Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices - Page 3

seems to me that once you buy a product that you should have the right to use it however you see fit. The company no longer owns it once you paid your $699 when they first came out. for that kind of coin, you should be allowed to use it however you dam'n well please.

Of course you can use it however you please, but your decisions won't be without consequence, as was clearly stated by Apple.

You may choose to skydive without a parachute, but you may also be unhappy with the result.

double post

Repeat after me... the HACKERS broke your phone... NOT Apple!!! Even the hackers have admitted that. I mean... you modified the friggin' FIRMWARE of your phone!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did you THINK would happen?! Good lord....

"So... I ripped the starter out of my car and replaced it with a toaster and now my car won't start!!!! Can I sue the car maker?!"

F(*#K!ing Idiots.

These plaintiffs should sue THEMSELVES for stupidity.

This doesn't hold true for copyrighted material. The company stills own the story in your book, the movie on your DVD, the music on your CD and the software that came (or you installed) on to your hardware. You only purchased a license to use the copyrighted material as specified in the user agreement for that material. You are never transfered ownership. But if you want to alter the software or install unauthorize hacks, go right ahead. Neither Apple or ATT will stop you or sue you or come after you and break into your house to smash your iPhone. But Apple/ATT reserves the right not to support your modified software even though you purchased a license for that software. The user agreement for that license protects both you and the owner of the software.

This lawsuit really is dumb. Perhaps Apple should have unlocked phones and perhaps Apple should allow third party software, but they don't and they have every right to do that. If a company says modifying a device could result in damage if you update it after modificatio and still update you're an fool. This has nothing to do with what Apple should do but rather what these people have done to their phones. People can't say they weren't warned. The real question is how is Apple going to handle future updates? They need tread carefully.

I really hope this was a joke, because it's greedy shareholders who gawk over the day-to-day business of companies - looking to squeek out that last fraction of a penny per share who cause these anti-consumer practices. They're more interested in the bottom line this quarter than in the long term viability of the platform/company or in customer satisfaction. The more you piss people off (anti-consumer, anti-competitive behavior tends to do that), the more likely it is you'll get sued.

These guys must've stolen my idea from the day before (where's my legal fee?). As I've said in a couple of other threads, I'd say it comes down to intent. If some developer at Apple said, "hey I've got this nice dialog box in here that warns a user this update might brick their modified iPhone," and their boss says, "take that out, we want to brick modified phones" well then these folks might have a case. Next up would probably be to subpoena documents related to this. It's not Apple's responsibility to provide warranty service to your hacked devices (a for fee repair might be kind), but they also have a responsibilty to not intentionally damage them. It also does not really make sense that Apple can't have an easy way to restore the phone to its default state.

How many lawsuits have been filed against AT&T and Apple lately? There must be at least 10 class action lawsuits for the iPhone!

10? That's nothing!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...le&btnG=Search

I like the one that claims iPods can play too loud and hurt your ears, but I LOVE the one that says Apple hurt my resale value by dropping the price of the iPhone.

iPhoneSimFree (which did NOT brick iPhones) has released an update which unlocks iPhones running everything up to and including 1.1.1. It also un-bricks iPhones that were bricked by other unlock solutions which patched the firmware. Nice of them to fix the mistakes of the competition.

http://www.iphonesimfree.com/cgi-bin...e.pl?page=home

Just in case anyone thinks people are only going after Apple and AT&T, here's some litigious lovin' for T-Mobile and their locked phones and termination fees:

Not that I think this sounds like it has any more merit than the suits against Apple, but I'd certainly be happy if somehow, one way or another, California required phones to be unlockable. With a state that big behind such a move, the whole Apple/AT&T lock-up agreement would have to fall apart I'd imagine. No way the whole state of California could be written off.

If (and, yes, I realize this is a big and unlikely "if") this were to happen, I think it would actually be a big win for Apple. They'd have gotten all the boost they needed out of AT&T to get themselves started in the mobile phone business, without paying the price of a 5-year exclusive with AT&T to get it.

Interesting to note that JeffDM and melgross haven't commented on lawsuit or the other recent lawsuit. I think they must be apple advisors or spies. They certainly comment on peoples suggestions of legal action - but are silent re: actual legal action.... interesting!

I wouldn't be surprised if they actually admired someone that actually did more than just kvetch anonymously.

Doubtful - I've never noted them to be remotely supportive of someone criticizing Apple!

Ah, well, have you ever actually observed them responding to someone criticizing Apple who wasn't kvetching anonymously? Perhaps they have hidden depths unplumbed by circumstances you've witnessed.

