or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, AT&T iPhone exclusivity lawsuit granted class-action status
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, AT&T iPhone exclusivity lawsuit granted class-action status - Page 2

post #41 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

iPhone 4 16GB $599
iPhone 4 32GB $699

And you still get no change to your plan and still wouldn't work on any carrier but AT&T and T-Mobile USA, and only on EDGE on T-Mo. Te only benefit is for international travelers.

Good example of my point. It's not like there are enough choices to make paying the full price worth while (for most people). If anything the consumer should be mad at Sprint/Verizon for not supporting the world standard.

Sometimes these legal cases are crazy
post #42 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

But having a single supplier or distributor of your product clearly reduces competition.

Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #43 of 204
Thankfully we don't have this problem in UK.
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #44 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post

Apple and AT&T need to unlock those iphones that are out of contract. Since the users pay for the product, they should be able to use it any way they want after their contracts expire. Either that, or give those customers their money back. Perhaps AT&T and Apple can STOP SELLING those iPhones. Instead they can start leasing them. For example: GIVE the customer an iphone to use for as long as they are on AT&T. The customer, of course, needs to pay a deposit fee for the iPhone in case it gets lost or stolen. Once they no longer want to use AT&T, they can return the phone back to AT&T or Apple and get their deposit back provided the iPhone isn't abused. This is the model that DirecTV uses. Once my contract with them ends and I no longer wish to use DirecTV, I simply return the receiver to them. It's that easy.

[EDIT] If Apple, and AT&T do that, then there is no cause for a lawsuit. If the customer wishes to keep the iphone, they will need to pay for full price of the phone just like when you decide to keep the DirecTV receiver... which is useless to the user who doesn't use DirecTV anyway.

I have to disagree with your statement about DirecTV. When you lease a DVR with DirecTV you pay $200.00 up front to lease/rent the equipment. It is NON-Refundable. It doesn't matter if you break your contract 6 months into a 2 yr agreement, you're not getting that $200.00 back. On top of that they charge you a $5.00 monthly rental fee that they conveniently call a mirroring fee plus $7.00 a month for DVR service (the privilege of using the DVR). If you keep that DVR for 4 to 5 years you have essentially paid more than full retail price for the equipment that you will NEVER own. It's a rip off! The only up side to this whole scheme is that they will replace it if it breaks. Beware though, if they send a technician to your house to service the unit then you are automatically forced to extend your contract by another 2 yrs to cover the cost of the service call. It's a trap any way you look at it.

I never want this to happen with cell phones. It should be illegal for any company to extort money from customers in this manner
post #45 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.

I agree, there's often nothing illegal with diminished competition by itself. It happens everywhere really. For example, shopping centres sometimes enter into agreements to allow only one one supermarket or coffee shop to be there. What I do say is that there is cost to consumers where it occurs.
post #46 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

Thankfully we don't have this problem in UK.

*likes*
post #47 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

as far as I'm aware: in the US there is:

AT&T - GSM - global standard
T-mobile - GSM
verizon - CDMA
Sprint - CDMA
virgin mobile - CDMA

apple decided to go with the global standard, gsm. The only other compatable network is t-mobile and their 3G won't work with iPhone.
Since Customers cant force apple to make new hardware or change existing hardware they have 3 choices:

Stick with AT&T
Get apple to go T-mobile - but you don't get 3G!!!
shut up and stop winging that the US uses ancient CDMA technology.

Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.

So does that mean Verizon's phone manufactures can be sued for not making phones for other carriers? No.
post #48 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by gara56 View Post

Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.

T mobile Germany uses standard frequencies, in the US they have to use a different band because ATT and Verizon own the common frequencies in most of the US.
post #49 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This is a stupid lawsuit and won't go very far. Companies have a legitimate right to choose the distribution method for their products. Toyota is free to sell their cars only through Toyota dealers. If I invent something new, I'm free to sell it only through Best Buy or Walmart or Billy Bob's Bait and Tackle if I wish.

