Hacker News Reader

Comment by 40four | Hacker News Reader

Why is this on the front page? It's not interesting, or even a valid complaint if you ask me.

The guys screscreen shot clearly says "nearly" all phones will be unlocked. Well in my world, that doesn't mean 'all', yet he insists on playing the victim & crying about Apple being liars.

I'm a Verizon customer and the 60 day lock policy is clear on all the new iPhone marketing material from Verizon. I suspect he saw this and thought he could work around it by ordering from the Apple website instead.

The excuse of getting the Verizon version "in case' she ever wants to switch doesn't make sense if he is expecting an unlocked phone.

He was eligible for an upgrade she wasn't. He tried to game the system and lost. Boo hoo!

Just use the new iPhone on your own verizon account for 60 days & be happy. His girlfriend's phone can't be THAT old if she not eligible for an upgrade. Maybe she can use his old one haha.

View on HN

>The guys screscreen shot clearly says "nearly" all phones will be unlocked. Well in my world, that doesn't mean 'all', yet he insists on playing the victim & crying about Apple being liars.

It VERY CLEARLY says all except ones purchased through AT&T Next.

> I suspect he saw this and thought he could work around it by ordering from the Apple website instead.

That sounds like a completely reasonable expectation.

> He tried to game the system and lost. Boo hoo!

He paid for a phone and had it crippled without being told.

> He paid for a phone and had it crippled without being told.

I think this is a particularly salient point. Today, all iPhones regardless of carrier cost exactly the same. However, the Verizon one carries additional undue burden on it in the form of this 60 day lock. The phone should be discounted to make up for its lack of functionality.

I doubt Verizon is going to apply a discount and I don’t see why Apple should, considering this is a Verizon policy brought on by the FCC.

In fairness you have this backwards. "This is a Verizon policy brought on by the FCC" -- this is an FCC policy brought on by Verizon's lobbying. Until earlier this year it was not permissible for them to do this as a result of the terms of their purchase of licenses for the 700MHz LTE block in 2008.

Fair. I won't edit my comment since it will just confuse things but you are 100% correct, my wording was incorrect.

A discount for a 60-day carrier lock? I feel like that could only be worth a few cents at best.

If you wanted to use it on another network, it's useless during those days. Depreciation and cost of capital of the phone for 60 days? Easily $50 or so.

He wanted to use his Verizon upgrade credit, so Verizon's 60 day policy applies.

He could have paid full price up front and got the generic unlocked version available to everyone.

I think the argument being made here is that all VZ iPhones have the same 60 day lock on them regardless of the sales channel, even if you pay full price at the Apple store.

Per another comment, it seems this is a Verizon thing and not an Apple thing [0]. However, I do believe Apple should have explained it better and made users aware.

Kinda shitty situation, really.

[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759602/verizon-60-day-p...

It's not shitty. There is a generic unlocked version available on the Apple store if you pay full price up front.

He could have chosen that option, bit he wanted to use hos Verizon upgrade credit. I'm sure he saw the policy on the verizon site & thought he was being smart, no he's crying.

I completely agree with you. I created a concession within my comment to prevent a flame war.

Sorry I got too fired up... seeing this trending put me in a mood :)

> He could have chosen that option, bit he wanted to use hos Verizon upgrade credit. I'm sure he saw the policy on the verizon site & thought he was being smart, no he's crying.

What's the problem with this? Is there some unspoken rule that we're not allowed to "be smart"? Is that odious? He played by the rules, Verizon didn't, surely that's not his fault..?

With all due respect to Apple, this is 100% Apple’s fault. Verizon has no magical innate ability to lock phones. Apple, which controls the phone and, for the most part, the baseband, grants Verizon the ability to lock the phone. They should not — per their own page, the phone is unlocked.

I fully expect Verizon to be as obnoxious as they can be. Apple makes itself out as standing up for their users, and the obviously failed to do so.

He didn't pay for an iPhone. He 'upgraded' and is most likely on a payment plan. He stated he used the 'upgrade' program.

