iPhone delayed in France due to unlocking laws?

We're not exactly up on our French, let alone our French telecommunications law, but we're hearing that Apple's supposed launch of the iPhone in that country is being held up by two different regulations that prevent the iPhone from being the locked-down revenue-generating machine Apple wants it to be. The first, a law passed in 1998, requires that carriers unlock any phone upon customer request -- for a fee during the first six months of a contract and for free after that. Notably, all three major French carriers -- including Orange, which was supposed to get the iPhone -- have lost lawsuits challenging this law. The second, which we're slightly less clear on, apparently requires carriers to sell both locked and unlocked phones. Tensions over the regulations have apparently strained the relationship between the companies to the point where Orange spokespeople are saying things like "the risk we're evaluating this week is that Apple crosses France off," but really, who expected Apples and Oranges to mix without someone getting a little bruised?

Read -- French unlocking law with unlocking provision at end of Article II
Read -- Les Echoes report on Apple / Orange tension

[Via The Unlock iPhone Blog, image from TechCrunch France]


Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, the attorney in question only met his university's foreign language graduation requirement by reciting an Eddie Izzard routine verbatim, so this post should not be considered legal advice or analysis of any kind.

[Joe_Templeman @ Oct 6th 2007 10:51AM]

"...locked-down revenue-generating machine..." haha I like it!

[Ireland @ Oct 6th 2007 11:51AM]

Apple fanboy about to say this: I hope this encourages Apple to take their head out of their asses and unlock the iPhone. They are putting off people getting the phone. Some just aren't winning to switch networks, and the amount Apple is making on contracts (10% or something) they could easily earn by selling many more phones. Besides you;d think they'd more more customers in general. People who might conceivably say; "this phone is rally cool, I wonder what this OS X is all about? I might just have to to a Mac next time". Get over yourselves Apple and unlock it in Europe. Not such an easy task in the U.S. where Apple is bound to that AT&T contract. Have my doubts it really is a five years one though.

[Ireland @ Oct 6th 2007 11:53AM]

If I make another typo like that I'm just gonna scream!!! Engadget, give us a 2 minute EDIT FEATURE!!

[john @ Oct 6th 2007 12:20PM]

You can't edit ipod touch calendar events so why should you be able to edit these entries? Please, think logically next time.

[Ireland @ Oct 6th 2007 12:47PM]

Hey John? *slap*

[john @ Oct 6th 2007 1:37PM]

Again no logic here.

[Ireland @ Oct 6th 2007 5:18PM]

John you just got played! *double slap*

If you are going to comment make it either funny or somewhat useful, not just defensive and sarcastic. That's so web 2.0, and you above all people should know we're entering the door of Web 3.0 ;)
/not sarcasm

[Josh @ Oct 6th 2007 5:32PM]

Ireland - your grammatical errors are numerous and i am pretty sure a quick scan through your crap shoot there would have worked just as well as a edit button.

[john @ Oct 6th 2007 5:37PM]

Hey Ireland? *bitch slap*

[samson @ Oct 7th 2007 6:09PM]

Most of these comments are from a small audience that wants what an iphone is without the network it is attached to - demonstrating a LACK of understanding that part of what an iphone is requires an infrastructure that the specific network provides. The iphone is no more a "phone" that these laws applies to than my computer thru skype or vonage - it needs a network.

The law in frane and elsewhere needs to be updated, made current, as it only applies to PART of the iphone: that part that dials up and conveys voice; the law does NOT APPLY to ANY of the other features. For internet access, apple is making the same exclusive network access / ISP requirements anyone else does.

Apple has a right to protect itself from people taking it off network then calling tech support asking why feature x does not work, writing nasty letters to the editor of magazines etc about how an iphone does not work, etc.

The immature few have made a bunch of childish comments here that break down to whining about not being able to use an iphone on other networks. Tough. If you don't like it, don't buy it; but whining in public only shows your immaturity.

Remember, nobody can make you look like a fool, that is something only you can do. The most anyone else can do is point out just how well you have done it.

