Print 78 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Sep 17 at 12:38 PM

Engadget confirms software unlock for iPhone

In less than two months, Apple's iPhone has been successfully unlocked via software courtesy of The iPhone is currently tied exclusively to AT&T for the foreseeable future, but the new software hack allows users to hop to competing GSM networks such as T-Mobile.

According to Engadget, the unlock process took no longer than a few minutes and caused no harm to the iPhone used. Once unlocked, the iPhone was able to successfully make and receive calls using the T-Mobile network. For the most part, all other iPhone features are also intact including EDGE support and SMS send/receive. Visual voicemail isn't in the cards as it is an AT&T network-specific feature; however, normal voicemail is accessible using the software hack.

Engadget also notes that the software hack is completely upgrade and restore resistant. They verified this by performing a full system restore using the v1.0.2 update.

"Again: we can confirm with 100% certainty that's software solution completely SIM unlocks the iPhone, is restore-resistant, and should make the iPhone fully functional for users outside of the US," said Engadget's Ryan Block.

For those still a bit unsure of the validity of the's claims, Engadget has posted a small video to ease your mind.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By PitViper007 on 8/24/2007 3:48:50 PM , Rating: 4
So how long will it be before Apple either sues or tries to get them thrown in jail for the hacking they did to unlock the iPhone, or both?

RE: Hmmm
By majorpain on 8/24/2007 4:01:02 PM , Rating: 3
or simply buy, hire the peeps that made it happen and simply unplug it... :D

RE: Hmmm
By crystal clear on 8/25/2007 2:49:02 AM , Rating: 2
Its cheaper to buy them rather than sue them - better & cheaper than paying those high priced lawyers/firms.

RE: Hmmm
By murphyslabrat on 8/27/2007 10:29:19 AM , Rating: 3
What I don't get is: Why the hell would Apple want to sue someone for allowing 5 times the user base? I have no idea what the current market-share standings are of the different providers(I just spent 15 minutes looking for something-to no avail), but I imagine that AT&T couldn't own more than 33% of the market, so Apple stands to gain considerable increase in sales of the iPhone.

RE: Hmmm
By cigar3tte on 8/27/2007 11:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
if anyone is suing this, should be AT&T/Cingular.

RE: Hmmm
By energy1man on 8/27/2007 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 4

Link to library of congress copyright office's position on why unlocking phones should be legal.

RE: Hmmm
By brizz on 8/30/2007 5:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure Apple worked something into the contract with AT&T to where they get some of the money back from the overpriced plans that are forced on to the iPhone owner. If the phones are resold and not put on the AT&T network that money disappears.

RE: Hmmm
By murphyslabrat on 9/17/2007 12:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
However, that is one iPhone that may not have been sold in the first place.

RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 8/24/2007 4:01:30 PM , Rating: 4
I doubt you can get arrested for hacking your own phone... you own it. Its like getting arrested for hacking into your own computer or breaking into your own car.

However, there may be some issues with them distributing the software, although that'd have to be for a court to decide.

As far as I'm aware, you can do anything to something you own, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

RE: Hmmm
By Melric on 8/24/2007 4:04:58 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately, you can. Your car is not covered by the DMCA which has several anti reverse engineering provisions.

RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 8/24/2007 4:10:17 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize that the DMCA contains the following EXEMPTION :

Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.

This is specifically *allowed* under the DMCA.

RE: Hmmm
By PitViper007 on 8/24/2007 4:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. I knew there were exeptions, but didn't know that one specifically was in there.

RE: Hmmm
By SunAngel on 8/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmm
By masher2 on 8/24/2007 4:49:40 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Hmmm
By SunAngel on 8/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmm
By kamel5547 on 8/24/2007 5:53:19 PM , Rating: 3
I see nothing about out of date technologies in the clause. Neither was that reported by the broad media when this clause was first added...

IMHO you are misreading the clause.

RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 8/24/2007 5:53:54 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry, but exactly did you arrive at your conclusion from the DMCA? The portions you emphasized have nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.

There are other portions of the DMCA that apply to formats no longer being sold on the market, but that has nothing to do with cell phones.

