Apple is not at fault. That is why they are taking aggressive measures against jailbreaking and unlocking the iPhone this time around - essentially to prevent these situations from occurring on their devices (a PR-related move if anything).
I would respectfully disagree. Apple is at fault through its' deal with AT&T to limit the ability to use the iPhone in the US to AT&T's network only. I am fully aware of the current cel business climate in the US, and why Apple went exclusive with AT&T, but to frame this in the context of the "free market" and "competition" -I'm looking at you TenoBell- is simply the opposite of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Legally if you are not under contract with AT&T you are free to use the iPhone on any carrier that can support it. Apple simply does not directly support that right, but Apple does not directly stop it either...Dismissing Apple's ability to take legal action against people who modify iPhone software is apart of taking away a lot of the power to protect their business model
Apple does directly stop this right by building carrier-locking into the iPhone. It's called collusion. If a business model engages in anti-competitive/monopolistic practices, their ability to take legal action against those who would enable the rights of consumers should be curbed. I think this is much less of an issue for Apple than it is for AT&T, but as mentioned above, was part of the business climate that was allowed to flourish unchecked.
Imagine if Apple sold a laptop that could only connect to the internet by using a wireless card from Sprint. People would scream bloody murder (or maybe they wouldn't, since in the US, consumers are used to the government letting monopolistic corporations- acting in the supposedly "free market"- screw them). The iPhone isn't just a phone, it's a small computer.
Apple and AT&T simply don't need to carrier-lock the iPhone to have a subsidy/2-year contract for consumers. It just creates problems and restricts fair use of a product that consumers are already (considering the contract terms) over-paying for. This doesn't even have to be about hacking iPhones to run "unauthorized" software. From the reports, it looks as if the problem isn't occurring with just any jailbroken phone. Rather, it seems to happen only to those that are hactivated for use on networks other than AT&T.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Well yes Apple wants the iPhone to stay on AT&T, no they are not going to help you take it to T-Mobile, but the iPhone will work on T-Mobile. T-Mobile will help with unlock codes
Oh really? As if. T-Mobile will NOT help you with unlock codes. Want to know what they will tell you if you call T-Mobile (tier 3 support)? For an unlock, call the original carrier (AT&T), or go online and figure out how to crack the phone yourself. If you don't believe me try it.
My opinion is this: If a consumer enters into a contract for a subsidized device, then they should have no further responsibility to the carrier other than paying the agreed upon monthly fee for the duration of the contract. As long as the consumer is paying, the carrier (and manufacturer of the device for that matter) should have no say in which networks the device is used upon.
That said, the days of AT&T lockdown in the US may be nearing a much-needed end, according to AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson- "There will be a day when you are not exclusive with the iPhone"- and John "daringfireball" Gruber's interpretation- "Translation: It's over."
I would respectfully disagree. Apple is at fault through its' deal with AT&T to limit the ability to use the iPhone in the US to AT&T's network only. I am fully aware of the current cel business climate in the US, and why Apple went exclusive with AT&T, but to frame this in the context of the "free market" and "competition" -I'm looking at you TenoBell- is simply the opposite of reality.
I like how here in Australia I can choose from among five different companies which offer iPhones.
I'm very happy for you that you have so many choices in Australia. That is not how it works in the US.
Apple does have an exclusive deal with AT&T in the US, as referenced twice in the paragraph you quoted.
AT&T is unwilling to unlock the iPhone I have which is now out of contract.
I shouldn't have to travel half a world away from home to get a better deal than I can in the US from a domestically based company. Unfortunately, the obvious fact that politicians here place corporate profits ahead of the common good, and consumer rights, should be no surprise to anyone who has the most rudimentary knowledge of influence-pedaling in Washington.
Aside: If anyone really thinks that the current economic crisis was just due to a series of mistakes, or unanticipated events, you're not paying attention to anything other than the headlines handed out by the media that enabled it to happen. The following link is an excellent place to start paying attention if you're interested:
Comments
I removed them and that made life a lot easier, then someone robbed my house...