Both things you said are completely wrong. First, you meant the service provider wants to lock you down. The phone manufacture could care less. Second, you can't unlock a phone from AT&T and bring it to Verizon because they use different types of phones. It's essentially the same reason you can't put an AMD CPU in an Intel motherboard. They use different technology. You can however, take a phone from Sprint and bring it to Verizon because they both use CDMA technology. This requires you flash the phone. With GSM, what the iPhone uses, you simply do a SIM unlock and place in the new SIM. With the exception of the iPhone, you can basically take any phone from T-Mobile and bring it to AT&T and vice versa. You can even purchase an unlocked GSM phone from overseas and it will work with either company.

Would you still be so supportive of the major lock downs on the phone if they decided that you could only add certain movies that you purchased from iTunes? What about it they went as far as selling pictures and only allowed you to use those as wallpaper? The brands you listed all allow you to add your own ringtones; purchased or not. Also, about the word monopoly. Just because you can only think of 4 brands don't mean there aren't other manufactures. What about Panasonic, Siemens, Sanyo, LG, Helio, Blackberry, AudioVox, Kyocera, Palm-Handspring........?

I am not saying it is right for people to sue Apple for the iPhone's short comings. What I am saying is this is a highly competitive market and Apple needs to be competitive, not controlling. I love my iPhone! I wish it could do half the things my old Motorola (which wasn't even a smartphone) could do. And I'm not sure if this has changed yet, but you could not use the iPhone on a business account with AT&T. What is the purpose of the iPhone then? Is it for students to be better organized and have an iPod phone or is it a true smartphone with business capabilities?

The vast majority of phones purchased are locked in various ways to the carrier that sold it.

This is what I said, how is any different?


But they do manufacture phones to the carriers specifications, which in different ways close the function of the phone to that specific carrier.


Yes exactly, do you think is a coincidence? And what is the end result?


ATT and T-Mobile both offer phones with proprietary services specific to their network. The Sidekick is much like the iPhone, it is designed to work on T-Mobil's network. You can unlock it and use it on ATT. But you will only be able to call and text, data will not function. You also loose support from T-Mobile and ATT can't support it.




How're you going to say I'm wrong and then basically repeat what I said? You didn't even bother to mention Verizon or Sprint.

They are locked by the carrier, not the phone manufacture! The carrier purchases the phones in bulk, locks them down, installs their apps, and packages them for resale. Some manufactures might actually handle this step for the carrier for a fee. Also note these phones are locked using a code specific to their ESN number. By entering this code in the phone, it can be unlocked and used with other providers.



Sometimes they manufacture a phone with certain specs. You cannot say that them manufacturing it for AT&T specifically just because it is GSM. The phone is built for use on GSM network by the manufacture and then on occasion the carrier will add carrier specific apps. When I had my Moto SLVR before the iPhone, it came from Asia, I called T-Mobile and they sent the T-Zone apps to my phone over the network. This placed the folder in the menu and everything. Is this one of those certain specs you are talking about?


Actually, nearly all features will work. Data does work. The only things that will not work are applications installed by the carrier, such as T-Zones.




Read it again, I put it in bold for you!!!

I did not say the manufacturer locked the phone. I said the manufacturer will make a phone that includes functionality specific to that carrier and not for other carriers. There are some phones that are generically sold with software update from the carrier. But many of the best selling phones with lots of functions are made specifically for the carrier.


Come on the Sidekick may be a GSM phone but it is clearly made to specifically work with T-Mobile.



The LG 9400 is specifically designed for Verizon and V Cast.


That is an unlocked phone. I'm talking about phones from the carrier, which is how most people get their phones.


I'm sure people have hacked around it but that does not change the fact that T-Mobile made the Sidekick specific to T-Mobile's network.

Please be aware that the Danger Sidekick's GPRS-data software will only work on the T-Mobile USA network. The Sidekick's voice and text messaging functions should continue to function correctly with another carriers SIM card after the phone is unlocked.

Thank You,

Sim Unlock Department
T-Mobile USA, Inc.


You still disregard Sprint and Verizon.

OK, since you can't read, I will try this one last time. Sprint, Verizon, All-Tel, and some other smaller carriers operate on the CDMA network. T-Mobile and AT&T use GSM. Think of this as the difference between 802.11g and 802.11a. They are not compatible technologies and do not work together. (of course with the 802.11 analogy access points can have both technologies and cell phones cannot) So essentially you cannot take a CDMA phone and make it work on GSM or vice versa. You can, however, take a phone from one CDMA carrier to another. Say you can by a phone from Verizon and take it to Sprint. CDMA doesn't make this as simple as GSM because you can't simply unlock the phone and take it to the other network. The carriers information is stored on the phone so you need to take the phone to the new carrier and have it flashed with the new carriers info. Many carriers are uneasy about doing this for a few reasons and you will find it easier just to buy a new phone from the new carrier. GSM phones store this info on the SIM card which transfers to the new phone with the SIM. This means if the phone is unlocked it works. Each carrier has a different network and some features of a phone may not work or not work as well on the other carrier.

