Other Apple has been very transformative to the cell phone industry from the start... I wish they would do something about SIM locking with their power...

[Agent OrangeZ]

Back before iPhone came out in 2007, the cell phone manufacturers had little power when it came to phone experiences. For the most part, the industry was controlled by the carriers. Manufacturers had to make UI's/UX's in the vision of the carriers. Devices had carrier logos plastered all over them. The iPhone came out... and Apple took charge of it with a take it or leave it attitude. THEY controlled the hardware and it's image. They are in 100% control of the software and updates. No carrier meddling. SOME of it even helped out Android phone makers... Even though their builds of Android have some carrier bloat... gone are the carrier logos on the device... etc.

I wish Apple would do the same for SIM locking. I wish they would take a stand with future iPhones with that "take it or leave it attitude." Say... "Going forward, iPhones are SIM unlocked... no matter what."

Carriers would bend. Really... which carrier wants to be the one that doesn't carry the iPhone? Do this for consumers!

 

[JPack]

SIM locking helps Apple sell iPhones, in the same way that device payment plans and required service agreements help. Otherwise, a lot of customers wouldn’t be able to afford the initial outlay of $800 or $1,000 or even more in many European countries.

 

[Agent OrangeZ]

SIM locking helps Apple sell iPhones, in the same way that device payment plans and required service agreements help. Otherwise, a lot of customers wouldn’t be able to afford the initial outlay of $800 or $1,000 or even more in many European countries.

This is a chicken or the egg argument... Who needs who? Does Apple need carriers or do carriers need the iPhone? I think if Apple took this stance... it WOULD NOT stop carriers from financing iPhones. Like I said... which of the big 3 carriers wants to be the one who DOESN'T carry the iPhone? It would be suicide. So many people would switch to the carrier that DOES continue to sell iPhones. Not to mention that Apple's own financing program (iPhone Upgrade Program) provides unlocked phones.... and Verizon iPhones automatically unlock themselves after 30 days... and they still finance phones. I also think taking this stance will also help them with their obvious desire to go 100% ESIM.

 

[Juicy Box]

I am confused about the SIM locking, could someone explain?

I haven’t bought a locked phone in a very long time, but might be getting a phone from Xfinity Mobile soon.

I thought that if you get a locked phone, it only stays locked until it is paid off. Then it becomes unlocked.

 

[Agent OrangeZ]

Or... how about a reversal of the policy? How about... you sell the phones unlocked... but... if you buy a phone on carrier... and then you don't pay it off... and skip out on your bill, then the carrier can request that Apple LOCK the device.

 

[Agent OrangeZ]

I am confused about the SIM locking, could someone explain?

I haven’t bought a locked phone in a very long time, but might be getting a phone from Xfinity Mobile soon.

I thought that if you get a locked phone, it only stays locked until it is paid off. Then it becomes unlocked.

Different carriers have different policies. I am not familiar with Xfinity. But for T-Mobile (and formerly Sprint) and AT&T... if you finance the device through the carrier, it is SIM-locked until paid off. Verizon was forced to have unlocked LTE phones because of the rules set by the FCC when their bought/licensed their radio spectrum. Verizon phones will be SIM locked for the 30 days after activation and then automatically unlock after that... whether it is financed and still has a balance or not.

 

[eyoungren]

My understanding is that the SIM being unlocked is what Apple wanted originally with Apple controlling the unlock database. AT&T refused to budge on this point and was willing to walk away.

Apple's compromise was that AT&T could have the phones locked to them, but Apple still controlled the database and made the actual unlock. In this manner, the carrier could not relock the device.

It's a compromise that has worked for both carrier and Apple so far.

 

[Juicy Box]

Different carriers have different policies. I am not familiar with Xfinity. But for T-Mobile (and formerly Sprint) and AT&T... if you finance the device through the carrier, it is SIM-locked until paid off. Verizon was forced to have unlocked LTE phones because of the rules set by the FCC when their bought/licensed their radio spectrum. Verizon phones will be SIM locked for the 30 days after activation and then automatically unlock after that... whether it is financed and still has a balance or not.

Okay, thanks. I currently have Verizon, but am thinking of moving to Xfinity Mobile, as it would only cost me $60 for the 10GB plan for my wife and me.