If he really wanted an unlocked iphone 11 pro max, he could have REALLY paid the $1500 to Apple to get the generic unlocked phone that is an option to EVERYONE regardless of carrier.

Look at the apple store, anyone can get the generic unlocked phone straight from Apple. Yet he chose the Verizon version.

All I'm saying is I have no sympathy for this. He tried to circumvent the Verizon unlock policy and failed.

He could have chosen the generic unlocked version. This at best was just a dumb choice on his part. Not Apple's fault

You are conflating the name of the program with the concept of "upgrading" an old phone. If you read the thread, he didn't "upgrade" anything. The "iPhone Upgrade Program" is the name of a program that Apple runs, that allows you to upgrade your iPhone every year. A bank that Apple contracts with loans the money for the phone - it is similar to putting it on a credit card, and is not tied to any carrier. It appears that he signed up under the program for a new phone for his girlfriend, which going forward could be upgraded every year under the program.

It doesn't appear that he tried "circumvent" anything, as he was told by Apple that the phone was going to be unlocked.

Fair enough I guess, maybe I misunderstood. I'm not familiar with the program. But the are multiple people in the thread disputing his claim.

It just drives me crazy. The tone. The victim mentality. Just feels like BS, I don't really belive him to be honest. Sounds like he just made a dumb choice.

Why would he choose the Verizon version? He wanted an unlocked phone. It's very clearly an option in the list. I've looked at the checkout page on the Apple store. Just choose the option that clearly says it's a generic unlocked phone.

But he didnt. He chose the specific version tied to Verizon. Even though he's in the Apple program? Hmm...

I guess I jiat got really fired up because this is the last thing I want to see trending on the front page. It is soo far from being interesting, or able to satisfy ANYONE'S intelectual curiosity, it caused me to go on multiple angry rants in the comments! :)

Why would he choose the Verizon version?

People "in the know" buy unlocked Verizon phones directly from Apple regardless of their actual carrier because only the Verizon version supports both CDMA and GSM. It is the only iPhone that can be used on every US network.

This is true, but the SIM-free model is also the same as the Verizon model. Unless availability of the SIM-free model is delayed (it’s not this time), there’s no reason to buy the Verizon version if all you want is expanded band support.

No, the new iPhone doesn't support CDMA as Verizon is turning it off at the end of the year. https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/knowledge-base-21881...

Thanks for the info. I honestly was NOT 'in the know', I've always been with Verizon as it had by far the best service in the mountainous region I live in. AT&T, Sprint & others are far inferior, through experience & evidence from friends/ family.

So I wasn't aware that Verizon phones were desirable for this reason. It's actually interesting to look into the different wireless bands and how the different carriers use them, but is this still the case when you select the SIM free version straight from apple?

I just feel like most of this is misplaced 'outrage'. I refuse to subscribe to outrage culture, where everyone is looking for a reason to complain in a recreational sense.

Meanwhile as 'outraged' as the guy in the original thread is, he is clearly going to keep using Apple products.

I agree that they went a little over the top in sentiment, but it after the Reading the entire thread, they appeared more correct than the other people. They also explained why they selected the Verizon phone. Historically that was the model to get due to CMDA and/or bands. However, I am not sure if that was necessary this year.

I'm a Verizon customer and the 60 day lock policy is clear on all the new iPhone marketing material from Verizon

If you read the thread, the guy bought the phone directly from Apple, as a new phone (not an upgrade), under the IUP. The phone had nothing to do with Verizon, Verizon financing, or any existing upgrade eligibility. He relied on Apple's representation that he was buying an unlocked iPhone, and received a locked one, apparently as part of Verizon's new policy.

Apple is selling locked Verizon iPhones while claiming they are unlocked. The fact that Verizon may choose to unlock them after 60 days doesn't negate that.

I believe you are mistaken. It clearly states in the title and post that he purchased a Verizon version of the phone and not a factory unlocked version.

