or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon may pay Apple to keep iPhone away from T-Mobile, Sprint
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon may pay Apple to keep iPhone away from T-Mobile, Sprint - Page 2

post #41 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by columbus View Post

I have suspicions about this:
[1] Why would cash rich Apple need any more cash?



Because not every single owner of Apple is rich. That's why. Many are widows and orphans. Or something like that.

IMO, there is nothing suspicious about a for-profit company seeking to profit. Apple seems to be very good at doing exactly that.
post #42 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

I think this puts Apple in a bit of a bind.. Should we go "All-Carrier" and give up a few things to the carriers (especially VZ) and possibly slow down the Android onslaught or do we go with just VZ and AT&T giving us everything we want and more money but get left out on TM and Sprint?

I don't think you really can stop the android "onslaught". With the rapid releases of new models and choice of almost every single carrier in the US, how do you compete with that? Granted I don't think that MetroPCS or Cricket is a priority for Apple.
post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

The FTC will have something to say about that. This is why you will only see something like this on a rumor site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This could raise all types of antitrust red flags.

Do people really think this is unusual? How do you think AT&T exclusivity works? AT&T just said "hey, would you mind not letting VZN or the others get their hands on the iPhone?" They're paying AAPL for exclusivity. Now VZN will pay for semi-exclusivity. Nothing illegal about this. It happens with just about every phone.

Meanwhile, great news for AAPL. More money for nothing (margins up!), while they're more than doubling their potential customer base in the US.
15" G4 Powerbook, 13" White Macbook, Apple TV 2g, iPod Touch 2g
Reply
15" G4 Powerbook, 13" White Macbook, Apple TV 2g, iPod Touch 2g
Reply
post #44 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by deuxlavabo View Post

You're aware that AT&T is currently paying for exclusivity... right?

There are two different situations here. One is exclusivity and the other is refusal to sell. Once the iPhone is available on more than one network, exclusivity is gone. Now it becomes a situation of discriminatory selling by offering to two customers but not to two others. The FTC and Justice Dept. don't look kindly on discriminatory selling.
post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post

Makes no sense for Apple. Android is like a Mac truck bearing down on the iPhone. Apple's gotta go to multiple carriers.

Baloney. Recent reoprts show Android uptake leveling off and still behind (but close to) the iPhone in the U.S. All this paranoia about Android taking over the world is unfounded to say the least.
post #46 of 99
Winner for who? Certainty, not the consumer. Verizon is the worst cell provider out there. Sure, the call coverage is good, but it rapes you on everything else. AT&T is a near second. These types of exclusive choices hurt consumers because they essentially put companies like T-Mobile and Sprint out of business (at least in the US). Hart to compete when you are being shut out of the all the hot phones.

I will admit it is a bit personal for me. T-Mobile is a million times better then AT&T (at least for me) in terms of both quality, plan variety, and customer service. I'd rather shot myself in the foot then deal with Verizon again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I don't think it's essential to add Sprint and t-mobile. Adding VZ to ATT will give Apple a considerable boost. And if a deal like the one rumored here allows them to increase sales while maintaining margins, then that's a winner.
post #47 of 99
The fact that Shaw Wu's name is connected to this piece is reason enough to ignore it. He is serially wrong.
post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

Stockholders: "Hooray!"

Consumers: "WTF?"

Exactly. For Apple, it's all about getting as much kickback as possible from their carriers. This lowers their price point and increases profits. Does anyone think that Apple could have sold 14 million iphones if they were priced at $600?
post #49 of 99
There's no way Verizon Wireless could afford that.

Apple's gross margin is about 50% on the iPhone. With the averaging worldwide selling price (retail, unsubsidized) is probably $700 per handset, meaning Verizon would have to probably need to shell out $350 per potential customer.

From a business perspective, this makes even less sense. This is a whole new group of customers and the halo effect can spread to additional hardware sales. Also, in every single market that Apple has ended iPhone exclusivity, they have gone to another GSM/UTMS-based carrier (like T-Mobile USA).

Apple doesn't need bribes; it doesn't really add much value to the company. They have something like $50 billion in cash.

I don't believe the theory of paying for semi-exclusivity either. AT&T looking toward the end of exclusivity and Apple has already hinted that exclusivity may be hindering sales growth. Plus, I still have little faith that we will see a CDMA iPhone. An LTE iPhone won't be on store shelves until 2013 based on the current rate of worldwide LTE network deployment.
post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This could raise all types of antitrust red flags.