Right now we are paying $116 a month for 6GB phone plan.

I haven’t purchased a locked phone in a really long time so wasn’t really sure how it worked now.

My understanding is that the SIM being unlocked is what Apple wanted originally with Apple controlling the unlock database. AT&T refused to budge on this point and was willing to walk away.

Apple's compromise was that AT&T could have the phones locked to them, but Apple still controlled the database and made the actual unlock. In this manner, the carrier could not relock the device.

It's a compromise that has worked for both carrier and Apple so far.

If this is the case, this sounds like a good deal for everyone involved. Apple, the carrier, and the customer seem to have a good compromise.

 

[JPack]

This is a chicken or the egg argument... Who needs who? Does Apple need carriers or do carriers need the iPhone? I think if Apple took this stance... it WOULD NOT stop carriers from financing iPhones. Like I said... which of the big 3 carriers wants to be the one who DOESN'T carry the iPhone? It would be suicide. So many people would switch to the carrier that DOES continue to sell iPhones. Not to mention that Apple's own financing program (iPhone Upgrade Program) provides unlocked phones.... and Verizon iPhones automatically unlock themselves after 30 days... and they still finance phones.

It’s not a win for Apple to start this fight. The carriers and Apple have the same goal: selling more phones and services. As iPhones become more expensive, Apple wants to continue growing.

In many cases, the existence of financing doesn’t solve the problem. The U.S. has about 75 million prepaid wireless subscribers. Many of those people are not eligible for financing to begin with. How do you win those customers with an affordable iPhone option and also prevent them from running off to another carrier? The SIM lock is one of the few available methods.

 

[Agent OrangeZ]

My understanding is that the SIM being unlocked is what Apple wanted originally with Apple controlling the unlock database. AT&T refused to budge on this point and was willing to walk away.

Apple's compromise was that AT&T could have the phones locked to them, but Apple still controlled the database and made the actual unlock. In this manner, the carrier could not relock the device.

It's a compromise that has worked for both carrier and Apple so far.

At that time... the iPhone was an unproven product. At this point, Apple has the leverage to demand change.

 

[antibolo]

I didn't even know that SIM locking was still a thing, I guess that's only in the US?

 

[eyoungren]

At that time... the iPhone was an unproven product. At this point, Apple has the leverage to demand change.

I'm not so sure. Apple has a monthly payment program and your device comes unlocked. That's a selling point for that program because no carrier that I know of allows you to pay full price for a device OR get a a device on payments unlocked.

If you don't have the credit to be a part of Apple's monthly payment program then Apple doesn't want/need you as a customer. They will still make a sale off you on the backend when you go get a locked device from your carrier.

I see no monetary incentive for Apple in this and doing it for goodwill is not how Apple operates.

 

[JPack]

Or... how about a reversal of the policy? How about... you sell the phones unlocked... but... if you buy a phone on carrier... and then you don't pay it off... and skip out on your bill, then the carrier can request that Apple LOCK the device.

That would add to the current problem of stolen or “lost” devices being sold to unsuspecting customers, then months later the device becomes blacklisted by the carrier.

If your proposed policy now involves Apple locking globally, far more customers will be crying for help when devices get suddenly locked.

 

[eyoungren]

I didn't even know that SIM locking was still a thing, I guess that's only in the US?

Yes, the culture here happened quite differently.

There was a 'law' passed, which is now why carriers unlock devices when they are paid off, but the 'law' allows the carriers to establish policy requirements you have to meet (outside of paying off the device) to qualify for that unlock.

US carriers lock devices because they don't want you to get a good deal on a device (say a BOGO) and then take your unlocked device to another carrier.

Boost, then a Sprint MVNO, had this happen with the original iPhone SE. They sold them for half-price, only to find people buying tons of them, paying an unlock service and then either selling them for profit or getting service with Boost's competitors. They lost serious money on what was supposed to be a money making deal that locked you in to a year of Boost service (which was designed to recoup the rest of the cost of the device).

 

[HiVolt]

Here in Canada SIM locking was banned in December 2017. The one positive aspect of our horribly overpriced and un-competitive internet & wireless industry.