RE: Hmmm
By deeznuts on 8/24/2007 5:38:18 PM , Rating: 5
If you believe that's an actual DMCA clause, this is your week to play the lottery and win.
Ouch! Maybe you need to see if it is or isn't an actual clause first, before spouting from the MOUF!

I do believe it is an actual DMCA clause, so if we all play and don't win, asskicking, your house, next Friday?

RE: Hmmm
By Samus on 8/24/2007 8:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Right, limitations of modifying vehicles are usually specifically related to safety and emmisions. Not the ECU.

No safety or emmisions devices can be modified, such as removing catalytic convertors, carbon catch tanks, EGR systems or airbags (unless used excluseively for off-road use)

RE: Hmmm
By AToZKillin on 8/26/2007 6:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the DMCA probably wouldn’t apply. FYI, the text of the DMCA says “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” By “this title,” it means Title 17 of the U.S. Code, which deals with copyright. So in a nutshell, the DMCA makes it illegal to crack code that prevents access to copyrighted material. Here, it looks like the code was protecting access to non-AT&T wireless networks, not copyrighted material. So unless Apple, AT&T, the government, etc., find some law besides the DMCA that unlocking the iPhone violates, there’s no case against

RE: Hmmm
By therealnickdanger on 8/24/2007 4:15:43 PM , Rating: 4
One of my fellow forum members attempted to reverse engineer the software in the computer of his new Chrysler. He was cataloging his progress and was looking forward to releasing a free software tool to interface a PC with the car and modify everything from power windows to fuel management. He was served a cease and desist letter by Chrysler's lawyers, citing the DMCA.

RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 8/24/2007 4:24:03 PM , Rating: 3
That is expected.

Your friend should be able to install new software, destroy the software, or do anything to the software he wants that doesn't violate the copyright of the car maker.

However, when he starts posting on the internet about how the software works, he is most likely violating the copyright or some other IP. I'm fairly sure he could release his own software, however, without any penalty.

I doubt there's anything illegal about writing software for a Chrysler.

RE: Hmmm
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 4:29:43 PM , Rating: 3
I agree - the friend should hire an attorney and write back to Chrysler and tell them in polite legal terms to f*** off.

RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 8/24/2007 4:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah... IANAL.

(I hate that acronym)

RE: Hmmm
By Dactyl on 8/24/2007 6:25:41 PM , Rating: 4
The real reason Chrysler sent the letter is obvious:

If some idiot starts playing around with their software, and as a result crashes and kills someone, Chrysler is on the hook for massive amounts of money.

RE: Hmmm
By Oregonian2 on 8/24/2007 6:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's well known that software to unlock cell phones is legit and legal and is discussed in cellphone forums. A whole business model is based on this by many companies (not just iPhones) and is out in the open and legit. Do a search (on eBay as well) and for about $25~$30 you can get a code for your phone to unlock it (which is what was done to the iPhone in this article).

Of course, with the iPhone, one of the major points of it is the web access stuff and to make that useful one needs heavy-duty data service plans from one's provider. As I recall, the plan given by Cingular/AT&T was very inexpensive for the amount of data 'required' by the iPhone -- so going to T-mobile might not be such a good idea I suspect. But may be good for non-U.S. folk who want an iPhone *now* where they live.

RE: Hmmm
By bhieb on 8/24/2007 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why not you can get charged for hacking the copy protection on a DVD you own. Unti it gets to the court no one really knows what can happen.

RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 8/24/2007 4:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're misinterpreting the DMCA and how it relates to copyrights.

The DMCA does prohibit you from circumventing DRM if such circumvention results in the violation of a copyright holder. However, in the case you described above, if you simply stripped DRM from a DVD and never redistributed it or used it in any other way that would violate the copyright holder, the DMCA would not apply.

In order for a copyright to be violated, something must be distributed in some form. Personal copies of data is not distribution.

RE: Hmmm
By Tsuwamono on 8/24/2007 10:00:34 PM , Rating: 1
LoL then your country has shitty laws. Here in Canada I can copy my entire DVD collection, Music collection, HD DVD collection, and Blu-Ray collection and its legal. The way it should be. If i want to copy it i should be allowed, its mine.

