End of iphone contract

rordeb

When the end of the 18 month contract is reached, are you able to get the phone unlocked? My wifes one is up in the summer and would love to get my mitts on it but use it on Vodafone prepay APN - 20c per mb. €30 a month for a bit of browsing the papers on the train is off the wall.

mobius42

No, unfortunately. Someone questioned O2 about this on their forums and were basically told that they won't unlock it when the contract is up.

O2_Daryll

Ya O2 have the exclusive rights to carry the iPhone for the foreseeable future so handsets will remain locked to O2.

philiporeilly

Obviously its not in O2's interest to unlock the phone for other networks, but if you know how to switch on a computer you're technically qualified to jailbreak it yourself.

Also dig out and double check your contract as there seems to be many 12mth versions out there by mistake. Call O2 on 1909 to get a copy if you dont have it as it means you can leave earlier or upgrade sooner.

whiterebel

How can they do that when they unlock other phones? The contract period is up. Is it in the small print?

rordeb

Maybe O2 will offer a similar prepay deal on data - would keep light data users happy. A happy bunny will spend more on calls and messaging !

The vodafone offe of 20c per mb is a brill deal for iphone use as most people use wifi at home.

Maybe ill jailbreak it!

666bxg

Is it a 1st gen iPhone by any chance? If so it should be easy enough to unlock

rordeb

Its a current model - will look on the boards to see what I need to do - would much prefer if O2 would offer a data charge of 20c per mb.

Oafley Jones

mobius42 wrote: »

No, unfortunately. Someone questioned O2 about this on their forums and were basically told that they won't unlock it when the contract is up.

How is that legal? O2 shouldn't have any right to withhold an unlock code on a phone where the subsidy has been paid off.

Tom Dunne

Oafley Jones wrote: »

How is that legal? O2 shouldn't have any right to withhold an unlock code on a phone where the subsidy has been paid off.

On what grounds would it be illegal?

Oafley Jones

Tom Dunne wrote: »

On what grounds would it be illegal?

As the subsidy has been paid off, the user should have the right to use the phone as they see fit. What right do O2 havein refusing an unlock code on a phone which is 100pc owned by the customer. By refusing to supply the unlock code O2 are effectively controlling a phone which they have no say over.

If there isn't any legislation in place there needs to be soon as this is an abuse.

Tom Dunne

Oafley Jones wrote: »

As the subsidy has been paid off, the user should have the right to use the phone as they see fit. What right do O2 havein refusing an unlock code on a phone which is 100pc owned by the customer. By refusing to supply the unlock code O2 are effectively controlling a phone which they have no say over.

I still don't see how that is illegal. Immoral, perhaps, illegal, I doubt it.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

If there isn't any legislation in place there needs to be soon as this is an abuse.

How can you legislate for something like this? I am no legal expert, but I really can't see how you can make it illegal not to supply an unlock code.

whiterebel

Much as I'd love the iPhone, I'm sick of O2 screwing it for every cent. I'm having a good look at the alternatives, and will wait in the vain hope that Apple release it to all carriers rather than O2 exclusively.

Dades

They sold a locked phone and that's what the purchaser gets to keep. If they sold the phone as an unlocked phone then the user would have a right to have an unlocked version.

It sucks but there you go.

seamus

Oafley Jones wrote: »

As the subsidy has been paid off, the user should have the right to use the phone as they see fit. What right do O2 havein refusing an unlock code on a phone which is 100pc owned by the customer. By refusing to supply the unlock code O2 are effectively controlling a phone which they have no say over.

If there isn't any legislation in place there needs to be soon as this is an abuse.

You bought the phone on the understanding that it would only be possible to use it on the O2 network. You were never led to believe it was any other way. Therefore there was no breach of consumer law when the phone was sold. In addition, a locked phone doesn't prevent you from changing networks (most networks will give you a free phone if you switch), so there's nothing anti-competitive there either.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

Dades wrote: »

They sold a locked phone and that's what the purchaser gets to keep. If they sold the phone as an unlocked phone then the user would have a right to have an unlocked version.

It sucks but there you go.

