iPhone ain't even an iPod without service

It's unclear what technical limitation prevents Apple from allowing the iPhone to function as an iPod without an active AT&T service plan tied to it, because we really (really) want to believe the companies wouldn't arbitrarily disable a feature to keep the cash flow rolling in.

[Via TUAW, thanks Alex P.]


Update: An anonymous tipster is reporting that the iPhone may only need to be activated once for the iPod (and other features) to work; continuous service isn't necessary after that -- unless you want to use it as a phone and data device, of course.

[Zo Oche @ Nov 4th 2008 9:14AM]

Even *with* service, the iPhone ain't even a cell phone:
Given its shortcomings as listed in this buyer-beware article:
http://blog.vkistudios.com/index.cfm/2008/10/17/The-iPhone-aint-no-cell-phone

[mallow.craig @ Jun 26th 2009 10:51PM]

I just purchased a used 3G for $50. Are you all saying it can't be used as a iPod touch? I'm not interested in using it as a phone.

[gmsemple @ Jun 27th 2009 5:18PM]

My current 2G is a deactivated, POS, paperweight.
It was SUCH a POS, I got my girl a 3G to replace it-I HAD to, it wouldn't take calls-and it was only six weeks old, from the box. POS 2G!!
The 3G is only slightly better, and OS 3-points-slow is no big improvement. Kinda' like an MS "Service Pack", it's a band-aid for too many ailments to list...
Imo the 3G "S" is a ripoff, as "4G" is right around that corner-and apple knows this...So f**k us, right??
I (sadly) ASSUMED my old 2G would still work as an ipod and the wifi would still be good, after deactivation.
After all I paid for it, and it's as good as an f'ing BRICK.
Thanks, apple, you f**ks.
I've had iPhones since Day One, and imo Appple has never produced a shoddier, more lackluster POS than the iphone family.
They took from Microsoft's playbook, and dumped a "beta" phone on the masses, and made us eat crap while they "improved" it, and it's still FAR from "done".
This is Apple's biggest TURD, ever-Cheap Chinese manufacture, poor quality control (We've been through three 2G's and two 3Gs so far, and I have another year+ on my AppleCare "warranty"!)
It's a fun gadget, WHEN it decides to act as designed.
Otherwise, fwiw, the cost vs. effectiveness, as a phone, is suspect.

[Matt @ Jun 26th 2007 1:13PM]

Umm... hmmm.... I'm not a lawyer, but if this is true, it will certainly interest the Antitrust guys at the Department of Justice. Tying products is frowned upon...

Oh, wait, I am a lawyer!

[bruce @ Jun 26th 2007 1:44PM]

I can't port my Verizon LG Chocolate to any other carrier. It has a (crappy) music player and (bad) web capabilities. What's the difference?

[Matt @ Jun 26th 2007 1:55PM]

The problem isn't that you can't port it; the problem is forcing the consumer to sign up for AT&T in order to use the features of the iPod itself.

[Justin @ Jun 26th 2007 2:36PM]

You may be a lawyer (I am an astronaut by the way and an ex-stuntman) but you a clearly a bad one.

American Antitrust laws rarely come into play where there is not a virtual Monopolization being imposed (see Microsoft). If Apple can tie your use of an iPod to using iTunes, then they can certainly also tie you to AT&T for two years. They will just say it is an economic necessity in providing the hardware and software to the customer.

[Will @ Jun 26th 2007 2:36PM]

and this is different than microsoft requiring you to pay a fee to play games on xbox live? or tivo requiring you to subscribe to their service to use a standard feature on their device?

[Justin @ Jun 26th 2007 2:38PM]

Also good points Will. Matt, is it burning yet. And both Tivo and MS Live require you to use a service they provide. Apple only requires you to use a service someone else provides. Hardly anti-competitive behavior.