RE: Hmmm
By Targon on 8/25/2007 8:47:53 AM , Rating: 3
There are conflicting laws when it comes to this stuff. If you hack the protection on a DVD to eliminate the copy protection, that violates certain laws. The process of making a copy for personal use(aka, you can't give or sell the copy or original) is normally allowed, except that due to the copy protection on DVDs, you in theory should not be able to without hacking the protection.

The part about not being able to give or loan a copy or original is to prevent people from making a copy for themselves while they sell or give the original. If you give a copy or original, then you should not have that copy. In theory, you should not be allowed to make a copy to put in different DVD players in the same house either. If you have the same movie and want to play it at the same time in different DVD players, you should own two copies, not just one.

So, if you make a copy to protect the original, that is fine, but try to play the same movie in different DVD players from different copies that you have created is not.

The same applies to books and other media. The copyright holders deserve certain protections. If you buy a book, you are not allowed to photo-copy the book and give/sell a copy since you are not the author or copyright holder. If you loan or give the book to someone else, that does not entitle you to keep a copy.

For music the same thing applies again(though dislike for the RIAA makes it more difficult), where if you buy a song(digital download), you may be allowed to play that one copy, but if you give a copy to others, you are in violation of copyright law. If you give what you have downloaded to others, in theory at least, you have transfered your legal download to that other person and have given up your ownership of what you have downloaded. Keep in mind that making personal copies is still accepted, so you may place a copy on multiple devices/computers, but not with the intent to give that music to other people. It is questionable under "fair use" if you can put it on an MP3 player that you let a friend use while you listen to the same music on your home computer, just because it violates the spirit of fair use.

Laws are laws, but there is the word of the law, and the spirit of the law that needs to be looked at. If you violate the spirit of the law, then you should expect a certain amount of grief if you are caught, regardless of what the media type is. If you violate the letter of the law, there may be some room for negotiations as long as you follow the spirit of the law.

RE: Hmmm
By PitViper007 on 8/24/2007 4:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of if the DMCA would be applicable here. There is software in place (Obviously if it was software that removed the lock) that locks the phone to a specific service. In circumventing that software lock, wouldn't that be a breech under the DMCA?

RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 8/24/2007 4:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
See my post above :)

RE: Hmmm
By afkrotch on 8/25/2007 6:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm...Apple doesn't allow the use of OSX on non-Apple machines. Remember the whole OSX86 project? Anything can become illegal, depending on the Terms of Use.

RE: Hmmm
By phattyboombatty on 8/24/2007 6:32:02 PM , Rating: 4
It would probably be AT&T bringing the suit, not Apple. AT&T has paid the big bucks to get the exclusivity deal with Apple. Apple would probably be secretly delighted that a large new market of potential consumers has been created.

RE: Hmmm
By rsmech on 8/25/2007 3:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Apple got part of the subscription fees also. I thought I read somewhere before. If so Apple misses out on these fees with other services.

RE: Hmmm
By SiliconAddict on 8/25/2007 4:05:26 PM , Rating: 3
Unlocking your phone is legal in the US thanks to some legislation that past last year I think. The worst that Apple could do is evoke the DMCA. In which case any remaining trace of respect I had for that company will be flushed.

RE: Hmmm
By excrucio on 8/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmm
By excrucio on 8/26/07, Rating: -1
Still Not a good deal.
By JasonMick on 8/24/2007 3:52:55 PM , Rating: 4
Still doesn't change the fact that the thing is 500-600 dollars, with horrendous battery life and has its share of notably missing features. The fact that you have to go to such lengths to unlock this phone in the first place is one more unneeded hassle to boot.

Now I do think it has its technological merits, but I sure wouldn't go out and buy one yet. Also, I am sure Apple will not take kindly to this development and make find ways to lock phones not on their network out of iTunes, etc.

I think the downsides of the iPhone are simply too great now. I would rather spend 150 dollars for an ipod nano, and sign a contract for a nice phone with better battery life, smaller size, and more reliability, rather than buy this beta-hardware.

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By masher2 on 8/24/2007 4:11:39 PM , Rating: 4
My iPhone lasts nearly 3 days between charges. My previous phone lasted 4 days...but that's hardly reason to call it "horrendous".