Consumers do not have an absolute right to any product they wish to buy. They have a right to buy it under terms that the seller chooses to offer. Any other rule would be a disaster.


We really need 'loser pays' for lawsuits in this country.

The number one and most significant problem is the lack of an official unlock after the terms of the contract are up. Most people would not be very happy if their car stopped working after the terms of the purchase contract expired, the same applies here. Once you have paid for the device it is yours and thus controls placed on it by Apple and AT&T should expire.

In essence I'm on your side when it comes to honoring contracts. I have a problem though with silly behavior like this that tries to tie the customer to the provider after the contract has expired. What makes this really silly is that the phone is currently tied to AT&T anyway, in the US, technology wise. The number of customers AT&T would loose is tiny compared to those that they are pissing off.

For many of us the issue of a stable and sanctioned unlock revolves around the short term use of the iPhone in other countries. It isn't about using another carrier in the US at all.

In any event show me another industry where the supplier has so much control over a product after you take ownership. The contract to pay for the phone isn't the issue, what happens afterward is.


Dave
post #50 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by gara56 View Post

Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.

So does that mean Verizon's phone manufactures can be sued for not making phones for other carriers? No.

Thanks for agreeing with me. iPhone won't work with T-mobile 3G In the US because it uses different radio frequencies than in Germany and other countries.
post #51 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

The valid part of the lawsuit is their refusal to unlock the device you paid for after you have satisfied your contract terms. They can force you to sign up with ATT in order to buy a new subsidized phone, but to force you to stay on ATT after your contract is up, or have your $600+ device rendered useless is pure BS. I don't want money from Apple or ATT, I want my phones all unlocked. Of course "our" lawyers will never accept that. They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.

This is exactly my fear, some silly ass check comes in the mail and I get nothing but chump change. The real need is for an unlock and that has nothing to do with another carrier in the US. It is about swapping sims when needed which can save you thousands of dollars in some cases.

Dave
post #52 of 204
At this point, Apple should unlock all iPhone 2Gs ever sold. I'd say even for the 3G (not the 3GS), too.

Exclusivity means nothing in the USA for the iPhone4, but it does outside of the USA. Any chance Apple will tell them to sue in the country they want to use it in?

Can a phone be locked to more than one carrier, but not all?
post #53 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

At this point, Apple should unlock all iPhone 2Gs ever sold. I'd say even for the 3G (not the 3GS), too.

Exclusivity means nothing in the USA for the iPhone4, but it does outside of the USA. Any chance Apple will tell them to sue in the country they want to use it in?

Can a phone be locked to more than one carrier, but not all?

unlock the 3G?! it was still on sale only a month ago!
post #54 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Yes, there is currenty nothing illegal about keeping a product paid in full locked to a carrier (in the US) but many of think it should be.

A civil lawsuit is bollocks.

Agreed in full. In addition, just like AT&T and Apple some judge has FORCED me to be part of this lawsuit, which I don't want. It will only drain money from the companies into the lawyers pocket. What do you think the Trial Bar doesn't want the law changed to set the bar higher for these types of law suits. They don't benefit the plaintiff(s) only the lawyers. And no, it doesn't really force Companies to change their practices, only in a very few cases if you actually look at the history. Its the trial lawyers (who happen to also be your legislators is large part) who want you to believe this bogus assertion. It benefits them as well.

Does anyone here know how to officially opt-out of this disaster.
post #55 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


I think the real question is why Apple chooses to not unlock phones. Only manufacturer I am aware of doing it in the US.


I think the reason is that Apple is horrified by the idea that the phone would not work perfectly e.g. no 3G with T-Mobile and they would get the flack. If they deem that the experience is subpar they won't allow it even if users want it.
post #56 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

Does anyone here know how to officially opt-out of this disaster.

opt-out? You mean you don't have to opt-in to a class action lawsuit? surely most people don't give a ---- \
post #57 of 204
Is iPhone demand THIS high??

Wow.
post #58 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexpectations View Post


On a more serious note, this is a free country....you can buy a product or not. There is no case here.