[Matt @ Jun 26th 2007 2:42PM]

The difference, gentlemen, is that both the XBox and Tivo retain some level of basic functionality without signing up for the services (XBox will still play games, Tivo will still record manually). In contrast, if this line means what it looks like it means, Apple's device will lose essentially all functionality (won't play music, won't surf the Net on Wi-fi...) It becomes little more than a paperweight.

[Justin @ Jun 26th 2007 2:58PM]

And how can you use an iPod without iTunes. Let em guess, it retains the basic function of a USB drive. Please. Its clear you are reaching to hold on to your point. Its pretty clear that AT&T and Apple have lawyers too, and they MAY have thought of something minor like billions of dollars in fines imposed for anticompetitive behavior. You really think you are the first one to come up with the idea and that Washington is going to come in and shut down this partnership between Apple and AT&T? You really are dense if so. Maybe if they had 80-90% market share and they pulled something like this. Since they now have 0% and as of Friday will have maybe 2% max its stupid to believe that D.C. antitrust enforcement will come after them for trying to initiate an anticompetitive market, even if they were.

[Major Malfunction @ Jun 26th 2007 3:12PM]

Matt, Matty... mat-e,

Don't bother trying to introduce any argument that might make sense to discuss. It's Apple, they can't do anything wrong. Sure, iPod is worthless without itunes and itunes is a monopoly on music via DRM [or you pay 33% more, and have your information embedded in the music *easily removed*], now iPhone is worthless without iTunes, and so on... everything revolves around the 'i' and since its Apple, its okay. Everyone else... the RIAA requires you to license the music so it doesn't end up all over hell and back, but they are wrong. The MPAA does not want their stuff streamed across the net, but they are wrong. Anyone with anything to protect is wrong, except for Apple and all of those people out there who think that only their stuff is worth protecting while everyone else must open their banks.

Nice Attitude people. Nice.

[Matt @ Jun 26th 2007 3:07PM]

Justin: Calm down! I just said it was fishy behavior, from a legal point of view. There are several intricate rules regarding monopolization and tying. I'm not saying that this behavior IS illegal, just that it could get the attention of Justice.

[Mr. Vage @ Jun 26th 2007 4:34PM]

So? You have to activate the phone to use it. Doesn't sound different from any other phone that I've had. If you want to bring up the point that you can't use even the audio player unless the phone is activated, then tell me who the hell would purchase an iPhone just to play music. That would be one seriously overpriced PMP.

I do think that it is strange that you need to activate the phone to use the music player feature, but I don't see why it's a problem.

[rivetgeek @ Jun 26th 2007 5:26PM]

Uh I use my ipod without itunes all the time. Try winamp. All the functionality (aside from being able to buy buggy drm riddled music) none of the bloated annoying take-over-everything-and-requires-quicktime software.

[tired-of-apple-fanboys @ Jun 26th 2007 10:26PM]

Where do these "fanaboys" come from? I have an iPod and have NEVER used iTunes for music- is iTunes THE only source of music then legal or illegal?! This tying down of the iPhone to a specific mobile service not only for the mobile functionality but everything else is plain and simple deceptive marketing by control freaks (Jobs and AT&T). Like selling coffe mugs and saying you can only drink Folgers because you made a deal with them (no water sorry folks)!
You say it's an iPod too, but it isn't w/o the phone, and that's not because it can't be but you want to force the consumer to shell out at least $500-600 plus the $175 ETF? Thus ppl who may just really want a cool iPod with no buttons are screwed...nice one Big Business! Down with the consumer!

[Rob @ Jul 4th 2007 11:53AM]

I just think its funny how everyone attacks Matt here. Not that I'm for or against his arument, he may very well be wrong. But you know for a fact that if it were a zune-phone we were talking about, every last one of you would instantly be on his side. Period.

[G @ Jul 10th 2009 8:31PM]

I would NEVER purchase an IPHONE just for the fact that its linked to AT&T.. They have the WORST customer service I have ever experienced. I have heard rumors that they (Apple) are also fed up with the poor service AT&T provides that they are looking to move to a different carrier. I say More power to them - Get rid of AT&T

[Michael Emmons @ Jun 26th 2007 1:15PM]

I guess the larger question is, if you activate it and later on cancel your subscription, does the iPhone revert back to a brick without iPod capability?