[john @ Oct 8th 2007 12:39AM]

Hey samson? *slap*

[gtnator @ Nov 14th 2007 12:17AM]

who knows

[Mark @ Oct 6th 2007 10:52AM]

Not enough Apples and Oranges puns.

[Bootes @ Oct 6th 2007 11:01AM]

Go France! France seems to be one of the few countries that actually cares more about it's citizens than large corporations.

[namtastic @ Oct 6th 2007 6:00PM]

Well yeah, aside from the stickier citizenship issues around that, the French *definitely* get the idea of personal liberties trumping corporate liberties. Can't knock that. (Unless you own a company, I suppose. :)

[peternj @ Oct 6th 2007 10:59AM]

Well I hope this is true. Apple needs a wake up call. There is a subtle point where a need to produce income turns into pure greed. Remember AT&T was broken up for similar practices. The French laws protect the consumer. No such luck in America. That's part of the reason why I returned my iPhone... and the fact it sucks as a regular phone.

[bugmat @ Oct 6th 2007 1:12PM]

Agreed - I hope the EU does one on Apple (?!) - customer-friendly solution was always to have locked AND unlocked versions ($399 and $599?!) and let consumers decide how they want to use your device. Too bad the U.S telecom industry is so anti-consumer...

[nikster @ Oct 7th 2007 1:47AM]

Yeah... Apple may show the finger to France but next thing you know the EU will agree with France and that will change things a bit.

In the end Apple will have the option of opening the iPhone - selling an unlocked version for $700 or whatever - or abandoning Europe and most of Asia.

I think Apple's strategy on this was misguided and naive from the beginning. These laws have been around for a long time, and for a good reason. They have held up against challenges by operators.

Apple seems to be playing the part of a 1991-aera greedy network operator and Europe says "been there, done that, not gonna happen". A surprising mistake, but then again this is Apple's first cell phone.

Apple - time to wake up and smell the roses.

[Miles @ Oct 6th 2007 10:59AM]

Has Apple finally met it's legal match?

[WifeBeater3000 @ Oct 6th 2007 11:08AM]

Apple need to hire Denny Crane.

Denny Crane vs France.

[Xavier Gill @ Oct 6th 2007 12:15PM]

They're already in trouble with the EU for illegally blocking users in one country buying songs from iTunes in another EU country. This goes against the main reason the EU was set up in the first place - free trade accross the nations.

Apple seemed to piss a lot of people off in the way the were doing business, breaking promises with carriers about the iPhone deal and iPod Touch. We dont like European countries having monopolistic control so you can imagine what we think about an American company barging in.

[Shodan @ Oct 6th 2007 11:04AM]

Oh boohoo I'm sure the French economy is going to crash if they don't get the iPhone. If Apple can't play nice with the European laws then too bad, they won't get to sell their stuff. I personally believe that the locked down to provider is just stupid.

We can use whatever provider with whichever phone here in Estonia. Land of the free? HA

[TKWarrior @ Oct 6th 2007 11:00AM]

If only we had such common sense laws in the US..... and I thought I'd never envy the French on anything.

[john @ Oct 6th 2007 11:42AM]

You read my mind.

[Eldiablo @ Oct 6th 2007 2:35PM]

You read my mind x 2.
The French may be cheese eating surrender monkeys, but when it comes to standing up for citizen rights, the last thing they'll do is bend over and let a US Corporate shaft them in the ass.

And how stupid do we look going into Iraq now?

Vive la Resistance!

[IndiaTech @ Oct 9th 2007 11:53PM]

I am seeing another Micheal Moore movie in making here... Him going to France and comparing French iPhone with an American iPhone. "You have free unlocking!"
Too bad he can't start the movie like Sicko with a Canadian iPhone...

[IndiaTech @ Oct 9th 2007 11:54PM]

I am seeing another Micheal Moore movie in making here... Him going to France and comparing French iPhone with an American iPhone. "You have free unlocking!"
Too bad he can't start the movie like Sicko with a Canadian iPhone...