+1

Tom Dunne

whiterebel wrote: »

and will wait in the vain hope that Apple release it to all carriers rather than O2 exclusively.

I doubt it is ever going to happen. It's all down to the US marketing machine, and the way the US mobile phone market works.

In the US, people will and do jump from operator to operator purely for a particular model of phone. AT&T have pretty much saved their own bacon in the current economic climate due to the iPhone, and revenues from it. So it makes sense, in the US, for the various carriers to have exclusive rights to a particular mobile phone model. I can't really see that changing over this side of the pond, tbh.

Oafley Jones

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I still don't see how that is illegal. Immoral, perhaps, illegal, I doubt it.



How can you legislate for something like this? I am no legal expert, but I really can't see how you can make it illegal not to supply an unlock code.

I'm asking aswell, I'm not sure what the law is in Ireland either. I do know that other countries in Europe have legislation to deal with it; where the customer knows the amount of subsidy and where the carrier is legally obliged to issue unlock codes after the subsidy has been paid off, italy is one example.

Do you not think that Ireland would benefit from similar laws?

seamus

In fact, since we're at saturation point now and the operators by-and-large all provide comparable price plans it makes sense now that the primary factor on which companies will compete is the particular models of phone which they offer. If all operators were required to be allowed to carry any phone, the market would be stagnant - people wouldn't switch to get the latest and greatest. This could lead to a cartel and price fixing on the operators' part.

So, locking the iPhone in fact increases competitiveness in the market and keeps prices down. Wait till the G1 is released here (probably by 3?), you'll see the operators going nuts to offer better and better data packages.

Oafley Jones

seamus wrote: »

In fact, since we're at saturation point now and the operators by-and-large all provide comparable price plans it makes sense now that the primary factor on which companies will compete is the particular models of phone which they offer. If all operators were required to be allowed to carry any phone, the market would be stagnant - people wouldn't switch to get the latest and greatest. This could lead to a cartel and price fixing on the operators' part.

So, locking the iPhone in fact increases competitiveness in the market and keeps prices down. Wait till the G1 is released here (probably by 3?), you'll see the operators going nuts to offer better and better data packages.

That is honestly one of the oddest things I've read on boards. Can't agree with any of that logic. Just so i'm clear, you're arguing that restricting the products that a company can offer is good for competitiveness and the consumer?

Tom Dunne

Oafley Jones wrote: »

That is honestly one of the oddest things I've read on boards. Can't agree with any of that logic. Just so i'm clear, you're arguing that restricting the products that a company can offer is good for competitiveness and the consumer?

Yeah, think about it - each company trying to out do one another by offering the best phone, with the caveat that it is used exclusively on their network.

Oafley Jones

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Yeah, think about it - each company trying to out do one another by offering the best phone, with the caveat that it is used exclusively on their network.

Maybe if they all sold the same products they might have to differentiate themselves in other ways? Such as price and customer service.

seamus

Price and customer service are largely intangible and unless there are massive differences in either, people are unlikely to change. Overall people tend to be loyal to providers so long as they're happy. In addition to that, when the operators are so massive and prices are fixed across the entire island (as opposed to varying per-store), it's very difficult for a particular operator to sufficiently differentiate on price without the competitors quickly catching up.

A phone however is a tangible object and a reason to switch.

Think about it this way - you're looking for a new car. Your regular car dealership is offering you a lamborghini. The one down the road is offering you a Ferrari. Both are the same price, have the same guarantee and get the same mileage. However the Ferrari has one or two minor bells and whistles and built-in GPS. And you just prefer the look of the Ferrari. So you'll buy the Ferrari.

Thus, the guy selling the Lamborghini needs to adapt and find a comparable car or change his price to steal back his customers. But if your regular dealer was also selling the Ferrari, you'd have bought it from him and the market doesn't change or benefit.

Oafley Jones

seamus wrote: »

Price and customer service are largely intangible and unless there are massive differences in either, people are unlikely to change. Overall people tend to be loyal to providers so long as they're happy. In addition to that, when the operators are so massive and prices are fixed across the entire island (as opposed to varying per-store), it's very difficult for a particular operator to sufficiently differentiate on price without the competitors quickly catching up.

