Sloppy article. I expect better from Slate. The article confuses the concept of "unlocking" phones with the totally different concept of network incompatibility. Sure, if the phone was unlocked you could theoretically use it on T-Mobile's GSM network, but unlocking wouldn't help you at all if you wanted to use it with Verizon and Sprint which both use completely different cellular technologies. And the article misses the obvious fact that some of the features (for example, "visual voicemail") probably wouldn't on T-Mobile's network even if the phone was unlocked unless t-Mobile made specific changes to allow it. Anyone with a minimal knowledge of the cell phone industry in the USA would know that, by unlocking an AT&T phone, you could potentially use it on T-Mobile's network, but not on Verizon's or Sprint's. I suppose it's possible that this wasn't simply sloppy reporting but was intended as a broader comment suggesting that Apple had missed an opportunity to harmonize incompatible CDMA (Verizon), PCS (Sprint) and GSM (AT&T and T-Mobile) network technologies, but this doesn't seem likely from the context of the rest of the article. The other big issue I had was the fact that the author equates today's AT&T with the old company that used that name. Come on!

Thanks for the reply. I am well aware of the differences between GSM and CDMA phones; unlocking, as you suggest, would be immediately relevant to the GSM networks. The point, however, was that Apple might try to create a version of the iPhone, stand alone, that worked on CDMA networks; and it might also try to create a phone that could work on all networks, but it didn't. I don't suggest doing so would be easy, technologically or business-wise. As for AT&T, as I said in an earlier post, today's at&T is pretty close to what the old AT&T was composed of

Thank you for posting here. I think one thesis of your article was that making a phone that use the Sprint and AT&T and international networks would be at least somewhat revolutionary. You should check out the i830. It can do many of the things the iPhone does. I guess you could use Sprint's fast internet, then (after a quick SIM card swap) call on Cingular's voice network. It's not perfect (and it requires having plans with both companies), but it's a step in the right direction.

Oh, and I think that otherwise you're right as to the facts about unlocking and AT&T in your post and article.

I'm pretty sure that Wu grasps the distinction between technological incompatibility and artificial incompatibility imposed by "subsidy" locks. What with being a super genius and all. But artificial technological locks distort the market and fail to move it to a direction of more standardization-- the two are certainly related. Network effects would likely lead us to more standardization if it were not for these awful practices. Wouldn't you rather buy a GSM phone if you saw all the networks you could take it onto? But now, pretty much any phone you buy from a carrier will be locked, so there is no advantage there to the networks which are standardized. If you want more compatibility, and if you think that it would be great if it were easier to take your phone from one network to another, it's the jive anti-customer measures taken by the carriers that you ought to target. Some misc. points: Phone "subsidies" translate to higher monthly rates. Carriers will not unlock your phone even after your contract is up and any subsidy must have been recouped. Also: unconscionable contracts should not be enforced.

Whoops, see Wu beat me to the punch. And what's with this new commenting system's ignoring of linebreaks (in Safari, at least)? Jiminy.