[RazorD @ Oct 6th 2007 11:01AM]

But.. doesn't that same 'unlock for a fee' law exist in the UK?

[paul34 @ Oct 6th 2007 2:59PM]

Yes, I do believe so. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see if it was indeed true for any EU member country.

[bombastinator @ Oct 7th 2007 1:55AM]

It's sort of true in the U.S. even. We may find out as soon as that new class action suit finishes up.

What interests me in this is that this means that, at least in France, their EULA may be consequently null and void. This may produce all kinds of interesting repercussions.

[nikster @ Oct 7th 2007 1:57AM]

Austria also has a law like this. I know because otherwise no way in hell would operators offer unlocking. How about other EU countries?

[Godsmurf @ Oct 7th 2007 5:15AM]

In Belgium it's completely forbidden to lock phones or tie them to contracts, so we can use any phone with any carrier.

[Franssu @ Oct 9th 2007 2:25PM]

About EULAs : Most EULAs are, in most countries, completely void because some of their provisions are so blatantly anti-consumer that they violate at least 3 or 4 laws. And yes, this is true for the US and Canada too.

[Tucker @ Oct 6th 2007 11:03AM]

I was under the impression that this was also the law in the UK, but that somehow Apple circumvented it. When I was living in London, I was told the same thing this post states - all carriers must unlock your phone for a fee, but after X amount of time they had to do it for free. Anyone care to clarify?

[Des @ Oct 6th 2007 11:42AM]

It's a European Union directive. Phones cannot be permanently carrier locked. So carriers have to provide a code after a certain minimum spend (covers the fact that _most_ phones are sold subsidised). Here in Ireland Vodafone will give an unlock code for pay-as-you-go phones after a spend of 120euro (or less sometimes depending on the rep).

[Taomyn @ Oct 6th 2007 12:36PM]

Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see what happens as maybe Apple stupidly over looked this tiny bit of information. LOL.

And yes, I think Apple _are_ arrogant and stupid enough to think they can get away with it in the UK, which will make their defeat in the courts all the more sweeter.

[Tony @ Oct 6th 2007 11:10AM]

I cant belive they would not release a phone because they cannot control it. This is pure greed I think Apple is the greediest company out there.
They have such a following of people that love there products and they can milk them and not care. the stock gets higher as the fanboys keep buying there products.

[JohnBaker @ Oct 9th 2007 11:19PM]

How is that greedy?
Apple is the least greediest company in the world, it's CEO only makes $1 a year too.

You have no proof to show they are greedy? Then go fuck yourself you troll.

[Steve T @ Oct 17th 2007 5:29AM]

JohnBaker @ Oct 9th 2007 11:19PM wrote:
"How is that greedy?
Apple is the least greediest company in the world, it's CEO only makes $1 a year too. You have no proof to show they are greedy? Then go fuck yourself you troll."

Please don't be so naive to think that Jobs' compensation from Apple is limited to his PR stunt $1 per year salary. It couldn't be further from the truth. Hint: think stock price. And oh yeah, that Gulfstream jet? A gift of appreciation from the board of directors.

I'm not by any means saying he's less deserving of compensation than any other major CEO, probably more deserving than the vast majority actually; but to pretend otherwise is to live a little to far inside the reality distortion field.

[BrettB @ Oct 6th 2007 11:17AM]

I honestly don't understand how the whole "exclusive" thing helps Apple. By limiting the carrier, you automatically limit your customer base. Sure, you may draw in new customers for the carrier, but how does that benefit you? Apple would have made that same sale on a different carrier. I understand Apple is requiring some new technology with the visual voicemail system and had to entice at least one carrier to go for it, but overseas, now that the iPhone is such a hit, why are they trying to sign exclusive deals anyway. I imagine every carrier wants a piece of the action (and if they don't, they need to think long and hard why). The best way to make money is to sell as many iPhones as is possible, and limiting them to one carrier doesn't achieve that. So what's the hitch Steve?