Serious note!?

Free does not mean free-for-all. Free does not mean no laws or no social/ business norms. For instance, you cannot open a shop in a public place and say 'no whites served.'

Courts, and reasonable lawsuits judged worthy of consideration by courts, are the means by which civilized free societies advance, create, and codify new laws as reflecting that society's norms.
post #59 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

iPhone 4 16GB — $599
iPhone 4 32GB — $699

And you still get no change to your plan and still wouldn't work on any carrier but AT&T and T-Mobile USA, and only on EDGE on T-Mo. Te only benefit is for international travelers.

Even if you buy the iPhone in the US without a contract, it's still locked to AT&T. I don't think there's any way to buy an unlocked iPhone in the US, except via the grey market where it's been imported from another country.

I'd be willing to pay full retail for an iPhone that I could use on both US and international networks.
post #60 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

opt-out? You mean you don't have to opt-in to a class action lawsuit? surely most people don't give a ---- \

While this is what I thought also I was going off of this quote in the article. (might be hyperbole on the part of the lawyer - nah, couldn't be they always tell the truth

Quote:
"The court has allowed (multiple) plaintiffs to represent 20 million customers who have been forced to use AT&T for iPhone voice and data service," Rifkin reportedly said, "despite an agreement that allows them to terminate at any time and presumably switch carriers."
post #61 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The number one and most significant problem is the lack of an official unlock after the terms of the contract are up. Most people would not be very happy if their car stopped working after the terms of the purchase contract expired, the same applies here. Once you have paid for the device it is yours and thus controls placed on it by Apple and AT&T should expire.

In essence I'm on your side when it comes to honoring contracts. I have a problem though with silly behavior like this that tries to tie the customer to the provider after the contract has expired. What makes this really silly is that the phone is currently tied to AT&T anyway, in the US, technology wise. The number of customers AT&T would loose is tiny compared to those that they are pissing off.

For many of us the issue of a stable and sanctioned unlock revolves around the short term use of the iPhone in other countries. It isn't about using another carrier in the US at all.

In any event show me another industry where the supplier has so much control over a product after you take ownership. The contract to pay for the phone isn't the issue, what happens afterward is.


Dave

Excellent post. Worthy of a repeat.

Btw, there are folks who might like to sell it after contract, to anyone anywhere in the used market. The current setup with Apple/ATT creates a problem for them.
post #62 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Serious note!?

Free does not mean free-for-all. Free does not mean no laws or no social/ business norms. For instance, you cannot open a shop in a public place and say 'no whites served.'

Courts, and reasonable lawsuits judged worthy of consideration by courts, are the means by which civilized free societies advance, create, and codify new laws as reflecting that society's norms.

Are you seriously creating an equivalence between 'no whites served' and the unlocking of Phone purchased under a valid contract which was known to all parties at the time it was entered into? \\
post #63 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Serious note!?

Free does not mean free-for-all. Free does not mean no laws or no social/ business norms. For instance, you cannot open a shop in a public place and say 'no whites served.'

Courts, and reasonable lawsuits judged worthy of consideration by courts, are the means by which civilized free societies advance, create, and codify new laws as reflecting that society's norms.

Actually, (correct me if I'm wrong, I slept through AP Government back in high school..) I"m fairly certain you can run a business that doesn't serve whites, or at least a put up a sign, under free speech. You just never would...


More on-topic, however, the AT&T/Apple deal is in no way a monopoly, and there is no law against what is happening. Apple can choose to sell its product under whatever conditions it wants, and you can make the choice to buy it. Someone needs to revoke the lawyers' degrees.
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
post #64 of 204
Well hopefully when LTE is ready no-one will need to complain about anything.
post #65 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by imacFP View Post

I think the reason is that Apple is horrified by the idea that the phone would not work perfectly e.g. no 3G with T-Mobile and they would get the flack. If they deem that the experience is subpar they won't allow it even if users want it.

That is totally believable and in Apples DNA. It's also one of their BIG WEAKNESSES.
post #66 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic8Ball View Post

That is totally believable and in Apples DNA. It's also one of their BIG WEAKNESSES.