[Xultar @ Jun 26th 2007 2:37PM]

They'll hit you with a $175 ternubatuib fee, I'd say do it and change carriers anyway just to punck them out.

[Paul @ Jun 26th 2007 1:16PM]

hacks

[Todd @ Jun 26th 2007 1:16PM]

Oh, so that's what the 36 bucks is for! And here I thought I could listen to my MP3 for just the original $599.99, silly me.

[Damion Michaels @ Jun 26th 2007 1:17PM]

This poses a good question. If I cancel AT&T service (because it is horrible in my area) and pay the $175 "cancellation fee", can I still use the iPhone as an iPod and wifi browser? Apparently not. Ouch! There went my two iPhone purchases.

[Justin @ Jun 26th 2007 2:41PM]

You are assuming. Don't assume, you know what it makes out of you...

[riggs @ Jun 26th 2007 3:27PM]

makes him you?

[Jon @ Jun 26th 2007 1:18PM]

So you pay $600 unsubsidised and you can't use all the features? I am glad I live in Europe.

[Justin @ Jun 26th 2007 2:47PM]

Who says it is not subsidized? It is subsidized, hence the requirement of of a contract to get the phone for the 500 or 60o dollar price. They just do not offer it without the subsidy. That is not the same as being unsubsidized. Looking at the hardware, it is pretty clear that it would cost more than 500 or 600 retail. AT&T's 8525 costs $600 without a contract and the Blackberry 8800 costs $500 without a plan. Neither of those matches up hardware-wize in costs (mostly due to the screen and 4-8 gb of flash). Get a clue.

[Jon @ Jun 26th 2007 3:05PM]

Justin, so what you are saying that with a 2 year contract at at least $60 a month you guys have to pay $600 for a phone. On top of that they rape you with activation charge?

Again, I glad I live in Europe.

[Justin @ Jun 26th 2007 3:44PM]

We are glad you live in Europe too. By the way, why are you reading an iPhone thread. Just to tell us how great Europe is? Or is it actually envy, maybe its anger that you are always coming in behind the states. You will probably even come behind Canada and Asia on getting the iPhone. Face, Europe is becoming irrelevant across the board. I am not sure what you are good for, maybe a vacation every couple of years. Congrats on that.

[JAmerican @ Jun 26th 2007 4:17PM]

Justin,

You really are not wise in the tech field. The US is usually behind in getting the latest phones such as the HTC Universal which never came to any carrier in the US but was on T-Mobile Germany. There is also UTMS and HSDPA in Europre now while we in the states still use EVDO and EDGE. While AT&T has HSDPA, it is only in the cities. I don't know much about the network so if I made a mistake, that's why. But we are definately behind in phone technology. The iPhone is nothing more than a Sidekick/Blackberry/Helio with a flashy new look. The real smartphones are devices like the Palm OS, Windows Mobile, Symbian OS, etc that allow you to add your OWN third-party applications to customize your device to your liking.

Web Applications do not work on the airplane or in areas where there is no WiFi or cell service. So good luck. I'll be playing NES on my Dash :).

I know that my $50 Dash will work when I cancel my T-Mobile Service for it when I get a new phone :).

[Jon @ Jun 26th 2007 4:43PM]

Well said JAmerican. The Iphone would be a good deal if it allows native applications. By by only allowing web widgets, the third party functionality is reduced to that equivalent of a Series 40 or dumb phone which only allows Java applications.

[Jason G @ Jun 26th 2007 1:21PM]

quite honestly, how many people have to worry about this? Do you think there will be a lot of people that just use this as an ipod only in a year or two? doubtful. not trying to be negative, just saying :)

[Chird @ Jun 26th 2007 1:28PM]

That would be a major concern for me and probably quite a few other people. I bought a kickass smartphone from Verizon and just got the phone plan cuz I wanted a feature rich phone with wifi in it...I didn't want to be payin 45 bux a month for some data plan I'm never gonna use.