The T-Mobile Dash works just fine on AT&T when unlocked. All data, messaging, and voice work perfect. I also applaud T-Mobile for having such a great support team for unlocking phones and supporting non t-mobile phones. I also used a Moto V551 from Cingular with T-Mobile for a while which worked perfect as well. I cannot comment on the Sidekick specifically as I never tried that phone. Have you tried it or know anyone who has? It might be a frequency issue or something strange. I have found T-Mobile to be the least locked down company in this area so it would surprise me to learn this. FYI the sidekick is specific to T-Mobile as they paid for it. It is branded T-Mobile just like the Dash and SDA.

Nice, we move on to condescension.


I know this. The point you seem to miss is that the effect of them using different types of networks makes it difficult and costly for people to switch carriers. Which in effect makes it difficult or impossible to unlock your phone and switch to another carrier.


I've never heard of anyone unlocking a CDMA phone so I looked around about it. What I discovered is that while technically possible the process can be difficult and you're never really sure if it will work. Verizon, Sprint, Alltel don't have to accept your phone on to their network.

Sprint keeps a database of its ESN numbers and under no circumstance will they allow a phone onto their network that was not purchased from Sprint.

From the I reports I read, Verizon sounds unpredictable. Some people were able to get CDMA phones not bought through Verizon accepted to their network, some people were not able to. I could not find any official stance on this from Verizon. I saw some rumors that Verizon were going to collect an ESN database like Sprint and lock their network the same way.

I also read that if you are successful in getting a CDMA phone accepted to Verizon. That does not necessarily mean you will be able to use all of the phones functions or be able to use all of Verizons services. Because phone hardware and software can vary so much it does not automatically work with Verizons service.

From what I read the process is so unpredictable and difficult that its not worth the effort for most people. Which is why most people don't bother.


I would imagine T-Mobile is so open to supporting unlocked phones is because of their small marketshare. ATT and Verizon having much larger marketshares have more to loose and are more invested in locking customers into their service.


Yes I know quite a few people with the SideKick.


I'm sure. What my point is inspite of the fact that its possible to modify or load new software, the SideKick's original intent is specific to the T-Mobile network.

In most cases only if you are switching to one that uses a complete different technology. I am able to switch from T-Mobile phones to AT&T and back and forth all the time. Unlocking ranges from $5.00 to $25.00 depending on the type of phone you have.



That is true, they don't have to accept it. This is part of the reason Sprint is losing market share. People don't like to be restricted. CDMA requires the ESN number of the phone to be entered into their system in order for the phone to work. To over simplify things, it is essentially what ties the phone to your phone number in CDMA. On a GSM phone, all this info is linked by your SIM card making it an easy switch. btw, Sprint also makes you buy ringtones from them and does not allow you to make your own.


Again you are correct. The same is so if I have a 3G phone from another network, I am not going to be able to use that feature on AT&T because of their ancient EDGE network. It is simply not supported. If I have an old phone, I can't magically use MP3 ringtones either. If someone was to unlock the iPhone and bring it to T-Mobile, visual voice mail would not function.



I can say from my experience with T-Mobile, that their customer service is far superior to that of Verizon or AT&T. It might have to do with the smaller market share, since I hear the opposite of them in Germany.


True, but what you need to understand is that the sidekick is built for T-Mobile the way the iPhone is built for Apple. T-Mobile doesn't technically do the manufacturing, but it is a T-Mobile product. The same that the iPhone is an Apple product, not an AT&T product.

My point is simply that the phone manufactures are not the ones in the fight to lock down phones. Only Apple has tried to do this. Obviously the carrier wants you to use their phone on their network. That way they sold you a product and a service. T-Mobile takes this a step farther by saying the money is in the service, not the product, so bring whatever you want to talk on over to us and we'll try to make it work. Let AT&T fight this like in the past.

Europe is dominated by GSM - Asia is dominated by CDMA. In both situations it is much easier to move your phone to a competing carrier than it is in the US.

The crux of my point is that the US carriers have placed barriers to prevent customers from easily or cheaply changing to a competing carrier. Even though it is technically possible to move your phone from one carrier to another, it is a difficult and unpredictable enough process to frustrate most people from attempting it.


I doubt it. There aren't many people who even know that its technically possible to take your phone to another carrier and very little demand to do so. Of those who do attempt to do this there are so many hurdles that its only the die hard who bother to go through with it.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=202403410

I think it is long past time that companies like AT&T and Apple had to pay for their downright criminal activities. I know that I am going to get tons of people who are going to say. "It's not criminal it's in your contract! etc..." There are such things as illegal contracts too. AT&T violates anti trust laws on so many levals it's hard to find a place to begin. However, if you want to send a message to them through the Justice Department sign the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/quitatt/ Only through vigilence and determination will we the consumer force not only AT&T, but anyone who has anything to do with the cell phone industry to play nice.

We have a troll!

If you are so upset by AT&T why would you buy a phone from them in the first place?
I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head.
Typical.....