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By JasonMick on 8/24/2007 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct, "life" was ambigous.

Horrendous battery lifetime, I should more accurately say. The lifetime is about 1 yr. and a replacement is > $50. That is an unwanted expense. The operational battery life on a charge is actually quite good, I agree, however, the inconvenience of replacing the battery is what I was writing about.

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By masher2 on 8/24/2007 5:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "The lifetime is about 1 yr."

The lifetime is 400 charge cycles to hold an 80% charge. If you define a useable battery as one that holds less than that, then its even longer.

400 cycles will last me 3 years....or about until I'm ready to replace the phone with a newer model. If you tend to hold your phone longer, then it'll be a bigger deal for you...but people that keep the same phone for 5+ years rarely buy bleeding-edge phones anyway.

Sure, most phones have batteries than can be replaced for $25 or less, but a large, bright, touch screen requires more power. I'd rather have the battery they chose, than a user-replaceable battery that wouldn't last me throughout the day. You get what you pay for.

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 5:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest that your charging use is atypical. Most people will probably recharge their battery daily.

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By masher2 on 8/24/2007 7:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
Quite possibly my pattern is atypical, however that's irrelevant. A "charge cycle" is defined as using one entire charge capacity unit. If you half-discharge the battery then charge it back to full, that's only half a cycle, not a full one:

Unless Apple is lying (and I leave that possibility open) the iPhone battery is going to last longer than a year no matter how many times you charge it...unless you're actually using the phone far more than the average person, that is.

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By Johnmcl7 on 8/24/2007 8:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's not as simple as that, li-ion batteries do have a shelf-life which means regardless how you treat them they will still degrade over time. This is one of the main disadvantages of li-ion battery technology, whenever I am replacing a battery I always try to make sure the one I am buying is a reasonably new one and not one that's been sitting on a shelf for months gathering dust.

So even with your careful charging pattern you will probably find in time that your Iphone is doing little better than other people who haven't been so careful. This is why most companies using the technology have the facility to let you unclip the battery and pop a new one in that's needed - Apple sadly don't.


RE: Still Not a good deal.
By AraH on 8/24/2007 5:46:56 PM , Rating: 1
mine lasts 6-7 (occasionally 8) days... so the iPhone does suck. (in case you want to know which phone: nokia 3250)

(and before you downrate, this phone does have a LOT of bugs...)

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By Murst on 8/24/2007 6:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
The 3250 and iPhone are two completely different types of phones.

Its like comparing the MPG of two cars without taking into account their weight, HP, size, etc.

If you're going to compare an iPhone to another phone, at least choose something with a similar featureset like a blackberry or something.

RE: Still Not a good deal.
By Johnmcl7 on 8/24/2007 8:38:07 PM , Rating: 3
The 3250 is an S60 smartphone, unlike the Iphone it does offer proper expansion through its Symbian base. It's also badged as a music phone so it's not quite as different as you seem to think.


RE: Still Not a good deal.
By xphile on 8/26/2007 6:08:33 AM , Rating: 1
Personally I totally disagree. I think a comparison on runtime of ANY two phones is perfectly valid, since once they stop working their features are exactly the same, useless. Just like your car example when both run out of gas.

You can make all the allowances you want for a phone needing to be charged every two days, and hey if they add enough shiny features and a bigger screen you can probably have one that needs plugging in every half hour too, but it's just a technological step backwards if you cant then come up with the power to support the features for a reasonable length of time, especially when you've been used to phones that run up to 2 weeks.

But then hey what do I know - I can hardly call my tiny Nokia a phone at all any more these days; about the only thing it will do - day in and day out for hours on end is make and receive phone calls.

Dose of reality.
By Mitch101 on 8/24/2007 5:26:49 PM , Rating: 5
I think this is a dose of reality for the apple people who think the OS is so secure it cant be hacked or has viruses.

As anyone can see with enough determiniation a good hacker will do whatever he wants with you. Because your Apple doesnt get daily exploits its because apples are not on hackers radar and you can see what happens when the iPhone made the radar.