A phone however is a tangible object and a reason to switch.

Think about it this way - you're looking for a new car. Your regular car dealership is offering you a lamborghini. The one down the road is offering you a Ferrari. Both are the same price, have the same guarantee and get the same mileage. However the Ferrari has one or two minor bells and whistles and built-in GPS. And you just prefer the look of the Ferrari. So you'll buy the Ferrari.

Thus, the guy selling the Lamborghini needs to adapt and find a comparable car or change his price to steal back his customers. But if your regular dealer was also selling the Ferrari, you'd have bought it from him and the market doesn't change or benefit.

And if the both dealers offer the same cars?

Tom Dunne

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Maybe if they all sold the same products they might have to differentiate themselves in other ways? Such as price and customer service.

As Seamus points out, the likes of customer service is hard to quantify, however, something tangible, or dare I say desirable, is not.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

And if the both dealers offer the same cars?

And that's where exclusivity comes into the mix - operators trying to out do each other to ensure this never happens.

seamus

Sorry, I added a bit onto the end of it. If both dealers offer the same cars, then nothing changes and prices don't drop.

In fact, if you're aware that both dealers have both types of vehicle, then you're unlikely to even bother checking what the other guy is offering and just go with your regular guy.

("You" being, "your average person", not you specifically)

copacetic

seamus wrote: »

Price and customer service are largely intangible and unless there are massive differences in either, people are unlikely to change.

Don't believe I've ever heard someone call price intangible Seamus! Couldn't disagree more with your analysis, by tying themselves to O2 apple have reduced competition, not increased it. O2 charge whatever they like, don't bother developing features like visual voicemail and people are still forced to go with them if they want an Iphone.

Your car analogy is poor, there is competition between ferrari garages on discounts (price fixing is illegal), you can bring one in from the UK and most importantly, if you sell it on to someone else they don't have to use specific 'ferrari' fuel to keep using it.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

And that's where exclusivity comes into the mix - operators trying to out do each other to ensure this never happens.

The problem with this is they don't as far as the consumer is concerned. They outdo each other by offering the best of deals to the maker.

Oafley Jones

seamus wrote: »

Sorry, I added a bit onto the end of it. If both dealers offer the same cars, then nothing changes and prices don't drop.

In fact, if you're aware that both dealers have both types of vehicle, then you're unlikely to even bother checking what the other guy is offering and just go with your regular guy.

("You" being, "your average person", not you specifically)

When was the last time you bought a car Seamus?:D

Oafley Jones

Tom Dunne wrote: »

As Seamus points out, the likes of customer service is hard to quantify, however, something tangible, or dare I say desirable, is not.

Customer service is a lot easier to quantify than desire.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

And that's where exclusivity comes into the mix - operators trying to out do each other to ensure this never happens.

You seem to be intent on exclusive products being the one and only method that a company has of seperating itself from the competition.

seamus

Oafley Jones wrote: »

When was the last time you bought a car Seamus?:D

Personally, I'd go to a mate and wouldn't bother with a dealer. Yes, it was a bad example, I wasn't trying to equate it directly, but anyway

copacetic wrote: »

Don't believe I've ever heard someone call price intangible Seamus!

But it is at levels we're talking about. Until a massive price discrepancy exists, people are largely lazy about it. That is, if O2 are charging me €40 a month and the same calls on Vodafone would be €38 a month, where's the drive to switch to Vodafone? That €2 a month comes out my account - I don't feel it, it's intangible. I'm not going to go to the bother of switching to the other provider for the sake of €24/year. Indeed, I did switch this year and my personal time involved in making that switch was far greater than €24
But if Vodafone had a great phone that O2 don't and can't stock, I'm going to go to them. Which forces O2 to find their own competing offer.

However, if O2 also stock this great phone, I'm going to stick with them for an extra €2 per month and O2 are given no reason to improve anything.

We're in limbo slightly at the moment because there is yet to be a competing device for the iPhone, despite what anyone else says. Yes, it has fanboy appeal, but there are several other factors (the app store and integrated WiFi primarily) which set it apart. If the G1 is all that it promises, then it poses very real competition for the iPhone and when the time comes for me to make the decision, I'll pick the phone that I think is better and probably barely blink at who the provider is.

