Cetainly interesting to find out these numbers, as an analyst claims that a quarter of iPhones sold are being used in other networks than AT&T.<br><br>Couple reads with differing takes on the matter:<br>MSNBC:Analyst: A quarter of iPhones 'unlocked'<br>Bloomberg:Apple Users Unlocked 1 Million IPhones, Analyst Says (Update2)<br>MacDailyNews:So-called ‘analyst’ finds his ‘missing’ iPhones<br>AppleInsider:Tracking down Apple's missing 1.4m iPhones<br><br>

I wonder if the SDK will support unlocked phones?<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net

Good question. I guess the SDK could be blocked with firmware updates on iPhones with the newer firmware at least, or the block could be in SDK itself. I guess we'll find out when somebody tries it out on an unlocked iPhone and then posts about it.<br><br>

I wonder if the SDK will support unlocked phones?<br><br>What are you asking? Will the software developed using Apple's SDK run on unlocked iPhones? No reason to think it wouldn't. <br><br>Software developed without the use of the SDK runs just fine so there is no reason to think that software made with the SDK would discriminate or refuse to run. Or that software developed with the SDK would perform any better than the stuff coming out of the skunkworks now. <br><br>Case in point, the applications developed specifically to run on the iPhone, such as Mail, Maps, Stocks, Weather, and Notes all work perfectly on my iPod Touch.<br><br>Whether the SDK software works or not, it's safe to say that the developer community that has sprouted up in support unlocked iPhones and Touches will continue their efforts to support those who continue to pay them for their efforts.<br><br>Where it could become messy would be if the SDK agreement between Apple and the developers strictly forbids them to support mirrored efforts to provide both legal and illegal distros.<br><br>I read a headline that Apple has lost 300 million in lost revenue from iPhone buyers who never signed up with an authorized carrier. But, we are probably talking about the total residuals from the carrier paid to Apple over the life of the contract.<br><br>No one argues that that is good money lost but for the moment I believe it is in Apple's best interest to allow the iPhone to pick up momentum, even if it means allowing unlocked phones to flourish. While doing so, Apple has to be studying the nuances of the iPhone in the wild.<br><br>That many of the developers will embrace Apple's SDK in order to legitimize their efforts and make steady money, I have no doubt. One need only look at how successful the whole widgets developer community has become, thanks to Apple, who provided a venue to showcase their efforts. iTunes Store will become even more convoluted now, with the advent of software sales for this platform.<br><br><br>M i c h a e l (OFI)

Well, Apple could prevent the SDK from working on unlocked phones if they wanted to, but yeah, as you point out, there probably isn't much sense in that. Especially considering their numbers.<br><br>That lost revenue figure seems to be changing depending on the source, analyst and the media, for sure. I saw figures ranging from that 300 million up to 500 million. Major chunk of that would be from the US market though, as is most of the suspected unlocked phones, and that's what is my main interest here.<br><br>The European telcos haven't announced their figures, but I'm guessing they'll be also losing quite a lot of iPhone customers, as in many countries in Europe, it isn't officially available, but people already use them. For instance in Finland, our current legislation won't even allow any kind of phone-carrier bundle unless it's a 3G device and Sweden has rather strict laws as well. OTOH, we are talking about 5 million and 8-9 million peoples' markets, which really are peanuts compared to German, French and UK markets.<br><br>At the same time I'm thinking how come Apple or AT&T aren't even commenting on the amount of unlocked phones. They aren't even enforcing the carrier exclusivity really -- well, bricking the phones with a firmware update would be bad PR -- but aren't they also sending a mixed message to obedient customers? I mean that 1 to 1.45 million unlocked phones is about one fifth (1/5) to one quarter (1/4) of all the phones out there and new buyers just might start following the trend dumping AT&T from the get go.<br><br>

They aren't even enforcing the carrier exclusivity<br><br>Is it written down somewhere that if Apple sells an iPhone it cannot be used for any purpose other than telephony? That in order to use it, it first must be activated through AT&T? If that really were the case, you couldn't buy an iPhone from anyone but AT&T, right?<br><br>They do have exclusivity if one intends to activate the phone for telephony but it's my understanding that if you chose not activate it, you could still use it just like an internet appliance, much like the Touch.<br><br><br>M i c h a e l (OFI)

Uhm, okay, yeah. As long as it's a GSM device, it needs a valid SIM card inside it to function. The same would go if it had 3G/HSDPA and were used only as an HSDPA modem. And why are they locked in the first place? Especially if it is as easy to unlock them, as we've found out.<br><br>"They do have exclusivity if one intends to activate the phone for telephony but it's my understanding that if you chose not activate it, you could still use it just like an internet appliance, much like the Touch."<br><br>This, while maybe correct, is splitting hairs. Why would anyone pay the extra for the iPhone, if they were going to use it only as an internet appliance. It is a phone after all. Besides, they'd still need that valid SIM card inside it.<br><br>Personally, I think the less Apple enforces the exclusivity, the better, but why market and sell the thing first with the exclusive bundle, is beyond me. Basically I find it the same as saying the 'obedient' customers: "Sucker...you keep paying the premium in your coverage plan, while the bold ones just paid for the phone." <br><br>There might be a winky after that last line, but that's kind of how I'd feel, if I had gotten an iPhone with AT&T and paid the monthly premiums to use it and then found I could've bought the phone rather cheap and gone with another carrier instead.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And why are they locked in the first place?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Pretty much all mobile phones leave the manufacturers locked to a particular network over here in the UK, I'd assumed it was the same worldwide. There's a healthy business over here in getting phones unlocked, as many people have 2 or 3 SIMs to take advantage of different deals at different times of day, weekends, calling landlines etc. The point I'm making is that Apple isn't doing anything different from all the other phone manufacturers, it's SOP.<br><br>- padmavyuha<br><br>[color:purple]A lopsided man runs best along the little side-hills of success<br>- Frank Moore Colby</font color=purple>

[color:blue]a quarter of iPhones sold</font color=blue><br><br><br>.... but sold by whom?<br><br>If over a Million unlocked iPhones had gone through retail channels, there'd be records of them. Where would they have been shipped from? Directly from Apple to Singapore or China or India?<br>That would mean Apple themselves would have availed themselves of some grey-marketing techniques, to bolster sales?<br><br>I find that somewhat difficult to believe.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>