Verizon may pay Apple to keep iPhone away from T-Mobile, Sprint - Page 3

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.


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


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.


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.

Crap I was hoping for t-mo iPhone without the need to unlock.

I'll take Sweeping Generalizations for $200 Alex.

Thank you for exposing yourself so clearly

lol you don't get the analogy

Last time I updated some apps I had to read, understand and sign a (I believe) 25 page document. I did one of the three. Have you read and understood not only your original EULA but all subsequent ones?

The idea is to not be forced to pay for extra data at all. I use Wi-Fi.


Ah, I see. You're of the belief that an EULA is a legal document. Either that or you believe I don't actually own my possessions. Gotcha.


You're a complete fool. Don't talk about things you don't understand.

[QUOTE=SSquirrel;1763692]Verizon will not be able to ditch CDMA anytime in the near future. They have publicly said that their existing CDMA network will be in use till about 2020. The LTE network is nowhere near as widespread (in fact it's only now being distributed) as their CDMA, so when calls can't be placed on LTE, they will default to the CDMA network. Any LTE or WiMax phone will be defaulting to their slower tech as needed.

Also there are currently chips that function for both GSM and CDMA, so it is entirely possible that Apple will be making a unified phone model, The only reason I could see Apple agreeing to a dual exclusivity paid for by Verizon is they would be worried about trying to keep enough in stock for all 4 companies and ramping up by having a 6 month or 1 year period where they are AT&T & Verizon before adding the other 2 could make sense.

As a Sprint user tho, let me just say...ignore Verizon and pick up T-Mobile and Sprint as well. The 2 companies put together are 90% the size of Verizon. Verizon would have to be coughing up an awful lot of money to equal the potential sales spike




I do understand how LTE is not going to be completely available right out of the gate. It is going to be very similar to how Analog was to digital or 3G. And yes there are dual band chips that are made by Qualcomm, but I think you're missing my point. Apple is not a company that thinks in the 'now' they think about the future. I do believe apple will make a unified iPhone with dual band chips. But Sprint's dual band chips are CDMA/WiMax. In order for Apple to also accommodate the future direction that Sprint is going, they would need a CDMA/WiMax/GSM/LTE chip that doesn't even exist, and it would only be a short time because the direction of the world is LTE. I don't see Apple making that many versions of the iphone. They've formed a partnership with Verizon right now because they are moving towards a technology that will be like the rest of the world. They're not gonna partner with a company that's converting to WiMax, a technology that only that company uses, with only 49 million subscribers.

I'll leave you with this quote from Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.

"Mr. Seidenberg said his embrace of LTE has drawn the interest of Apple Inc., and helped Verizon get the iPad,"

Ask yourself, has WiMax Helped Sprint get an iPad and start a relationship with apple?

both of you have awarded yourself tickets to join 2cents in the corner for retards.
curmudgeon will have a lecture there for you on whats right and whats wrong

You're stuck on legality. I'm not talking legal or illegal. I'm talking right and wrong. It's morally wrong to deliberately break your EULA and then still depend on Apple for updates. You can't justify it no matter how much you try. You're wrong.

What does jailbreaking have to do with Verizon trying to keep the iPhone from T-Mo and Sprint?

Yes we all know you can run an iPhone on T-Mobile but on the slower Edge. A Verizon iPhone would be nearly impossible to activate on Sprint so it really is a moot point. The law decided that jailbreaking an iPhone is legal. Stare decisis so let's move on and get back on topic please.

You seem to be arguing legality. You're also confusing criminal law and civil law.
Also, contracts aren't the law of the land, those are determined by the senate, house and president. Contracts are subject to the law. If apple takes any one of the millions of jailbreakers( Wozniac was one) to court ( they haven't yet ) and wins then I might go back and read the accumulated eulas (got to be a hundred or more pages), note the legalese that I don't understand and hire a lawyer to interpret those for me.
All for a phone contract.

No you are wrong.

If you jailbreak your phone and then do something Apple does not allow that causes the phone to break, using Apple's customer support to help fix the problem you created could legitimately be considered wrong.

If your phone breaks due to faulty hardware or something that has nothing to do with the jailbreak, and it remains broken even when wiped clean and running a fresh Apple IOS install, then there is nothing wrong with asking Apple to fix it.

Jailbreaking is software. Yes it can introduce software bugs, but it does not physically alter the phone any more than installing an app from the App store.

The idea that the EULA can rewrite law or morality is absurd.

LOL. That is funny. You do know that EULA are usually always filled with illegal unenforceable conditions. For instance, if the EULA said upon purchase of this device you must mail us a million bucks a year. That wouldn't be enforceable. Or if it said you can't sell this device after buying it.

With that said, I do not think anybody thinks Apple has to support them once people unlock and jailbreak APple's phones. I don't. I, however, think Apple has to offer updates to me just like everybody else. THose updates might not have to work if my jail-breaking/unlocking interferes with the updates.

For what it is worth, jailbreaking/unlocking my phone was the greatest thing I have done with my phone. I am enjoying superior call coverage in my area compared to my friends using iPhones on AT&T. Further, I do not have to subscribe to a data usage plan that I don't need on account of the vast selection of Wi-Fi networks by me (saves a thousand bucks a year). Further, if I want a data plan, T_MObile has better plans.

What is your point, nobody who jail breaks or unlocks a phone depends on Apple for updates. The opposite is true, we have to be very careful before we update our phones. Further, pretty much everybody who has unlocked their phones pretty much knows not to go to Apple for support. Apple does not support such devices.

With that said, I think Apple should have to offer me updates because unlocking/jailbreaking isn't illegal. Does Apple have to guarantee the phones work? No.

Sprint and Verizon use the same frequencies (1900MHz) in most areas. Worse case the CDMA iPhone will cover all of the CDMA bands (I believe China Mobile wants a CDMA version and they use different bands as well).


If Apple makes a unified device, they would should cover AWS bands (1700, 2100 MHz) as well.

Please just make it available to natively run on ALL US wireless carriers

Apple your customers deserve to have this choice!

Ya think? Verizon sure lost the gamble on this one - if I was a a Verizon shareholder I'd be a little pissy right about now

Last time I looked, this was called Market Manipulation. AND, was covered as a FEDERAL CRIME.... Humm...guess tech guys can do anything they want now days if the money is right....

no. YOU are wrong.

Could be Verizon wants to pay for Semi-exclusivity. Although I don't believe it. If Apple is going to make a CDMA phone then SPRINT, & VERIZON are all going to have it. After all this is about volume now as oppossed to selecting carriers.
I would think that Verizon will pay for the 'priviledge' of having the IPHONE, something they probably didn't want to do previously.

Where've you been for the last few decades?

It costs $0.00.000000 to send a text message. All carriers changed their texting prices from $0.05 to $0.10 and then to $0.20 at the same time. Of COURSE they're in cahoots.