It would definitely cause an FTC investigation if any memos, meeting minutes, or other hard correspondence to this effect were to surface. But if a gentleman's agreement was reached to pay a higher purchase price than AT&T to subsidize the iPhone with the understanding that they and AT&T would maintain exclusivity for a given period and no actual contract stated such then they could get away with it and any investigation would only afford hearsay evidence of meeting conversations. Should anyone make a note to that effect then all bets are off and Verizon and possibly Apple would be in for a legal battle with the Government and possible fines. For Price fixing and restraint of fair trade.
KennDDS
Reply
KennDDS
Reply
post #51 of 99
Its
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Dear Verizon,

You may not know this, but I can already use my iPhone with T-Mobile. Also, if Apple is stupid enough to release an iPhone with a CDMA chip, I'll be able to use it with Sprint, too.

Sincerely,

Everyone with an inkling of how to jailbreak/unlock.

Its not as easy as you think. Unlike GSM you cannot simply unlock it and switch SIM cards. You have to get Rep at Sprint to activate the MEID number onto their network.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #52 of 99
Actually , not only will you need a lock code from Verizon, then you will need a PRL updater tool for the Qualcomm chipset. There are some around but I will be willing to bet that Apple uses some specially developed method for the iPhone ...
post #53 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

Because not every single owner of Apple is rich. That's why. Many are widows and orphans. Or something like that.

IMO, there is nothing suspicious about a for-profit company seeking to profit. Apple seems to be very good at doing exactly that.

Taking the exclusivity money makes no sense given the likely reason they are moving to Verizon (i.e. the increase in potential audience).

I can't see Verizon paying it either, as their biggest competition is AT&T and they already have iPhone. Between iPhone on Sprint, iPhone on T-Mobile and iPhone on Verizon most people are going to pick the network which rules the air anyway. From their perspective the strength of the network will win out anyway.

Now Verizon might be prepared to pay big for a 6 month exclusivity window on iPhone 5, but that is an entirely different proposition and one which I doubt Apple would be willing to grant.
post #54 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Dear Verizon,

You may not know this, but I can already use my iPhone with T-Mobile. Also, if Apple is stupid enough to release an iPhone with a CDMA chip, I'll be able to use it with Sprint, too.

Sincerely,

Everyone with an inkling of how to jailbreak/unlock.

Yeah, except 99% of the user base will never do this.
post #55 of 99
We shouldn't forget why companies want to wall off the competition. They're afraid of something their competitors offer. While T-Mobile doesn't have good service in the hinderlands, it has excellent service in major cities and along Interstate routes. What AT&T and Verizon fear (among other things) is its prepay service, which can't be beat.

Those who're trying to defend exclusivity need to keep in mind that many of the irritating features of cell-phone contracts are born out of them. If you enter AT&T's walled garden, you have to play by their rules, and the same is true with Verizon. A choice between two walled gardens may not be quite as bad as not having any, but it isn't ideal.

Things used to be worse. Remember when cell phone providers crippled the phones they sold to push customers toward their own costly services? Apple deserves credit for forcing AT&T to abandon almost all those policies. Verizon's refusal to do so left them out in the cold.

But I fear Apple has grown addicted to the money it makes from subsidy pricing. People get an iPhone well below cost, but pay back the difference and more in two years of service costs, inflated costs that don't end when an iPhone is paid for. Nor does locking end then, as it should. Apple is playing the same consumer-hostile, keep the garden-walled-in game that the carriers are playing. It just has a different set of rules.
post #56 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

I don't think you understand things as well as you are trying to make us believe. iPhone as it is now works on T-Mobile EDGE because they and AT&T use the same frequencies. Sprint and Verizon do not. Yes, they are both CDMA, but without a radio capable of talking to specific frequencies, it is a moot point. Also, you can't just simply unlock a CDMA device, since there is no SIM card you can just swap into it. You literally HAVE to have a carrier activate the phone, so good luck with that process too, even if you did have compatible frequencies.

While it certainly isn't as simply as a SIM, there are indeed programs out there right now that will flash the network preferences onto CDMA phones and allow them to be activated with other carriers.

I've seen Pageplus activate Verizon and Sprint phones and it uses Verizon's network as a sub-leasee. Craiglist will show people advertising to flash phones to Cricket, metroPCS, etc. I'm of the view that there is a hollowing out of the subsidy model by prepay carriers and at some point soon, prices are going to have to crash for service. The rate of phone advancement is too fast for a two year cycle with regard to smartphones and also many other phones have hit a point of good enough and thus there is no real reason to subsidize them. With unlimited talk and text being offered for $30-40 a month, most large carriers can't compete even with a free phone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Right, but if you unlock the iPhone, you're stuck on EDGE. The bands for their 3G networks don't exist in the chipset.