AT&T/Apple have effectively eliminated that option...

[Jason G @ Jun 26th 2007 1:31PM]

to add to my own comment - it says the 2 yr contract is required to activate the phone and all features.

I'd wager a bet that once activated, it will continue to work no matter what

[Chird @ Jun 26th 2007 1:38PM]

I just went back up and re-read it. It doesn't actually say anything about the data plan. Just a 2-year "wireless service plan". So that could actually mean anything. I retract my previous statement.

[JJ @ Jun 26th 2007 1:19PM]

I think this is more of AT&T's doing than Apple's, unless Apple has any say in how features can be used and what can be activated. Most likely, a big mistake to have AT&T handle the iPhone as they're just milking whatever they want from consumers. I agree, that if this is true, the DoJ is going to have a nice long talk with AT&T and most likely Apple as well. Functionality should never be exclusive through a service plan and should not require consumers to purchase one either so that they can just use this product.

[Jeff Lewis @ Jun 26th 2007 1:20PM]

My first thought was 'no... they must mean to use the phone to download music from the iTMS...' but that doesn't really make sense given what's written there...

Very odd.

[Kevace @ Jun 26th 2007 1:22PM]

So what happens after two years and you've fufilled the contract? Can you keep using your iphone as an ipod and lets say, get some other new phone with a new contract, or is it a brick as soon as you stop paying?

[Brian Hawkins @ Jun 26th 2007 2:19PM]

That is to say it lasts two years, I have had two ipods die just weeks after my apple care was up.

[randy @ Jun 26th 2007 1:23PM]

July 1, 2009:

pwned!

[iBalla @ Jun 26th 2007 2:04PM]

lol!

[Billy Kincaid @ Jun 26th 2007 2:31PM]

hahahahaha

[michael @ Jun 26th 2007 1:24PM]

does anyone remember the whole disabled bluetooth/motorola thing... pay 15 more to use a feature that comes on the phone in the first place... come on. if you think they arent going to try to put the squeeze on your pennies as much as possible youre freaking nuts.

[Danny @ Jun 26th 2007 1:24PM]

The product may be revolutional, but if I can spend $600 on it and not be able to switch it on, I don't think it's going to do to the phones what the iPod did for the music.

[Fred @ Jun 26th 2007 1:34PM]

"Revolutional" really? Yes, you are one of the people who would spend $600 for an iPhone, and only want to use it as an iPod. Revolutional. GO LITERACY!

[Tibwolf @ Jun 26th 2007 7:05PM]

"revolutional" isn't a word.

[Danny @ Jun 26th 2007 8:03PM]

Apologies for the grammatical hiccup, send any complaints to Stella Artios.

Fred: I would spend $600 on an iPhone, as I'd only be spending a few quid more than most consumer phones anyway.

[Jason @ Jun 26th 2007 1:25PM]

Thats why ANY Windows Mobile based phone is a sound investment... You CAN ALWAYS use the thing as a pocket PC after you disconnect phone service on it!

This HAS TO CHANGE... there is no way that they can do this to people... what about next year when the iPhone Mark 2 hits and people run out and by that... is the old one just a worthless paper weight?

[randy @ Jun 26th 2007 1:29PM]

If you own an iPhone Mark II, and you still have your iPhone classic, why not just keep the classic on the same AT&T mobile number and account as the new iPhone? There is no reason you can't maintain its cellular functionality and use the two iPhones with one cell number simultaneously (well, not literally SIMULTANEOUSLY).

As far as I know there is no cost for this.

[Phil Dokas @ Jun 26th 2007 1:27PM]

The worry about this seems fairly absurd to me. The verb in the sentence is "activate" not "use". You activate it once and then you can use it. Are there honestly people who intend to buy an iPhone purely as a music player? It seems to me these are the only people who are losing out by this activation requirement.