Why Does Apple Only Sell 'Locked' Iphones?

April 08, 2010

Ever since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, there has been constant discussion about why iPhones are "locked."

The primary issue started out as software protection. Apple has always been secretive about its proprietary "firmware" in devices such as the iMac, the iPod and now the iPhone and the new iPad.

In addition, it took lots of behind-the-scenes negotiation between Apple and its wireless provider, AT&T, to get the cell phone carrier to commit to carrying the new phone. Part of the agreement was the in the United States, the iPhone would be locked to accept only AT&T's SIM cards.

A few months after iPhone was launched, hackers outside the U.S. managed to "jailbreak" the iPhone so that it would work with SIM cards internationally. This was a major development because most of the world uses a different type of wireless calling technology than U.S. networks do.

To combat the hackers, Apple then released a software update for the iPhone that not only locked the phones again; the update turned them into "bricks." In other words, iPhones that had been unlocked couldn't be used with the new software update. Furthermore, since the cell phones had been adapted, their Apple warranty was void, so there was no turning back. It was either buy a new iPhone or switch to another brand altogether (a turn of events that made many international cell phone manufacturers VERY happy).

Another reason that Apple used its software update to put the whammy on unlocked iPhones was because hackers were committing the ultimate in consumer choice: They were putting nifty 3rd-party applications on their unlocked iPhones. Apple and AT&T didn't want iPhone users to get happy with these 3rd-party apps because they weren't ready to support them, but they also didn't want anyone else to support them, either. Talk about cutthroat competition!

For iPhone users, the big question about why iPhones are locked remains: Could Apple have protected its products without fighting with its own customers? After all, about the only app that doesn't work on an unlocked iPhone is AT&T's Visual Voicemail. Since nobody but AT&T customers have this, and frankly it doesn't work all that well anyway, what's the difference?

Maybe Apple thought that Visual Voicemail was so attractive an app that nobody would buy an iPhone without it. That would have required Apple to invest in the upgrading of AT&T's network. Furthermore, suppose that network investment wasn't a one-off but required Apple to keep pouring in money for maintenance and upgrades. Then it would make sense to lock the iPhone to make sure that users would be required to use AT&T and commit to Visual Voicemail. This would also shield AT&T from competition from other wireless networks over iPhone contracts.

Does it really make sense for a company to force its users into an app they may or may not want simply because that's what the partnership has sunk its money into? This is one of the many reasons that consumers feel justified in using "jailbreaking" software, such as the new MyUnlock Iphone, to unlock their iPhones. If consumers are going to pay as much for a smart phone as they pay for the iPhone, they deserve to get the most economical, most efficient carrier service and 3rd-party applications on the market, not be held hostage to the business decisions of the manufacturer.