Tom Dunne

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Customer service is a lot easier to quantify than desire.

How? Case and point, look at the hysteria over the iPhone.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

You seem to be intent on exclusive products being the one and only method that a company has of seperating itself from the competition.

I wouldn't say the one and only. But think about it, how many of the average Joe Soaps factor in Customer Service when buying a phone? I would say very few. They pick up the phone, check out it's features, see what the look and feel of it are, see what the keypad/screen is like.

copacetic

seamus wrote: »

We're in limbo slightly at the moment because there is yet to be a competing device for the iPhone, despite what anyone else says. Yes, it has fanboy appeal, but there are several other factors (the app store and integrated WiFi primarily) which set it apart. If the G1 is all that it promises, then it poses very real competition for the iPhone and when the time comes for me to make the decision, I'll pick the phone that I think is better and probably barely blink at who the provider is.

but isn't all this just the case for why operators need to have the best phones and if they can tie them up exclusively they are on to a sure fire winner. Thereby destroying competition.

eg The G1 is the best thing since sliced bread, but O2 sign it up exclusively too. How are meteor, 3 and Vodafone going to compete? How could meteor ever get such an exclusively deal without being able to offer multi country deals with it?

Vodafone, O2 and to a lesser extent 3 have a massive unfair advantage in that situation.

seamus

copacetic wrote: »

but isn't all this just the case for why operators need to have the best phones and if they can tie them up exclusively they are on to a sure fire winner. Thereby destroying competition.

But competition could be equally destroyed by requiring an open market. Most people buy the phone that they want, not the operator which gives the best value - just like (going back to a car thing) most people buy the car they want, not the one which offers the best mileage or has the best guarantee. So if every operator has the same phones, people have little reason to move - the operators will always remain neck-and-neck with pricing.
I can see your point - if they all have the same phones, then they need to come up with other bells and whistles to sweeten the deal, which could be big drops in call costs, or free laptops or whatever. But I think in a small economy like this, there is (as we've found) a tendency for such wide open markets to stagnate and price-fixing and cartels abound.

How could meteor ever get such an exclusively deal without being able to offer multi country deals with it?

Vodafone, O2 and to a lesser extent 3 have a massive unfair advantage in that situation.

Agreed. But that means that meteor have to adapt or die. Just as most people go for the latest phone, there's a good-sized market out there for people who want a phone and nothing else. Meteor could specialise in business offerings, for example, where phone functionality plays second fiddle to pricing. They may end up with few consumers, but a good chunk of the business market.
They could also pair with one of Vodafone/O2/3's international competitors - T-mobile being the best example - and piggyback on what exclusivity agreement they have.

rordeb

I think the facts are, there is always change around the corner. Competitors follow their peers - that means in this case carriers will look to seal exclusive deals.

Phone manufacturers on the other hand will want to push product and even get a cut of the carriers action - they will not tolerate an uncompetitive tarrif - the best phone on the market will only attract a limited number of new customers if the tarrif is too pricey.

The main problem is the tarrif. It would appear that the market (I.e. Us) tolerates a pricing package at a certain level and it would appear that all competitors are happy to tinker around the edges and not upset the apple cart. We are a big milky cash cow that has been milked for years- those of you in the business already know this.

Carriers will occasionally try steal a charge on the market but no-one is really prepared to slash their prices in a bid to steal ahead.

But things always change - exclusives won't last forever and the tarriffs will also adapt. However due to our size and lack of appropriate market monitoring by regulators, we will always be milked by the carriers.

We can't even properly own a phone after paying 1800 for it over an 18 month contract.

walshb5

Tom Dunne wrote: »

How can you legislate for something like this? I am no legal expert, but I really can't see how you can make it illegal not to supply an unlock code.

In other countries such as Germany, Italy, France, Czech Republic and a few others there is legislation in place stating that if a phone is being sold on a contract basis, it must also be available unlocked and sim-free. Apple tried to fight this in these countries - and lost, leading to the iPhone being available from several operators sim-free and unlocked. Also their current customers can have it unlocked at the end of their contract. An example being Orange in France.

