It was inevitable. The iPhone has been “unlocked.” That is, intrepid hackers have found ways to free the iPhone from its dependence on the AT&T cellular network so it could be used on another provider’s network. Many of the numerous news stories this event has generated have implied that this is a problem for Apple. I agree that at first blush it appears to be a problem, but in the long run – maybe not.

Before I get into that, here’s a summary of the situation. The first hack, revealed last Friday by 17-year-old George Hotz of New Jersey, is a two-hour procedure that includes physically cracking open the iPhone, scraping a tiny trace on the circuit board and soldering wires. Hotz describes the 10 steps on his Web site, warning in Step 1 that the procedure could “brick your iPhone.” Considering the $500 or $600 cost of a new iPhone plus the $36 activation fee plus the $175 termination fee of the mandatory two-year AT&T service contract, one had to wonder how many people realistically would attempt such a risky project.

But that same day the Web site Engadget confirmed a second iPhone hack by an outfit calling itself iPhoneSIMfree (the name derives from the tiny card inside a cell phone, called a SIM, that identifies it on the network). This hack is software based – it requires no physical iPhone abuse.

So far none of the hackers has heard from either Apple’s or AT&T’s lawyers, and they may never hear from them. Amazingly, these hacks apparently break no law. A clause in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act explicitly permits unlocking cellphones for use on other carrier’s networks.

So what might this development mean for Apple and the iPhone? From a business perspective, Apple doesn’t have much to lose. It’s making the bulk of its profits from the sale of the phone itself. If a few customers drop AT&T, Apple would lose some money from the revenue sharing deal it has with AT&T. On the other hand, the existence of the hack could tempt new customers who had until now refused to buy an iPhone solely because of the lock to AT&T’s network. In this scenario, Apple actually could make more money as a result of the hack. Of course, AT&T would be screwed either way, as it depends primarily on the monthly service fees to profit from the iPhone.

Regardless, I doubt that any significant number of iPhone owners will “hack” their new toy by any method, no matter how simple it becomes. While geeks may get a thrill out of such tech adventures, most people would never consider tinkering with a pricey high-tech gadget for fear of ruining it.

Furthermore, for U.S. customers at least, there’s little to gain. Even the software hack would trigger AT&T’s $175 termination fee; from what I can tell you can’t buy an iPhone without also buying a two-year service contract. The greatest deterrent to the unlocking hack is the GSM cellular technology built into the iPhone. Only one other major cellular carrier in the United States, T-Mobile, uses it. The other two major carriers, Verizon and Sprint, both employ an incompatible technology called CDMA. So unlocked iPhones in the U.S. can connect only to T-Mobile’s network, which is a debatable improvement over AT&T. The hack could prove desirable in the short term for those who covet the iPhone but live outside the United States, where GSM-based networks are common and the iPhone is not yet for sale. Apple does have plans to partner with carriers in Europe and Asia, though it will take several years before the iPhone will be available in many countries.

Note that Apple issued a patch to block the first widely publicized iPhone hack a month ago, but that hack had to do with exploiting the iPhone for malicious purposes. Will Apple try to block the unlocking hacks with updates? Steve Jobs knows from his experience with Digital Rights Management, the method for “locking” copyrighted music, that hackers eventually will crack any system designed to thwart users. One would think that Apple wouldn’t mind the unlocking hacks if it weren’t for the deal with AT&T – heck, one would have expected a progressively-minded company like Apple to have avoided locking the iPhone in the first place. But locking the iPhone to a single carrier was the price of admission for Apple to enter the cellular game.

It’s intriguing to speculate whether the reality of unlocked iPhones could lead to another sea change in the cellular industry – one in which consumers could purchase unlocked without the need to resort to hacks. Apple’s deal with AT&T, in which Apple was able to dictate most of the terms, represented an almost total reversal from the typical manufacturer-carrier relationship. Who better than Apple to push for the next logical step?

Imagine the sales potential if Apple could sell both GMA and CDMA versions of an unlocked iPhone, with customers able to sign up with the cellular carrier of their choice. I realize Apple’s hands are tied for five years (the length of its exclusivity agreement with AT&T) but by then the iPhone should have a significant foothold in the cell phone market. Apple conceivably could use its leverage at that time to champion the cause of unlocked phones and consumer choice. Steve Jobs relishes empowering the masses as much as he relishes elegant technology and building up Apple’s business. Advocating unlocked phones would serve all those purposes. He’d also have the advantage, as he had on the DRM issue, of widespread public support. The cellular landscape in 2012 could be very different indeed.