As someone who is with T-mobile, I can tell you it isn't that bad. I've got two iPhones with unlimited (but slow) data, and all four of our phones share 1500 minutes and unlimited texting for $110 a month. It would be nice if the data rate were higher than 15 Kb a sec, but I sit get my push, my email, etc. Web browsing is good if you use Opera Mini and I would use it even on 3G because it saves data and it is fast. Home wifi is for Safari.

Think about what that would cost on AT&T or Verizon. Plus new features are coming down the pike all the time to stop these artificial data delineations. Between Viber and Kik, I might be able to knock a few more minutes or messaging plans off that already low amount.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #57 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Some people love the iPhone, but hate that Apple tells them what they can and can't install on it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with jailbreaking, and your comment just sums up what it is to be a mindless follower.

I would bet money that Steve Jobs has an unlocked iphone.

So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.

I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?
post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And? I'll continue to do it, as will millions of others. We'll enjoy our network of choice.



Voids it if you're foolish enough to take it to an Apple Store without having restored to the stock firmware, sure.

So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.
post #59 of 99
Its an anti-trust action and/or collusion to suppress competition.

To pay a vendor not to sell with others and prohibit competition in that manner is a monopolistic act.

Thats even more flagarant than Apple's monopolistic practices against Adobe...

The feds would never allow Verizon to do this.
post #60 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Umm... I don't think it's that easy to get a Verizon phone onto Sprint's network. I may be wrong, but I think you'll have to call Verizon for a code and I don't know how readily they'll give it to you. Considering that they subsidized the phone and wouldn't be too happy giving the bulk of their earnings (i.e. the plan) to a competing network.


Its impossible. The poster you were replying to was too busy snarking to realize his facts were wrong.

Also, while you can use an unlocked ATT iPhone on TMobile's networks, you will be limited to EDGE data speeds, rather than 3G (ATT and TMobile have different 3G bands).
post #61 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.

I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?

Morally right does not equal contract language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.

No BS is telling you what you can do with your equipment after you completed the terms of the contract. If you sign up for a two year contract and complete the terms of it, but afterwards by no means other than software, Apple and others desire to keep you from using your device, then it is morally right to circumvent this just as it is morally right to lie to a man with a gun who wants to murder the child hiding in your closet when asked the child's location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jabberwolf View Post

Its an anti-trust action and/or collusion to suppress competition.

To pay a vendor not to sell with others and prohibit competition in that manner is a monopolistic act.

Thats even more flagarant than Apple's monopolistic practices against Adobe...

The feds would never allow Verizon to do this.

One can hope...

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #62 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Dear Verizon,

You may not know this, but I can already use my iPhone with T-Mobile. Also, if Apple is stupid enough to release an iPhone with a CDMA chip, I'll be able to use it with Sprint, too.

Sincerely,

Everyone with an inkling of how to jailbreak/unlock.

Dear "Everyone With an Inkling",

You make up a very small percentage of the population and will likely remain so regardless of your threats. Go ahead and bolt to T-Mobile or Sprint. Make our day.

Sincerely,
Verizon Business Managers
post #63 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

I don't think you understand things as well as you are trying to make us believe. iPhone as it is now works on T-Mobile EDGE because they and AT&T use the same frequencies. Sprint and Verizon do not. Yes, they are both CDMA, but without a radio capable of talking to specific frequencies, it is a moot point. Also, you can't just simply unlock a CDMA device, since there is no SIM card you can just swap into it. You literally HAVE to have a carrier activate the phone, so good luck with that process too, even if you did have compatible frequencies.

People unlock Verizon phones for use on Cricket here in Phoenix. $55 per month for unlimited everything.
post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And? I'll continue to do it, as will millions of others. We'll enjoy our network of choice.

I'm pretty sure that the other poster's point (which is mine as well) is that Verizon doesn't care about the small fraction of people that could jailbreak and migrate to another (competing) carrier. It's just too small of a number to impact their business decisions. Your "letter" made it seem like you were bringing something to Verizon's attention that they should really care about. They shouldn't.

By the way, I too have a jail-broken iPhone. Saying that people like us don't really effect Verizon's business model much is not the same thing as saying that you shouldn't be doing it.

Thompson
post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.

I really don't believe that Apple cares much whether a small fraction of people jailbreak their phones.