RE: Dose of reality.
By xti on 8/24/2007 6:03:53 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Dose of reality.
By kelmon on 8/25/2007 5:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
Don't care. It might happen in the future (but then that's been said for years already) and in the meantime I've had 4-years of zero risk. In that respect I've definitely got my money's worth so whatever happens I'm happy.

Mind you, if you are going to hack your own device so that it's no longer under the protection of the manufacturers umbrella then you're probably bringing these things on yourself.

RE: Dose of reality.
By Hare on 8/25/2007 3:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
What does this have to do with OS security? People are trying to unlock their own devices using all tools available. It's not like someone can remotely access your phone / files. Comparing these two is just stupid.

Who knows if Apple actually made it easy to unlock the device? Their market just grow quite a lot since it's no longer AT&T only. Maybe they made it just difficult enough so that they won't get sued by AT&T?

RE: Dose of reality.
By Mitch101 on 8/26/2007 10:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
I can see it now Steve on Stage saying "And one more thing?"
Our devices feature hackable operating systems.

Being hacked is not good marketing.

By mankopi on 8/24/2007 4:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
I thought everything apple is so secure, unlockable, unhackable and impenetrable withought permission? Yeah Right!

By TomZ on 8/24/2007 4:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and first come the hacks, and then come the exploits. Mark my words...

By INeedCache on 8/24/2007 11:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Can't be. This isn't some rinky-dink outfit like Microsoft. We're talking about Apple here, maker of the world's most secure everything. Ha, ha! I'm going to love reading the lame excuses of the Apple crowd when the exploits begin.

By crystal clear on 8/25/2007 2:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yes indeed-People just love to hack Apple products-you just name it.

They do it more for fun or personal satisfaction rather than money(most of the times).

They love to announce-

Eureka ! I HACKED IT !

By crystal clear on 8/25/2007 3:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
By crystal clear on 8/25/2007 3:20:18 AM , Rating: 2
Tom this is for you-cannot send it to you direct-so via D.T.

Microsoft Axes Controversial 'Get The Facts' Site
Microsoft is replacing the site with a new Web campaign called Windows Server/Compare that it says is "designed to help enterprises with their server purchasing decisions."

Microsoft launched "Get The Facts" in 2004 with an eye to showing Windows in the best light, compared to Linux.
The program gained notoriety when it emerged that some of the third party research reports posted on the site were paid for by Microsoft. Most of the reports purported to show that Linux burdened users with higher total operating costs than Windows.

If I were apple
By Treckin on 8/24/2007 4:11:51 PM , Rating: 3
If I were Apple, I wouldn't give a shit... So what? OMG now people might buy more of my phones. Who cares what network They work on? ATT will be angry, to be sure. They may even file their suits themselves, or simply pressure apple about some obscure protection clause in their exclusivity contract.

RE: If I were apple
By TheMouse on 8/24/2007 4:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
APPLE will lose the chunk of money they are getting from att monthly bill

RE: If I were apple
By xti on 8/24/2007 5:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
i dont see how...before those who didnt want to be on ATT network weren't really part of the possible its ATT peeps + tmobile/gsm carriers/etc.

people who unlock are still a tiny portion of the populations, just like cpu overclockers. what will go up more notably i think would be ebay occurences and whatnot.

RE: If I were apple
By killerroach on 8/25/2007 12:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I'd do... I'm seriously considering getting a refurbished one from Apple, unlocking it, and then putting it on T-Mobile (which gets excellent service around here). If for no other reason than it'll definitely get some odd looks from people :)

By Homerboy on 8/24/2007 3:55:20 PM , Rating: 1
AT&T you mean?

By Master Kenobi on 8/24/2007 4:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, they meant Apple. You still have to activate and use itunes with it.

By theapparition on 8/25/2007 2:07:29 PM , Rating: 3
They can install itunes when they pull the keyboard out of my cold dead hands.

The problem still being....
By rcc on 8/24/2007 4:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
In order to get an iPhone at present, you have to buy it through AT&T and sign a contract. So this may help the average user in a year or two.

RE: The problem still being....
By Murst on 8/24/2007 5:01:51 PM , Rating: 3
But what about the two year contract...
By Muirgheasa on 8/25/2007 5:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
Surely no matter how hacked your iPhone is you still have to pay every cent of that $1440 contract you signed when you bought it (and that's the cheapest one)? Or am I missing something here?