I'd say it was a good thing, if the product (or feature) dosn't work 100%, don't release it. that way the user will always have a much smoother, seamless and "it just works" experience, even if they are missing out on a few things- what they do have works great.
post #67 of 204
There needs to be a court to moderate these bogus suits and get them thrown out before they even see the light of the day. The only winner in a class action lawsuit is the law firm that files it. The get 40% of the total settlement.
post #68 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

I'd say it was a good thing, if the product (or feature) doesn't work 100%, don't release it. that way the user will always have a much smoother, seamless and "it just works" experience, even if they are missing out on a few things- what they do have works great.

Hence no Flash !
I agree with you in principle.
Using Flash as an example, Apple don't ship it for good reasons. If people want Flash that bad they can jailbreak their iPad/iPhone and get it. Then the responsibility is entirely the owners/consumers.
That works as a concept for me. As The out of the box experience is what Apple want. It just works. If I want to depart from Apple's vision it's entirely my responsibility with no onus on Apple to fix it. I would expect the same with phones. When I own the phone ie have paid the full retail price ( which is ~$500) I can then jailbreak it an do what I want with the phone.

The only thing spoiling that picture of sanity are silly buggers like the EU who will insist on the manufacturer including stuff like Flash from the outset. Politicians are so 1900.
post #69 of 204
So where does this end? This suit is nothing more than a complete waste of time for the courts, and those poor people that think they have a leg to stand on. The ONLY people this suit will serve is the trial lawyers, as they are the ones that stand to make a fortune if by some weird chance they win the day. It's real simple, if you like the product...you buy it - PERIOD. I know that when i bought my iphone, i was told it was locked to AT&T...i wanted the phone and bought it. That simple. Just because it's on another network is NOT a sure thing that reception will be better, cuz, it probably will loose reception in areas where it had reception with AT&T....there are ALWAYS dead spots...no matter who you have. So, to be wasting time over this is just silly. I know people that have dropped calls, no service in areas....and I use to sell Verizon service. They had the same type situations with other phones.....it's just silly and i really believe that people with 1/2 of a brain understand that. I can't begin to tell you how many people came in and asked how come their verizon phone didn't work, but their friends AT&T phone did...and vice versa. This is a ridiculous sounding as saying i want to sue X-box for not letting me play WII games on it....
post #70 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Excellent post. Worthy of a repeat.

Btw, there are folks who might like to sell it after contract, to anyone anywhere in the used market. The current setup with Apple/ATT creates a problem for them.

Here's my take. Once people own the phone, ie have paid the full retail price for the phone ( not just the subsidized price) they should have the phone unlocked and can resell anywhere.

Thing is the value may actually dive as Apple will not take responsibility for these devices

(re-sold without a contract) and may evolve the iPhone so fast these devices are obsolete/redundant almost immediately.
post #71 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock View Post

Actually, (correct me if I'm wrong, I slept through AP Government back in high school..) I"m fairly certain you can run a business that doesn't serve whites, or at least a put up a sign, under free speech. You just never would...


More on-topic, however, the AT&T/Apple deal is in no way a monopoly, and there is no law against what is happening. Apple can choose to sell its product under whatever conditions it wants, and you can make the choice to buy it. Someone needs to revoke the lawyers' degrees.

Any such policy, especially accompanied by a sign would get you sued to the dark ages.
You and I may never open a business with such a policy but sadly some would. Lots did until the civil rights act was passed.
post #72 of 204
No matter how big of an Apple fan you are, you've got to realize that this deal has reached the point of BS by now. Having a solid end date would be nice, but enough is enough with AT&T. I'm sure Apple would love to be on other carriers, but they've signed their deal with the devil to get iPhone off the ground, and they've got to see it through.

If this was the only way to do it at the time, and it appears to have been, then it seems to have been worth it for Apple, but it sucks that it had to be 5 years. Two more years is going to allow Android to work out the bugs and become a solid competitor rather than an also ran. Maybe that competition will make the iPhone better, but I kind of doubt it.

