BSD Unix is the most network-hardened OS out there, and it’s certainly theoretically possible for Apple to keep activation under control behind strong encryption. I think that’s what Apple is aiming for, and if successful, I think unlocking may become available everywhere. The important thing for Apple is that iPhones should overwhelmingly be on contract, so the product and services can continue to innovate. The revenue share is an incidental bonus.

My view: The T-mobile situation is a testbed. Unlocking is being offered free, temporarily for now, in order to discover if it results in a hack, before the process is offered worldwide. Vodafone is in fact instrumental in enabling Apple to execute this plan almost covertly. The phones being unlocked free are already on contract. If it results in a hacked unlock in the wild, there’s still time for another iteration.

The end game Apple wants is: unlock no longer defended; activation secure enabling pricing to drive 90% plus of iPhones into contracts. I believe Apple quite possibly wants to evolve .mac, iTunes store, and carrier contracts into an integrated service offering in 5 years or so.

Apple provides enormous amounts of content free, including iTunes samples, software updates and so on. As hardware costs sink to zero, these services become relatively much more expensive, and must be merged into a paid-for service. That’s revenue-sharing.

Another point worth mentioning again - as Sleepygeek has done tirelessly - is that it doesn’t matter squat if Apple are forced into providing unlocked iPhones in some territories, providing that:

a) the price is high enough to compensate for the loss of subscriber revenue sharing (which at $1500 I think we all agree it does)

and/or

b) the phone is sold with a contract.

An 18/24 month contract is a contract is a contract. It doesn’t matter if the phone is unlocked because the contractual commitment is there for the duration of the contract, and thus the subscriber revenue sharing arrangements are safe.

People getting worried about this are not thinking this through: ultimately, if I buy a phone in France on Orange unlocked, or exercise my right to unlock it for free after the first 6 months, I have still entered into a 24-month contract to do so, and even if I never ever use my Orange SIM but instead use Vodafone, I am still going to be paying for my Orange contract for that 24 month period. And so Apple still gets paid.

So people please, stop worrying. Locked, or unlocked, net net its all the same to us In the end, the vast majority of customers will choose the easiest route to an iPhone, and that is simply to buy one with a contract from the partner network and all the free data and WiFi goodness which comes with it.

Funny how you don’t hear much anti-AT&T ranting in the US any more isn’t it now that the FUDsters have exhausted that avenue. People just buy the damn thing on AT&T. Who’s still complaining? Only Brian from Jizmodo.

So, having lost the court case against T-Mobile today, what on earth is Vodafone going to do now to save face? How incredibly stupid does Arun Sarin look now? What a dick.

By Karin Matussek
    Dec. 4 (Bloomberg)—Deutsche Telekom AG, Europe’s largest
telephone company, can block buyers of Apple Inc.‘s iPhone from
using the handset with competitors’ networks, a German court
ruled, overturning an injunction won by Vodafone Group Plc.

    The Regional Court of Hamburg today lifted an injunction won
by Vodafone, forbidding Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile unit to sell
the device exclusively with two-year contracts or with software
that only works with its network.

    Vodafone, whose share of German wireless subscribers lags
behind market leader T-Mobile, is trying to stall Bonn-based
Deutsche Telekom’s efforts to boost its customer base and client
spending through the iPhone. At the end of September, T-Mobile
had 34.5 million customers in Germany, compared with Vodafone’s
32.5 million users.

    T-Mobile, the exclusive distributor of the iPhone in
Germany, changed the terms for selling the combined handset and
iPod music player to comply with the Nov. 12 injunction. The
company currently offers the device for 999 euros ($1,477)
without requiring a two-year exclusive contract. It also kept the
original 399-euro offer with a binding contract, which it may now
return to as the only option.

    The court said Vodafone can appeal the ruling within one
month.

    The case is 315 O 923/07 at the Regional Court of Hamburg.

Will they appeal, and risk escalating this matter? Someone should get sacked there for bringing this action in the first place. IMO Sarin’s head should have rolled a long time ago anyway, but no doubt he’ll get someone else to take the fall, if need be.

I have a feeling Vodafone may appeal, and/or try and escalate this to the European Court. I find it hard to believe they will just accept the ruling after making such a stubborn and stupid song and dance over the issue in the first place.

[quote author=“Tommo_UK”]I have a feeling Vodafone may appeal, and/or try and escalate this to the European Court. I find it hard to believe they will just accept the ruling after making such a stubborn and stupid song and dance over the issue in the first place.

I agree, specially since this court was just a regional state court, they can appeal and go up to the German Supreme Court (if they will accept the case that is) and if that doesn’t fly, go to the EC.

If I read the ruling correct, the court didn’t throw the entire case out, but just lifted the injunction.

What kind of damages might T-Mobile be able to claim and collect?

[quote author=“lumi”]What kind of damages might T-Mobile be able to claim and collect?

If they have any sense they’ll just leave it alone and let the matter die rather than suing Vodafone in response. They’re getting an incredible amount of publicity, all free (well, there are lawyers fees I suppose), from Vodafone’s silly temper tantrum.

As I said though, I think Voda will appeal and raise the game. The longer it drags on the better IMO. The more free publicity for the iPhone, the more iPhones get sold

If Vodafone do drag it out, it may, paradoxically, result in a weakening of the carriers if everyone sees that Vodafone is trying to restore equilibrium to a carrier cartel charging excessive prices combined with extreme bundling (the base commodity is a long distance conversation, taking about as long as drinking a beer. Imagine if you had to contract for 18 months steady beer drinking in order to drink one bottle, and still had to pay for any beer you didn’t drink! Now imagine a new beer so delicious that drinkers walked away from their old beer contract)

10:19   DT Deutsche Telekom: T-Mobile likely to claim damages against Vodafone - DJ (22.59 +0.45)  -Update-

T-Mobile: Quite satisfied with iPhone sales so far - DJ (AAPL)

[quote author=“Tommo_UK”]

10:19   DT Deutsche Telekom: T-Mobile likely to claim damages against Vodafone - DJ (22.59 +0.45)  -Update-

T-Mobile: Quite satisfied with iPhone sales so far - DJ (AAPL)

It would seem to be in T-Mobile’s favor to drag this out by punishing Vodafone and collecting damages, thus publicly (and with no advertising expenses) reinforcing the fact that Vodafone feels threatened by T-Mobile having the iPhone. This tells consumers that the iPhone is valuable, important, worth protecting—and a product that justifies switching carriers.

Additionally, it could help to establish a certain limited degree of precedent (or at least a reference point) if future iPhone carrier agreements elsewhere encounter similar resistance.

[quote author=“lumi”][quote author=“Tommo_UK”]

10:19   DT Deutsche Telekom: T-Mobile likely to claim damages against Vodafone - DJ (22.59 +0.45)  -Update-

T-Mobile: Quite satisfied with iPhone sales so far - DJ (AAPL)

It would seem to be in T-Mobile’s favor to drag this out by punishing Vodafone and collecting damages, thus publicly (and with no advertising expenses) reinforcing the fact that Vodafone feels threatened by T-Mobile having the iPhone. This tells consumers that the iPhone is valuable, important, worth protecting—and a product that justifies switching carriers.

Additionally, it could help to establish a certain limited degree of precedent (or at least a reference point) if future iPhone carrier agreements elsewhere encounter similar resistance.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement Lumi and am very pleased to see the news this morning.