Can anyone confirm what happens to the Visual Voice Mail service when the handset is used with "unofficial" operators? When the first iPhone was launched Apple used the excuse that they were restricting the networks that launched the iPhone because the Visual Voicemail system would only work if the network had the infrastructure in place and they weren't able to get that infrastructure in place for all networks.

So, if you buy an iPhone from O2 and then unlock it to work with Vodaphone, do you lose visual voicemail?

I'll leave the matter of who gives a crap to another day. Not that it would take that long.

Visual VM only works if the network support it, i.e in the UK the VVM works on O2 (but only on a iPhone tariff, it does not work on a 'normal' tariff), and I can confirm that neither the 2G or 3G, when unlocked, offer VVM on Voda UK, I use them both, but normal VM works fine, you simply configure the the device to call the appropriate VM short dial number when you tap the VM button.

Vodafone sell an unlocked 8GB iPhone for €499.00 in Greece...

considering were all a part of the EU now, what is old vivs stance on this - surely if france can have it law that a provider can not have exclusive rights to a phone, this anti competitive law can be rolled out to ALL EU STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As stated again and again, Apple/O2 are not unique in this practice. Vodafone have the Blackberry Storm (and others, such as a few Nokias - the 6124 springs to mind). You can play the same game with other operators.

The only reason I can see for people being gleeful is that they secretly want an iPhone, despite the disparaging comments, just not on O2. The lady doth protest too much methinks...

>The only reason I can see for people being gleeful is that they secretly want an iPhone

Umm, no. As a piece of hardware the jury is (very much) out. As a phone interface, yes Apple have worked hard (not to my tastes but Im not everyone) and done a reasonable job. The big fail for me (and a lot of other folk I know) is the fact that you dont OWN one. You have to get apps through the Appstore and Apple push 'upgrades' out to 'owners'(who wants to p*ss about jailbreaking every few months). A lot of the irritation with Apples wunderkind is the handcuffs that go with it.

Will be interesting to see just how 'network free' these phones are, will the Appstore still be the only place ?

Thanks Simon Buttress, I couldn't have put it and explained any more succinctly.

True that these big boys find ingenious ways of holdng onto "monopolistic" behaviour by overpricing others out of the game!

Same is true of BT by allowing LLU at a stiff enough price to discourage smaller palyers from ISPofferings.

IE : they have carved out the market amongst themselves, OFTEL, Anti-trust or restricitve trade practices notwithstanding.

With near universal cellphone use, carriers are in the tax collecting business. They pay governments up front with borrowed money for the right to levy tax with airwave licenses, and pay up front a premium for handsets that can increase the monthly take per punter. (Governments use their money to bribe the cheaper voters). The punter has to sign an expensive contract.

55% was already the gross margin on a leading handset. But the makers (other than RIM) lost control of the features and services that punters receive. To avoid that, Apple went the exclusive route to force a single carrier in each market to provide a neutral data pipe for iPhone. At first Apple asked for a revenue share. But carriers are all about using debt to feed greed, and it was easy for Apple to "lose" the bogus revenue sharing battle and switch carriers over to paying up-front a larger subsidy than any other handset maker receives, resulting in 60-70% gross margins on iPhone.

As people tirelessly point out, Apple could sell more iPhones if . . . But they would end up powerless OEM hardware designers. To keep control of the customer experience, they are forced to be as powerful in the market as they can be, which is what they are doing. Apple (like Google) uses its power to deliver a better user experience. The profits they make are a necessary part of prevailing against powerful incumbents. There is always the risk that "not being evil" comes to an end one day. But for now, Apple and Google are the ones moving the experience forward for ordinary people. At least we can be grateful for that.