Carriers were also required to unlock phones even if you were no longer a customer.

 

[webkit]

Boost, then a Sprint MVNO, had this happen with the original iPhone SE. They sold them for half-price, only to find people buying tons of them, paying an unlock service and then either selling them for profit or getting service with Boost's competitors. They lost serious money on what was supposed to be a money making deal that locked you in to a year of Boost service (which was designed to recoup the rest of the cost of the device).

Most carriers these days that offer significant discounts or inflated trade-in values, spread the savings over a certain period of time – usually 24 to 36 months. For example, instead of giving the entire discount upfront (e.g., $400), it is spread over time through bill credits (e.g., 30 months or $13.33/month). If someone cancelled the plan 5 months into the 30 months, they would owe the carrier $333.25 (25 x $13.33).

 

[eyoungren]

Most carriers these days that offer significant discounts or inflated trade-in values, spread the savings over a certain period of time – usually 24 to 36 months. For example, instead of giving the entire discount upfront (e.g., $400), it is spread over time through bill credits (e.g., 30 months or $13.33/month). If someone cancelled the plan 5 months into the 30 months, they would owe the carrier $333.25 (25 x $13.33).

Right. T-Mobile does that. This (Boost) was something that occurred in 2016 or so I believe.

 

[ian87w]

Apple cannot do anything about SIM locking. That’s the carrier’s business model, in few countries like the US. The only way to eliminate it is through regulation prohibiting it from the government, which is what most countries had done.

 

[ikir]

Back before iPhone came out in 2007, the cell phone manufacturers had little power when it came to phone experiences. For the most part, the industry was controlled by the carriers. Manufacturers had to make UI's/UX's in the vision of the carriers. Devices had carrier logos plastered all over them. The iPhone came out... and Apple took charge of it with a take it or leave it attitude. THEY controlled the hardware and it's image. They are in 100% control of the software and updates. No carrier meddling. SOME of it even helped out Android phone makers... Even though their builds of Android have some carrier bloat... gone are the carrier logos on the device... etc.

I wish Apple would do the same for SIM locking. I wish they would take a stand with future iPhones with that "take it or leave it attitude." Say... "Going forward, iPhones are SIM unlocked... no matter what."

Carriers would bend. Really... which carrier wants to be the one that doesn't carry the iPhone? Do this for consumers!

In italy there is no SIM locking in iPhones. As far I know Apple always hated SIM locking and fight against it but not all carriers wants to give up.

 

[PeteBurgh]

it would only cost me $60 for the 10GB plan for my wife and me.

Right now we are paying $116 a month for 6GB phone plan.

Good grief. I've read before that US cellphone plans are amongst the most expensive in the world, but it's still a shock to be reminded exactly how big the difference is.

In the UK, I'm currently paying £10 (about $13.50) a month for a 15GB SIM-only month-to-month plan. I regularly see iPhone 13 + 100-150GB data plans for the equivalent of £50 a month, often better.

 

[ian87w]

Good grief. I've read before that US cellphone plans are amongst the most expensive in the world, but it's still a shock to be reminded exactly how big the difference is.

In the UK, I'm currently paying £10 (about $13.50) a month for a 15GB SIM-only month-to-month plan. I regularly see iPhone 13 + 100-150GB data plans for the equivalent of £50 a month, often better.

US carriers are weird and stuff, but you got to understand. Covering the USA is a lot harder than covering the UK, being the US is a much bigger country with many sparsely populated areas. So a US carrier would have to invest in more infrastructure than a UK carrier.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

I wish Apple would just become a MVNO and simplify pricing. Perhaps bundle in some of Apple's premium services.

 

[webkit]

Good grief. I've read before that US cellphone plans are amongst the most expensive in the world, but it's still a shock to be reminded exactly how big the difference is.

In the UK, I'm currently paying £10 (about $13.50) a month for a 15GB SIM-only month-to-month plan. I regularly see iPhone 13 + 100-150GB data plans for the equivalent of £50 a month, often better.

Not all plans in the U.S. are expensive. For example, T-Mobile currently offers a prepaid plan with unlimited talk and text, and 2.5GB of high speed data for $15/month plus taxes and fees.