for the stuff that doesn't.

Showing your gratitude means you're weak. You gotta hate things. Hate Windows, hate Oracle, hate IBM, hate Intel, hate RIAA, hate Exxon. Hate the government, hate DVD Jon. Hate some guy who made a million by selling pixels on his home page and so on.

It's a survival technique. Now, of course, I kinda like Linux. I contributed a brightness adjustment to the "paste" icon in the KDE file manager, so by extension this puts me in the same group with the guys who created the Linux kernel.

But I'm not gonna tell you I like Linux. I'll just instead tell you you're an idiot for not using Linux, otherwise it means I'm weak.

Re:Why is DVD Jon focused on Apple?

[suv4x4 (956391)]

In order to justify his name he should do Blue Ray and HD DVD stuff.

Totally agreed. And he better do it quick, I'm on the phone talking with the head of the Name Giving Commission, and they're seriously considering taking his name back.

Re:

[Magneon (1067470)]

You can't use it for anything at all without activating it... ...without this hack.

Re:

[yellowcord (607995)]

Who's taking a loss? Apparently the mark-up on the 8 GB version is 55% [reuters.com].

Re:

[Yosho (135835)]

However, what to do with the 2 year contract you signed at the time you bought it???

You don't sign a contract at the time you buy it. Have you been ignoring all of the previous iPhone discussions?

Re:Its very hard to understand this

[mla_anderson (578539)]

Should be pretty obvious why they have the network lock: visual voicemail. Visual voicemail is a major change to the carrier's voicemail system, to get a network to agree to make the change Apple has to agree to the lock-in.

For me, the visual voicemail is the big win for the iPhone, the ability to have random access to voicemail is great. The other features are pretty, but visual voicemail is what makes me drool.

Re:Its very hard to understand this

[cuzco (998069)]

Visual voicemail is cool but, it hardly justifies such an odius 5 year AT&T lock-in. I'd would gladly give up visual voicemail for an iPhone that could be used with any provider. Think about that. Apple can't sell an iPhone that works with any other provider FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. That's an eternity in the tech industry and in 5 years, you better believe that all other major phone manufacturers will have easily surpassed the iPhone in terms of elegance and ease of use. Apple isn't going to sit on their thumbs for the next five years but they showed other phone manufacturers how to make a simple elegant device. They gave away the store with this AT&T deal.