I'm kind of dubious that this lawsuit will be successful in the judicial system, but as mobile computing becomes a larger part of our lives I certainly hope that the legislative system decides to act on it. There have already been rumblings in congress.
post #73 of 204
The greatest weakness in AT&T/Apple's case is the fact that they don't automatically unlock iPhones as soon as that two-year contract expires. At that time the subsidy price has been paid and there's no reason why owners shouldn't be able to take their business to T-Mobile.

Personally, I'm surprised that T-Mobile hasn't been clever enough to fund a lawsuit on their behalf. The fact that it would upset Apple matters little. When AT&T's exclusivity is over, Apple will be signing up any and all cellular providers.
post #74 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

When I've paid fully for something, it's mine. Apple and ATT need to respect that. Its not much more complicated than that. Period.

I hope this lawsuit succeeds, and then some.

I think you are absolutely correct it is your phone and you can do what you want with it. however, If you want to use it as a phone you will have to deal with AT&T, If you don't want to use AT&T then you will need to start-up your own GSM network, that will show them.
As an alternate you could use it as a iTouch. I am willing to bet Apple won't mind.
post #75 of 204
The issue here is inherently the same as it would be if ATT and Apple were a single company. It reduces to the question of whether it would be wrong, if the iPhone were developed and produced by AA Inc. (ATT-APPLE Inc.), for AA Inc. to configure the phone so that after the consumer had fulfilled the initial obligation per the contract, the phone still could not be used with any network except for AA's network.

I don't see as how this has much at all to do with monopolistic practices and if the lawsuit is claiming this, then it will likely not get very far. It has been the standard practice of all of the mobile phone companies all along to not unlock phones after the consumer has fulfilled their obligation. If it is a monopolistic practice, then all of the mobile phone companies have been engaging in monopolistic practices all along, and if this is the case, then the suit should be broadened further to include all the mobile phone companies and everyone who has ever purchased a mobile phone.

I abhor the practice, and I think that the FCC should have put a stop to this business many years ago. In fact I once wrote them a letter complaining about this. The circumstance that motivated me to write the FCC was back when the old ATT Broadband (Pre-Cingular merger) was sold to T-Mobile. I did not want to switch to T-Mobile, and I had fulfilled the contract period, and my phone was a "world phone". I wanted it to be unlocked so that I could use it with a different carrier, and the phone was equipped to do that. The letter that I got back from the FCC said simply that there are no regulations by which any company is required to unlock a phone for any person for any reason.

In the ideal world, people who care about this issue would refuse to purchase a phone unless the contract stipulates that the phone will be unlocked once the obligation is fulfilled. In the ideal world, the problem would be solved via changes in the private (non-governmental) contracts. But in the real world this is never likely to happen because when people buy mobile phones the last thing they have on their minds is anything at all about what happens two years down the road.

If someone within the marketing department of one of the mobile phone carriers were to propose, during their closed-doors strategy sessions, a marketing campaign based on the promise that the phone will be unlocked for free two years down the road, every other person in the room would be caused to wonder whether the person making that suggestion had lost their senses. When consumers sign the contract, they don't care about this, and because they don't, the contract does not say anything about unlocking the phone.
post #76 of 204
I hope this lawsuit fails and Apple or AT&T pay nothing. All the phones are sold like the iPhone. All models are exclusive (Droid, G1,the Blackberry's etc.). Poor cell coverage at full price is the norm from ALL carriers. We live in a big country, adequate coverage is only for big cities. 80% of America suffers with poor voice and no 3G (forget 4G). Get a 1/2 mile from a interstate and Data is a memory. All of us have a choice not to buy but we want what we buy to operate as advertised, cell phones do not. There is only a lawsuit if it extends to all carriers and all exclusive phone deals. I would like to have a iPhone but no service and no 3G pushed me to the not yet ready for prime time, five operating system Droid. Exclusive to Verizon. It delivers very poor signal coverage at a very large monthly fee. The prices of the phones and the carriers service are the same to customers. Answer is stop the carrier take overs and build a lot of towers to cover this land mass. In the last couple of years we lost 4 carriers to takeovers and the few left are piggie backing on each others towers like T-Mobile on AT&T towers etc.
post #77 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpg1248 View Post