Thompson
post #66 of 99
This report lost all credibility the moment I saw the name Shaw Wu. The guy is a total Moran. His rate of correct predictions is in single digits. And more often than not he has basic facts all wrong.

A Verizon iPhone is still just a rumor. Yes it is a very likely rumor but at this point it is not confirmed by any party actually in the know. All these suppliers could be leaking this stuff to raise their stocks. Or it could be that yes Apple ordered the parts, but for the iPad, not the phone. And given the lack of proof that the AT&T contract is ending this year or could be paid off to end this year, it is possible that Apple is mealy in the beginning phases of working out if a Verizon iPhone is worth the efforts needed.

Also given all the flack over the years it seems a foolish move for Apple to enter into any kind of exclusive deals. Wu hasn't shown us why Apple would benefit from such a term, rather than being open to both Verizon and Sprint and letting consumers choose what they wish.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I don't think it's essential to add Sprint and t-mobile.

But what is the harm. There are some areas, particularly in the Midwest where sprint and t-mobile have the better service, so why should they be cut out on the whim of some outside company that wants to demand terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

Just start selling unlocked and unsubsidized phones in the USA the way it is done elsewhere and be done with this carrier-exclusive BS. .

I am inclined to agree with you. Or rather make it an option. I go to Apple, I buy it full price, unlocked. If I choose to go to a carrier for a deal then yes it can be locked to that carrier for the period of that deal, with the right to buy out early via paying the ETF

But at the same time, service fees and device costs should be separate line items. If I am not paying back a device subsidy I should not have to pay the same monthly as someone paying for the same level of service plus his device. And the device cost should be spread equally across the months of the contract, spelled out on each monthly bill and the ETF should be the remaining cost, not a penny more or less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pazimzadeh View Post

also better if Apple can get on Verizon without compromising on other details, such as a separate Verizon app store, Verizon managed music store, and Verizon stickers on the phone.

Those a likely the terms Apple put on the table that Verizon is allegedly willing to agree to if they have a contract exclusivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

And you're probably thinking that Apple must still support you even after jailbreaking your phone?

I am torn on this issue. Yes jail breaking is legal in the US. And yes it is legal for Apple to not support the phones if you do it. But if the issue does come from the jailbreak then why shouldn't it be supported, especially if you can restore the phone to factory settings and the problem still exists. So in cases like that i'm not going to damn someone to h*ll for a little subterfuge. It is tacky but understandable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

I fear Apple has grown addicted to the money it makes from subsidy.

Apple isn't making that money. AT&T is. Apple might get a tiny cut of perhaps 5%, but the vast majority of that subsidy goes to the carrier. Apple's money was made when AT&T bought the phones at full price from them.
post #67 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

This report lost all credibility the moment I saw the name Shaw Wu. The guy is a total Moran.

Thanks for enlightening us. All this time I thought Wu's ancestry was Oriental. The Irish connection explains everything!

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by deuxlavabo View Post

Do people really think this is unusual? How do you think AT&T exclusivity works? AT&T just said "hey, would you mind not letting VZN or the others get their hands on the iPhone?" They're paying AAPL for exclusivity. Now VZN will pay for semi-exclusivity. Nothing illegal about this. It happens with just about every phone.

Meanwhile, great news for AAPL. More money for nothing (margins up!), while they're more than doubling their potential customer base in the US.

Doesn't matter if it's unusual. You have pissed off new york senators and agency heads not liking the apple/att exclusive ... so you can kiss those deals good buy within 2-5 years.
post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Morally right does not equal contract language.



No BS is telling you what you can do with your equipment after you completed the terms of the contract. If you sign up for a two year contract and complete the terms of it, but afterwards by no means other than software, Apple and others desire to keep you from using your device, then it is morally right to circumvent this just as it is morally right to lie to a man with a gun who wants to murder the child hiding in your closet when asked the child's location.



One can hope...

There's a difference between the terms of AT&T's service contract and the EULA you agreed to when you bought the phone. You agreed to a set of rules. Now you're breaking those rules. You're like an unruly child with a new toy - mine! mine! mine!.
post #70 of 99
Wu also asserted that Google's Android operating system has begun to "lose some of its luster" at Verizon.




Seems to me this is just as important a part of the quote. Why is it android is losing its luster?
post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jabberwolf View Post

Its an anti-trust action and/or collusion to suppress competition.

To pay a vendor not to sell with others and prohibit competition in that manner is a monopolistic act.

Thats even more flagarant than Apple's monopolistic practices against Adobe...

The feds would never allow Verizon to do this.