Why can't we have this legislation here?

Tom Dunne

walshb5 wrote: »

In other countries such as Germany, Italy, France, Czech Republic and a few others there is legislation in place stating that if a phone is being sold on a contract basis, it must also be available unlocked and sim-free. Apple tried to fight this in these countries - and lost, leading to the iPhone being available from several operators sim-free and unlocked. Also their current customers can have it unlocked at the end of their contract. An example being Orange in France.

Why can't we have this legislation here?

Can you provide links to back up your claims?

To be honest, I don't believe that is the case. I have been following the iPhone since day one and have never heard of Apple engaging in legal action over the iPhone with regards to having it locked on a network.

If I am wrong, fair enough, I'll hold my hand up.

walshb5

Here are some links to sites that reported the story in France:
French Regulators Kill Orange’s Apple iPhone 3G Exclusivity
Unlocked and contract-less iPhone 3G available in France
Here is one where you can see the iPhone 3G 8GB advertised on Orange France's website available on its own or "seul" for €609. Orange France
prix du Apple iPhone 3G 8Go noir seul : = price of apple iPhone 8G on it's own.

Australia: iPhone 3G to be sold unlocked in Australia
I know from family in Oz, that Optus sell the phone unlocked. You have to pay the pre-pay phone cost + AUS$80 for an unlocked one. Can't see it on Optus's site though, might be just something they offer in stores.

See this Information Week story on Germany.

How it's done in these countries is: All the phones sold by a carrier are locked to that carrier, but as they are required to also sell them unlocked, you can ask for an unlocked one. In this case they call apple with the IMEI of the phone that is to be unlocked, it is 'whitelisted' and is unlocked during activation, so as to allow any sim.

Tom Dunne

I am not disputing the SIM-free availability, I am disputing the fact that Apple engaged in legal action to prevent the phone from being made available SIM-free.

walshb5 wrote: »

Apple tried to fight this in these countries - and lost

Tom Dunne wrote: »

To be honest, I don't believe that is the case. I have been following the iPhone since day one and have never heard of Apple engaging in legal action over the iPhone with regards to having it locked on a network

walshb5 wrote: »

Here are some links to sites that reported the story in France:
French Regulators Kill Orange’s Apple iPhone 3G Exclusivity
Unlocked and contract-less iPhone 3G available in France
Here is one where you can see the iPhone 3G 8GB advertised on Orange France's website available on its own or "seul" for €609. Orange France
prix du Apple iPhone 3G 8Go noir seul : = price of apple iPhone 8G on it's own.

Australia: iPhone 3G to be sold unlocked in Australia
I know from family in Oz, that Optus sell the phone unlocked. You have to pay the pre-pay phone cost + AUS$80 for an unlocked one. Can't see it on Optus's site though, might be just something they offer in stores.

See this Information Week story on Germany.

Your links above show that the phone is available SIM-free, not that Apple engaged in legal action.

walshb5

Oh, and the end of contract is the same. Can't find the actual news story, but I know because a French friend of mine got p***ed off with orange France, terminated her contract with a couple of months to go (same as you do here with normal phone contracts, by paying the monthly fee up to the end of the contract) and her iPhone was unlocked for her, after calling Orange, waiting a few hours, and plugging it into iTunes. She's now with Bouygues telecom.

walshb5

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I am not disputing the SIM-free availability, I am disputing the fact that Apple engaged in legal action to prevent the phone from being made available SIM-free.

Your links above show that the phone is available SIM-free, not that Apple engaged in legal action.

I agree,
It's from a few months ago, I can't find the actual news stories on it now, despite searching.:mad:

walshb5

Anyway, my earlier point was that there is legislation in those countries covering phone locking.

philiporeilly

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I am not disputing the SIM-free availability, I am disputing the fact that Apple engaged in legal action to prevent the phone from being made available SIM-free.

From what I remember, Apple were slow to release to those countries and initially didnt have sim free versions until they were ordered to do so. I dont recall Apple taking any legal action to contest this though.