Well, That Was Fast: iPhone 2.0 Firmware Is Unlocked
The 3G iPhone isn't even out until tomorrow, but the iPhone Dev Team is on the ball: they've already unlocked the 2.0 firmware.
The updated Pwnage tool hasn't been released quite yet, but according to Gizmodo, the iPhone they've been running in all the videos you've seen of them test-driving the new App Store is jailbroken. And it seems to run just fine alongside the new App Store.
This is very encouraging--while I support the idea of commercially-developed, easily-installable software via the App Store, the official SDK passed to these developers came with some hefty restrictions that limit the kind of functionality on offer from App-Store-distributed software. Now consumers can have a much wider choice of free third-party apps with extra functionality. Look for the Pwnage tool (and, hopefully, a new Ziphone update as well) to be out very soon.
--Aric A.
Chuck Pelto on July 11, 2008 at 08:54 AM
TO: All
RE: So What.....
From my perspective, nothing is going to happen until AT&T no longer holds a monopoly.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Pablo on July 11, 2008 at 09:33 AM
I just checked the AT&T page to see if I, who switched over to AT&T from Verizon about a year ago when my Verizon contract expired so that I could get the iPhone when I wanted it, can't get it for $199, like any schlub coming in off the street can. Please tell me I am wrong on this (they say that I "may be eligible for an equipment upgrade 9/1/08"; the other three lines on the family plan not until May 2009). So why can't I just fricking buy a new iPhone for $199 and extend my current agreement two years, while adding data service to it?).
If my understanding is correct, AT&T is on the serious sh!+ list. Way to screw your own customers!
Aric A. on July 11, 2008 at 09:40 AM
@Pablo: Unfortunately your understanding is correct, as I blogged about here: http://www.enduserblog.com/2008/07/new-iphoneatt-i.html. I don't know why they chose to do it this way, and I don't agree with it, but it looks like if you want to save a few hundred bucks you'll have to wait until September. :(
Greg Q on July 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Does the unlocking do away with the restriction that applications can only write in their own "areas"? Because if it does, trading "more apps" for "virus target" doesn't seem like a good trade to me. :-(
Light on July 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Hey Chuck - It's 2008, not 1988. ATT hasn't been a monopoly in any sense of the word in decades. When you have 4 competing carriers, you can't say it's a MONOpoloy... duh.
Light on July 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Hey Chuck - the year now is 2008, not 1988. You can't have a MONOpoloy when there are 5 other competing carriers.
Aric A. on July 11, 2008 at 11:40 AM
@Greg Q.: As long as you use trusted package repositories, adding apps to your jailbroken iPhone is as safe as can be expected. In fact, so far the only serious instances of malware and attacks on the iPhone so far have been through security leaks in Apple's own native software.
Also, Installer.app will tell you if a program hasn't been tested and verified as clean, so nothing bad can end up on your jailbroken iPhone unless you put it there. :)
wjr on July 11, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Aric,
AT&T is a monopoly in terms of the iPhone -- at least in the U.S.
Stupid Apple tricks.
Best,
wjr
wjr on July 11, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Aric,
AT&T is a monopoly in terms of the iPhone -- at least in the U.S.
Stupid Apple tricks.
Best,
wjr
wjr on July 11, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Aric,
AT&T is a monopoly in terms of the iPhone -- at least in the U.S.
Stupid Apple tricks.
Best,
wjr
Aric A. on July 11, 2008 at 12:28 PM
@wjr: Wasn't me that called it a monopoly. But while you're right, you can still unlock your iPhone to move it to another carrier.
Pablo on July 11, 2008 at 03:54 PM
I just got done talking (and being on hold with) three different AT&T customer service people, asking them why they are treating non-AT&T customers better than their own. If they said "I'm sorry you feel that way" once, I must've heard it a dozen times. I asked them to please stop condescending, and address my concern.