Thats even more flagarant than Apple's monopolistic practices against Adobe...

And it suddenly appears you have no idea what you're talking about.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #72 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Some people love the iPhone, but hate that Apple tells them what they can and can't install on it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with jailbreaking, and your comment just sums up what it is to be a mindless follower.

I would bet money that Steve Jobs has an unlocked iphone.


Well, he is on an enterprise network. A company can distribute what apps they like. It does not require jailbreaking.
post #73 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2cents View Post

Jailbreaking an iPhone voids the warranty and support... It's not a good idea anyway

please tell me thats sarcasm. as of right now, im laughing as if it is.
post #74 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


Apple has the leverage. Verizon has none.



IME, in big deals like this, there are dozens of different things that the two sides want, with varying degrees of importance. So there are dozens of different points of leverage.

My guess is that 30 -50 percent greater iPhone sales in the US might be a point of leverage that Apple values highly. But I'm less likely to come to any real firm conclusions on complicated situations. Especially wheen I have no hard information.
post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by deuxlavabo View Post

Do people really think this is unusual? How do you think AT&T exclusivity works? AT&T just said "hey, would you mind not letting VZN or the others get their hands on the iPhone?" They're paying AAPL for exclusivity. Now VZN will pay for semi-exclusivity. Nothing illegal about this. It happens with just about every phone.



I think that the Feds sometimes frown upon combinations in restraint of trade.

When a smartphone with zero market share was made exclusive on ATT, who had less then half the market, I'm pretty sure nobody cared. But when the single most dominant smartphone is made exclusive the two oligopolistic carriers, who together own nearly all the market, I don't know enough to predict what might happen.
post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.

I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?

please curmudgeon, let the adults talk. go home and tell your mommy that we're doing something bad.
post #77 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by columbus View Post

Taking the exclusivity money makes no sense given the likely reason they are moving to Verizon (i.e. the increase in potential audience).

I can't see Verizon paying it either, as their biggest competition is AT&T and they already have iPhone. Between iPhone on Sprint, iPhone on T-Mobile and iPhone on Verizon most people are going to pick the network which rules the air anyway. From their perspective the strength of the network will win out anyway.

Now Verizon might be prepared to pay big for a 6 month exclusivity window on iPhone 5, but that is an entirely different proposition and one which I doubt Apple would be willing to grant.

I'm not sure that I would make the same guesses as you do.
post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.

I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?


Jailbreakers lost all their excuses now that the iPhone multitasks. Jailbreakers steal software. Period.
post #79 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueeddie View Post

please curmudgeon, let the adults talk. go home and tell your mommy that we're doing something bad.

So it's adults that can blow off EULA's? Do you believe you get to ignore the EULA on software products? If Adobe declares in their EULA that installing PhotoShop on multiple computers is wrong, do adults get to ignore that and install it wherever they desire? You don't get to ignore the rules just because you don't like them. If you agreed to the rules, you must abide by the rules. That's what adults do.
post #80 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

There's a difference between the terms of AT&T's service contract and the EULA you agreed to when you bought the phone. You agreed to a set of rules. Now you're breaking those rules. You're like an unruly child with a new toy - mine! mine! mine!.

There is a big difference between a contract and a court decision affirming the legality of it.

Note that the decision was over the objection of Apple. Also I bought my iPhone used, not new. As I said when a party completes their contract, then they are off the terms of that contract. Now go troll somewhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Thats even more flagarant than Apple's monopolistic practices against Adobe...

And it suddenly appears you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'd say he has a point since it is clear Apple had to back down on the compiler issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

Jailbreakers lost all their excuses now that the iPhone multitasks. Jailbreakers steal software. Period.

Nope. Jailbreakers unlock their phones. Jailbreakers buy software to overcome Apple's antiquted method of notifications and dealing with SMS. Jailbreakers want the ability to quickly manage power saving features, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So it's adults that can blow off EULA's? Do you believe you get to ignore the EULA on software products? If Adobe declares in their EULA that installing PhotoShop on multiple computers is wrong, do adults get to ignore that and install it wherever they desire? You don't get to ignore the rules just because you don't like them. If you agreed to the rules, you must abide by the rules. That's what adults do.

You can't agree to a contract that is against your rights or the law. This has been affirmed repeatedly. Likewise until a EULA has been tested in a court of law, it is worthless. The reason almost every software company has avoided trying to test them out is they lose badly. You can't dictate terms of use to people with something they own. You can have them release you from liability, but you can't dictate to them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon may pay Apple to keep iPhone away from T-Mobile, Sprint