By Axbattler on 8/25/2007 8:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
From my perspective, the main benefit of unlocking a phone is to be able to use it abroad. I find buying a Pay-As-You-Go SIM card abroad usually a lot cheaper than roaming.

By Master Kenobi on 8/24/2007 3:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
That didn't take long at all. Impressive to see how well the modding communities can react to new things.

Great News
By IcY18 on 8/24/2007 3:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is awesome news, makes spending that amount of cash almost worth it now.

Cheaper I-Phone?
By KYJurisDoctor on 8/24/2007 8:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
That should cause the price of the I-Phone to "come down to earth", Right?

By crystal clear on 8/25/2007 2:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
Here is a short list of tips on how to use an unlocked iPhone: (courtesy-information week)

* The unlock process took only a couple of minutes. From our end it was totally painless.

* Once you put your new, non-AT&T SIM in the device, you have to go through the usual activation process. This can, of course, be done by anyone anywhere with the right tools (like iASign or iActivator)

* We tested with an active T-Mobile SIM -- after the hack was finished and we reactivated we immediately got full bars and the T-Mobile carrier info popped up in the top bar.

* Everything is otherwise the same, except the menu system now has a couple more options. The root menu has Carrier settings where you can select your preferred network if you don't want to roam.

* The General -> Network menu now has an EDGE network settings area where you can input your carrier's APN and username / password. We put in our T-Mobile info, and were immediately online. (Apparently these hidden menus were added in the 1.0.1 update, they tell us. How convenient!)

* Visual voicemail isn't in the cards -- sorry. That was, of course, to be expected because it's a special AT&T network-specific feature right now. When you hit the voicemail button you are taken immediately to your carrier's default voicemail line though, and that works just like it would on any other phone.

* Everything is confirmed as working on a non-AT&T network: SMS send / receive, Internet (including Safari, Mail, Google maps, etc.). YouTube doesn't work out of the box, but that's to be expected. If you're not on AT&T you have to manually activate YouTube -- here's the guide on how to do that. (YouTube is the only app you have to activate like this.)

By crystal clear on 8/25/2007 3:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
Brandon this for you-get ready with your stuff.

Is The Google Phone Ready To Launch In India In Two Weeks?

Here is a look at Rediff's report:

Google, the nearly $13.5 billion search engine major, is believed to be a fortnight away from the worldwide launch of its much-awaited Google Phone (Gphone) and has started talks with service providers in India for an exclusive launch on one of their networks.

Talks are believed to be taking place with Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Essar, respectively India's first and third largest mobile telephony operators, and state-owned Bharat Sanchar Nigam.

And that's not all. According to the report, Google is also preparing for a simultaneous launch in the U.S. and Europe:

Sources close to the development said a simultaneous launch across the US and Europe is expected, and announcements would be sent to media firms in India and other parts of the world. US regulatory approval, which is expected soon, is the only hurdle that Google is waiting to cross, they added. Google plans to invest $7-8 billion for its global telephony foray.

The legal way......
By crystal clear on 8/25/2007 3:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
Open Internet Coalition wants unlocked iPhones for everybody.

Today the Open Internet Coalition goes before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to discuss "Wireless Innovation and Consumer Protection." Ben Scott, Washington policy director of free press, said the hearing "ought to be called the 'iPhone hearing'" due to its relevance to consumer choice with phone devices, open networks, and focus on promoting competition in the wireless market.

Hope fully you wont need HACKS rather the legal way as the title suggest.

By crystal clear on 8/26/2007 12:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
Simple & easy for a small price-

Two weeks ago, a company called Bladox, based in the Czech Republic, began selling an $80 device called a Turbo SIM. The thumbnail-size card, attached to another carrier’s SIM card and inserted into an iPhone, tricks the iPhone into thinking it is running on the AT&T network even when it is not.

The company has reportedly been overwhelmed by orders and is not selling the product on its site. But Jesús Díaz, a technology writer in Madrid, said he bought the Turbo SIM last week and was now using his iPhone on Spain’s Vodafone network.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki