Definitely an unfortunate regression [on Verizon's part], and quite a screwup [for Apple] not to document it. I’m sure [the communication and messaging] was some oversight to be fixed shortly.
Sorry, I was unclear, I'm confident the messaging and incorrect communication was an oversight on the part of Apple, and I'm sure the 60 day lock is a result of the recent FCC ruling [1] permitting Verizon to do so. Which, I imagine, has to do with political connections between Verizon and the FCC (Ajit Pai and his giant Reese's Pieces mug used to work there).
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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! :)
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.
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.
>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'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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
I find it humorous that the comments on that post so ardently defend Apple's disclosure fail by citing disjoint Verizon policy and/or brushing off as obscure operator switchology.
I am an Apple fanboy and a macrumors member since 2002 and that thread is infuriating. People bend over backwards to defend Apple by any means necessary. I just read the entire thread and it seems like Apple messed up here. I would be surprised if it was intentional, but they still clearly messed up. It's ok to admit that.
It’s really a bizarre read. It’s clearly an oversight by Apple (which I assume they will clarify as this type of situation repeats many times). Lots of people there seem to defend this ridiculous Verizon policy as well.
Indeed, just the first page was enough for me. The OP made a simple point - that clearly-stated facts didn't add up, and the entire first page was either suggested workarounds or unrelated advice. Completely useless and not addressing the original point in the slightest. I don't blame him for his final post on the thread before ragequitting.
I suspect this person has spent more time at this point raging on the internet than it would take to exchange the phone, or otherwise solve their issue.
Apple Support will mail you pre-paid packaging to return these if you don’t want to drive 120 miles (which they cite as a key problem).
They have a great 14 day return policy which I used today for an iPhone 11 Pro Max. No hassles. Full refund with no questions.
It is usually the case that broad solutions are harder and more time consuming than individual solutions.
This is somewhat on purpose. Companies rely on the fact that when they mess up, the easiest solutions for consumers are ones that won't hold the company accountable or impact their ability to pull the same stunts in the future.
If OP had just exchanged their phone, this thread wouldn't be on HN. But, assuming their claim is true, maybe the increased attention will force Apple or Verizon to clarify their advertising.
My understanding is that when you buy for a particular carrier/line, it does still have to be activated on that carrier/line before it will work.
It could very well be that if he set up the phone with a Verizon SIM, it would immediately be unlocked. But this is a single data point based on what sounds like someone relaying information from Verizon tech support and a remote girlfriend having tech troubles.
OP can return it no questions asked and get another unlocked phone.
It's scummy this happened but I suspect in this case it would be Verizon not telling Apple the truth. Not giving Apple a pass, but if Verizon told the truth that would be newsworthy
The FCC approved Verizon’s request because they were requesting a very limited lock of 60 days in order to prevent “zero down” device theft and resale by people who manage to hijack or create a Verizon account using stolen credentials and identities, order a phone by mail from whomever, and then never activate it. Verizon provides a statistic of several thousand people last year having their identity stolen and abused to get iPhones, and they must continue to unlock phones (without user action required) at 60 days unless those phones are flagged as acquired through identity fraud (and thus essentially bricked for all carriers, terminating the get rich quick scheme).
I don’t assume that, since the above comment indicates they may have doing something fancy with multiple accounts. I would guess that the screenshot is from the process for one of the accounts - but their complaint is from something gone wrong with the other account.
Because then the solution applies to phones from app manufacturers, not just iPhones, at the carrier controlled systems rather than at the device manufacturer controlled systems.
> I got my girlfriend the Verizon version of the iPhone 11 Pro Max. [...] I'm with Verizon, she's with T-Mobile. I wanted to get the Verizon version in case she ever wanted to be able to switch
Does this actually matter? The tech specs page for the iPhone 11 Pro at Apple just lists one model of the Max, and says it has both GSM and CDMA.
It used to be that the models sold as AT&T or T-Mobile models only supported GSM, and the models sold as Verizon or Sprint models supported both CDMA and GSM, and so if you wanted maximum flexibility you had to get the later. Judging from current and past spec pages, it appears the iPhone X was the last iPhone that did that.
That used to be the difference...almost a decade ago. Verizon is killing it's remaining CDMA infrastructure by next year. The main difference now between carrier specific phones is their LTE bands as they all use different ones and for silly reasons phones sometimes will only support ones specific to the carrier.
The point of the thread is that Apple describes all of the circumstances under which phones they sell directly are supposed to be unlocked immediately. The poster’s situation met that criteria, and the phone was still locked.
so the bad part about all this is for the ones that want to use the phone with multiple carriers for multiple lines. I have my main line as Verizon and my secondary line as T-Mobile. My Verizon line is tied to my digital sim, and as soon as you put the T-mobile physical sim into the phone it goes to the activation screen. Sucks for us that want to use the phone for multiple lines as they won't let you do so.
Yes, Verizon just told me to return my iPhone 11 pro Max and to buy it from Apple because their phone are unlocked. ️ I can’t use my e-sim from T-mobile for another 60 days. Very frustrating!!!!
Very frustrating!!! Verizon just told me to return my iPhone 11 pro Max and to buy it from Apple directly. I activated my e-sim not knowing the phones are locked and now every 10 minutes the phone locks, trying to push and activate the e-sim.
68 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] thread[EDIT] Edit for clarity.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759602/verizon-60-day-p...
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.
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.
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.
He could have paid full price up front and got the generic unlocked version available to everyone.
Kinda shitty situation, really.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759602/verizon-60-day-p...
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..?
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.
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
It doesn't appear that he tried "circumvent" anything, as he was told by Apple that the phone was going to be unlocked.
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! :)
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.
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.
It VERY CLEARLY says all except ones purchased through AT&T Next.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m guessing that’s the trigger that caused this but I’m not sure.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/warning-iphone-upgrade-...
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201296
I am reasonably confident that the lock is implemented by Apple. If Apple genuinely thinks the phone is unlocked, then it would be unlocked.
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.
That protocol exists at Apple’s whim.
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.
I can find plenty of evidence that the FCC permits a 60 day lock. I see no evidence whatsoever that the FCC requires it.
Apple Support will mail you pre-paid packaging to return these if you don’t want to drive 120 miles (which they cite as a key problem).
They have a great 14 day return policy which I used today for an iPhone 11 Pro Max. No hassles. Full refund with no questions.
This is somewhat on purpose. Companies rely on the fact that when they mess up, the easiest solutions for consumers are ones that won't hold the company accountable or impact their ability to pull the same stunts in the future.
If OP had just exchanged their phone, this thread wouldn't be on HN. But, assuming their claim is true, maybe the increased attention will force Apple or Verizon to clarify their advertising.
It could very well be that if he set up the phone with a Verizon SIM, it would immediately be unlocked. But this is a single data point based on what sounds like someone relaying information from Verizon tech support and a remote girlfriend having tech troubles.
It's scummy this happened but I suspect in this case it would be Verizon not telling Apple the truth. Not giving Apple a pass, but if Verizon told the truth that would be newsworthy
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759602/verizon-60-day-p...
Hopedully the context helps provide some background for why this might not be as scummy as it seems without that.
I don’t assume that, since the above comment indicates they may have doing something fancy with multiple accounts. I would guess that the screenshot is from the process for one of the accounts - but their complaint is from something gone wrong with the other account.
Does this actually matter? The tech specs page for the iPhone 11 Pro at Apple just lists one model of the Max, and says it has both GSM and CDMA.
It used to be that the models sold as AT&T or T-Mobile models only supported GSM, and the models sold as Verizon or Sprint models supported both CDMA and GSM, and so if you wanted maximum flexibility you had to get the later. Judging from current and past spec pages, it appears the iPhone X was the last iPhone that did that.