[Jamie Marsden @ Oct 6th 2007 11:22AM]

The carrier pays Apple lots of money for the benefit of having an exclusive license. The carriers have also been giving them revenue sharing agreements on the call revenue generation. They wouldn't get this if they didn't give exclusive licenses.

[Shira @ Oct 11th 2007 5:59PM]

They may get paid for carrier exclusivity, but one would think that if the phone were unlocked, Apple would make more money in the long run, since everyone would buy it regardless of carrier. And we already know it's capable of working on other networks.

Of course, that's common sense and common sense doesn't always come into play

[Anthony @ Oct 6th 2007 11:23AM]

As much as I dislike AT&T sometimes, the only other option of an unlocked phone would be T-Mobile. I just did a price check and to get an equivalent plan it would be 2 dollars less a month. This is if I ignore the fact that T's coverage is much more scattered where I live.

So if I'm with AT&T and they are giving Apple month that means AT&T is getting less and still making profit. So why should T be charging almost just as much if its all profit to them? Just another way to put a spin on the greed arguement.

Of course they all want to make money, they are companies. Find me one that doesn't like making a huge profit.

[suv4x4 @ Oct 6th 2007 12:42PM]

T also subsidized the phones you get on a contract. So I wouldn't be so fast to tell you who profits more and who has bigger expenses.

On the other hand, nor should you care. As an end user, you see the final price, and service quality against it, and pick the best cost/value ratio. That's all you need to make a good choice.

Of course, you have no choice if you're on iPhone.

[Peter @ Oct 6th 2007 1:22PM]

The other thing to remember is that when Apple comes out with a 3G model next year, the only option in the US will be At&T, because T-Mobile is the other GSM option over here, but they don't have a 3G network. So anyone in America who wants a 3G IPhone will have to use AT&T anyway. I'm already on them, so I'm not worried, just waiting for a 3G model.

[YukonDawg @ Oct 6th 2007 1:49PM]

I don't know what plans you were looking at, but AT&T's cheapest plan offering is $39.99 for 450 (anytime) minutes. For the same price I'm getting 1000 minutes on T-Mob. Plus you need to add on the (required) $20 iPhone data plan to make it work. So the *cheapest* iPhone plan you can get with the DeathStar is $60 (+obligatory taxes).

[enzo @ Oct 6th 2007 4:59PM]

Actually, the cheapest T-mobile plan is $29.99 a month, 300 any time minutes, unlimited weekend minutes (no night time minutes) plus $19.99 for the internet plan. which brings your total to $49.98 a month. In fact, it's the same plan I'm using with my unlocked iPhone.

[Jeff Lewis @ Oct 6th 2007 8:19PM]

The situation is very different in ... well, the rest of the world, which, other than Canada, the US and Japan (I'm not sure about Mexico), uses GSM exclusively.

So while an unlocked iPhone doesn't really open many opportunities here, in the rest of the world, it's a serious issue.

Ironically, Apple's plans kind of backfire up here in Canada too since the only GSM provider here (Rogers/Fido) doesn't have a flat rate dataplan. We currently only have one - Bell - and it's not cheap - $75/mo for 'unlimied' use - which excludes multimedia streaming, VoIP or any kind of server.

[Steve T @ Oct 17th 2007 5:06AM]

Hey Peter- (Peter @ Oct 6th 2007 1:22PM): "when Apple comes out with a 3G model next year, the only option in the US will be At&T, because T-Mobile is the other GSM option over here, but they don't have a 3G network. So anyone in America who wants a 3G IPhone will have to use AT&T anyway."

Do your homework:
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/search/?q=tmobile+3g

[suv4x4 @ Oct 6th 2007 11:27AM]

Steve Jobs is like a parent who's afraid to let his 40 year old son go out of the house. He might hurt himself!

The loss is entirely Apple's. Nokia, LG and the other phone companies are already working on iPhone clones as we speak.

France won't be left out of stylish phones, Apple will be left out of the French market.