I hope this lawsuit fails and Apple or AT&T pay nothing. All the phones are sold like the iPhone. All models are exclusive (Droid, G1,the Blackberry's etc.). Poor cell coverage at full price is the norm from ALL carriers. We live in a big country, adequate coverage is only for big cities. 80% of America suffers with poor voice and no 3G (forget 4G). Get a 1/2 mile from a interstate and Data is a memory. All of us have a choice not to buy but we want what we buy to operate as advertised, cell phones do not. There is only a lawsuit if it extends to all carriers and all exclusive phone deals. I would like to have a iPhone but no service and no 3G pushed me to the not yet ready for prime time, five operating system Droid. Exclusive to Verizon. It delivers very poor signal coverage at a very large monthly fee. The prices of the phones and the carriers service are the same to customers. Answer is stop the carrier take overs and build a lot of towers to cover this land mass. In the last couple of years we lost 4 carriers to takeovers and the few left are piggie backing on each others towers like T-Mobile on AT&T towers etc.

You are completely and totally incorrect. As of the last law suit settlement, EVERY OTHER PHONE on AT&T's network will be unlocked at the customers request. All world mode phones sold by Verizon and Sprint are unlocked.
post #78 of 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by InLine1 View Post

I think you are absolutely correct it is your phone and you can do what you want with it. however, If you want to use it as a phone you will have to deal with AT&T, If you don't want to use AT&T then you will need to start-up your own GSM network, that will show them.
As an alternate you could use it as a iTouch. I am willing to bet Apple won't mind.

What's with this silly US-centric view of the world? (I live in the US, btw). I travel abroad frequently, and would like to be able to buy a local SIM card and plop it in whenever and wherever I want. If I want to, I should be able to do the same in the US. FYI, one can do that with a couple of MVNOs whose SIM cards one can purchase in a Best Buy (incl. one that uses the ATT network), using my fully paid-for iPhone(of which, I now have two).

As an aside, there's no such thing as an iTouch.
post #79 of 204
I'm actually quite surprised that this suit has been allowed to continue at all. for a handful of reasons

1. there's no law against device/carrier contracts like this. Which is why T-Mobile has had the Sidekick it's whole life. and no law requiring unlocking in such cases (I believe when there's no single carrier gig they have to unlock at the end of contract)

2. the iphone is NOT a market. the market is smart phones. and Apple while perhaps holding the biggest percent is still overshadowed by the collective whole of the competition

3. No one ever told them or even implied a right to an unlock code at any point

4. They are focusing on US carriers but no other carrier can handle the iphone at its full use (unless they want to try to force Apple into making a CDMA phone but I doubt any court would go that far)

I'm all for dropping the right to link devices to a single carrier but that lawsuit has nothing to do with Apple. That should be the collective carriers and (if possible) the FCC. Toss in the whole ETF and same rates on and off contract and you've got something we can all support

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

I think the real question is why Apple chooses to not unlock phones. Only manufacturer I am aware of doing it in the US.


The US iPhones are locked to ATT because that's part of the contract between Apple and ATT

Apple isn't against unlocking where it is required or feasible due to multiple possible carriers. If they were, they would refuse to sell the phone in Canada, France etc.
post #80 of 204
What an incredible bunch of cry babies we have in this country. Everyone feels "entitled"...
If you don't like AT&T, don't buy the iPhone, iPad or any other freekin' iProduct that is connected to AT&T.... It's really just that simple! If you feel left out because you want an iProduct and don't want AT&T.... just wait until the iProduct is extended to your carrier, suck it up and change carriers or shut-up about it. Thank you. <End rant>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, AT&T iPhone exclusivity lawsuit granted class-action status