From Apple's point of view, the phone IS unlocked. However, since its tied to Verizon, the phone is carrier locked because of the FCC ruling, linked by another user.

This is a sucky situation and Apple could have made people aware of a Verizon policy that could influence their decision. However, in my opinion, the outrage is misplaced.

Incorrect. Apple asks users to select a carrier, however the site clearly states that all iPhones sold by Apple, including those under the IUP, are unlocked. That is a misrepresentation by Apple.

Many people buy the unlocked Verizon version of iPhones, regardless of their carrier, because only that specific version supports both CDMA and GSM. The issue is that Apple has not updated their website to reflect Verizon's 60 day policy. The thread clearly states that he bought the phone directly from Apple.

They ARE unlocked UNTIL you activate it with Verizon, in which case, Verizon's policy takes over. Apple is being truthful.

If the person purchased an Unlocked phone, in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. If they purchased ANY version of the phone besides Verizon it is unlocked. Verizon is locked per carrier, not per Apple.

This is an important distinction.

The user stated they did not activate with a Verizon Sim before trying the t-mobile sim. Another user confirmed they had a similar issue only on their iUP that they ordered online, their in store version was unlocked even after activating with Verizon.

Apple's order page also clearly says all the version are unlocked except ATT Next. Apple apparently failed to update their site regarding the Verizon issue. That is Apple's fault, not the person.

According to the poster, at some point during the purchase, they logged into their Verizon account.

I’m guessing that’s the trigger that caused this but I’m not sure.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/warning-iphone-upgrade-...

At one point that was true but the past several generations (from 6 on I think) have only a single US SKU.

I read through that whole thread, and the concensus seems to be that this is still an issue. It appears that all of the phones now have the CDMA technology in them, however it is still only active on the Verizon and Sprint versions, because Apple must pay a patent royalty for each activated CDMA phone, and it does not want to pay that royalty for customers using GSM carriers.

Correcting my earlier statement which wasn’t generally true. When Apple was trying to pressure Qualcomm by using crappy Intel modems, those models did not support CDMA. The current “11” generation at least seems to be universal according to Apple but they don’t mention extra CDMA conditional licensing.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201296

> From Apple's point of view, the phone IS unlocked. However, since its tied to Verizon, the phone is carrier locked because of the FCC ruling, linked by another user.

I am reasonably confident that the lock is implemented by Apple. If Apple genuinely thinks the phone is unlocked, then it would be unlocked.

This is not correct. Verizon locks the phones themselves:

https://www.verizon.com/about/consumer-safety/device-unlocki...

> Devices that you purchase from Verizon are locked for 60 days after purchase. Devices that you purchase from our retail partners are locked for 60 days after activation. After 60 days, we will automatically remove the lock. Following the 60 day lock period, we do not lock our phones at any time.

You’re misunderstanding me. Imagine that you are a phone company. You buy a bunch of phones wholesale from various vendors, and you want to lock them. You can’t do this by loading a regular app on them that locks them, and you can’t do this by looking at the phone and saying “abracadabra”. You do it by using some protocol by which the vendor (Apple) allows you to control the lock state of the phone.

That protocol exists at Apple’s whim.

So because Apple has to implement it in order to sell to Verizon, it’s their fault? That’s basically victim blaming. Yes, Apple could not sell phones locked to Verizon, but then they wouldn’t be able to sell phones to Verizon.

Do you actually believe that Verizon would stop carrying iPhones if they couldn’t lock them? I don’t believe this for a second.

It’s kind of like arguing that that Verizon would only sell phones preloaded with Verizon crapware. This was partially true, but Apple stood up to them and everyone else quite successfully.

You’re also ignoring that the FCC requires Verizon phones to come locked for 60 days. Ostensibly to cut down on theft

Citation needed.

I can find plenty of evidence that the FCC permits a 60 day lock. I see no evidence whatsoever that the FCC requires it.

It also says that phones will be unlocked except for AT&T.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com