I explained to them over and over that I became an AT&T customer last September in order to have access to the iPhone network. In exchange for being their customer for the past 10 months, I am rewarded with having to pay $200 more for an iPhone than if I had stayed a Verizon customer. I explained repeatedly that I had no problem adding two years to my current contract, so the issue about subsidized phones (which they kept bringing up) was a red herring. I think that once I got them off the rote responses they dutifully gave, they betrayed an understanding of and empathy for my situation, but kept saying that they couldn't do anything about it. I said that they being AT&T employees should let the higher-ups know that they are ticking off their own customers, rewarding their status with a kick in the nuts.
It was a very frustrating hour and a half on the phone. I switched from Verizon (with whom I was satisfied) so that when Apple (of which I am a shareholder) came out with an improved iPhone, I could buy one each for my twins, who turned 16 in June. But unless I am willing to pay a $200 premium, they will have to wait until May 2009. I understand that I signed a contract and got a subsidized phone last fall. However, the fact that I am willing to extend two years beyond the two years I signed on for last fall seems to me to make that point moot. That AT&T won't offer that option, and acts as if that would be impossible to do, is what really eats at me. I told them that I understood that they as individuals couldn't offer what I was suggesting, but that is because AT&T as a company won't offer it. For the sake of not pissing off their own customers, they should, or at least come up with some way of offering their own a better deal than having to pay a $200 premium.
Bottom line: I feel like I have been an idiot for becoming an AT&T customer last fall. I didn't help myself gain access to the iPhone, I put myself in a $200 per unit hole. Is this really how AT&T wants its customers to think of them?
anon on July 11, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Why not just ignore the freakin thing, and then everybody will be happy. It'sa damn phone, not your own personal Jesus.
Pablo on July 11, 2008 at 05:14 PM
anon - Do you have teenage kids to whom you promised the iPhone? Who were looking forward to July 11 as if it were December 25? Didn't think so. I don't disagree that a sense of proportion should be maintained, but that's not an excuse for crappy customer service.
j.pickens on July 11, 2008 at 08:25 PM
Pablo,
The subsidized phone point is NOT moot.
You haven't paid for your old phone yet, that's why they won't let you get the new one without a financial penalty.
Your comment: "I understand that I signed a contract and got a subsidized phone last fall. However, the fact that I am willing to extend two years beyond the two years I signed on for last fall seems to me to make that point moot."
You would need to commit to a three and a half year plan to make up the difference for ATT and Apple.
Sorry, you signed up, you're obligated, there's nothing wrong with what ATT and Apple are doing.
Grow up...
Chuck Pelto on July 12, 2008 at 12:05 AM
TO: Light
RE: Yeah?
"Hey Chuck - the year now is 2008, not 1988. You can't have a MONOpoloy when there are 5 other competing carriers." -- Light
Who else has a contract to offer phone service with the iPhone?
Go on. Look it up. I'll wait....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Pablo on July 12, 2008 at 05:36 AM
If AT&T says that with a two-year contract, they subsidize the phones, then how is not agreeing to a four-year contract (the original two plus two more) not making the subsidy issue moot?
They are willing to upgrade one line on September 1 (too bad for me I have twins!), so they must not think that it is a horrible business model for them to allow an upgrade after 12 months of service. SO how about allowing existing customers extend for an additional 24 months?
How is it not the case that I would have been better off as a Verizon customer the past 10 months, then switch to AT&T? I would not have been on a Verizon contract, and could have canceled their service and gotten iPhones @$199 apiece. As an AT&T customer, they are treating me worse for having become their customer and spent my money on them the past 10 months than if I had stayed with Verizon. As customer service, that sucks.
Pablo on July 12, 2008 at 06:59 AM
One other thing: I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that I and others like me who joined AT&T to gain iPhone access have essentially "subsidized" AT&T for the past several months. AT&T would not have me as a customer but for Apple having partnered with them. The move to a European-style market for cell phone service, where carriers and equipment are not inextricably linked, can't come soon enough.