...stupid builders, you can't trust them!!!
Apple is not at fault. That is why they are taking aggressive measures against jailbreaking and unlocking the iPhone this time around - essentially to prevent these situations from occurring on their devices (a PR-related move if anything).
I would respectfully disagree. Apple is at fault through its' deal with AT&T to limit the ability to use the iPhone in the US to AT&T's network only. I am fully aware of the current cel business climate in the US, and why Apple went exclusive with AT&T, but to frame this in the context of the "free market" and "competition" -I'm looking at you TenoBell- is simply the opposite of reality.
Legally if you are not under contract with AT&T you are free to use the iPhone on any carrier that can support it. Apple simply does not directly support that right, but Apple does not directly stop it either...Dismissing Apple's ability to take legal action against people who modify iPhone software is apart of taking away a lot of the power to protect their business model
Apple does directly stop this right by building carrier-locking into the iPhone. It's called collusion. If a business model engages in anti-competitive/monopolistic practices, their ability to take legal action against those who would enable the rights of consumers should be curbed. I think this is much less of an issue for Apple than it is for AT&T, but as mentioned above, was part of the business climate that was allowed to flourish unchecked.
Imagine if Apple sold a laptop that could only connect to the internet by using a wireless card from Sprint. People would scream bloody murder (or maybe they wouldn't, since in the US, consumers are used to the government letting monopolistic corporations- acting in the supposedly "free market"- screw them). The iPhone isn't just a phone, it's a small computer.
Apple and AT&T simply don't need to carrier-lock the iPhone to have a subsidy/2-year contract for consumers. It just creates problems and restricts fair use of a product that consumers are already (considering the contract terms) over-paying for. This doesn't even have to be about hacking iPhones to run "unauthorized" software. From the reports, it looks as if the problem isn't occurring with just any jailbroken phone. Rather, it seems to happen only to those that are hactivated for use on networks other than AT&T.
Well yes Apple wants the iPhone to stay on AT&T, no they are not going to help you take it to T-Mobile, but the iPhone will work on T-Mobile. T-Mobile will help with unlock codes
Oh really? As if. T-Mobile will NOT help you with unlock codes. Want to know what they will tell you if you call T-Mobile (tier 3 support)? For an unlock, call the original carrier (AT&T), or go online and figure out how to crack the phone yourself. If you don't believe me try it.
My opinion is this: If a consumer enters into a contract for a subsidized device, then they should have no further responsibility to the carrier other than paying the agreed upon monthly fee for the duration of the contract. As long as the consumer is paying, the carrier (and manufacturer of the device for that matter) should have no say in which networks the device is used upon.
That said, the days of AT&T lockdown in the US may be nearing a much-needed end, according to AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson- "There will be a day when you are not exclusive with the iPhone"- and John "daringfireball" Gruber's interpretation- "Translation: It's over."
My take: Can't happen fast enough.
Story Links:
CNET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10...g=2547-1_3-0-5
DaringFireball:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/200...-ceo-exclusive
I would respectfully disagree. Apple is at fault through its' deal with AT&T to limit the ability to use the iPhone in the US to AT&T's network only. I am fully aware of the current cel business climate in the US, and why Apple went exclusive with AT&T, but to frame this in the context of the "free market" and "competition" -I'm looking at you TenoBell- is simply the opposite of reality.
I like how here in Australia I can choose from among five different companies which offer iPhones.
http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/phones/iphone/
http://www.vodafone.com.au/personal/iphone/
http://personal.optus.com.au/web/oca...&site=personal
http://shop.three.com.au/iPhone;ATG_...67!-1731967620
https://www.virginmobile.com.au/shop/iPhone.aspx
I can't see AT&T anywhere, obviously Apple does not have an "exclusive" deal with AT&T.
These iPhones can all be unlocked, there are no "unlock codes" iPhones are unlocked by contacting the carrier then restoring in iTunes.
It's a free world there is nothing stopping you from coming here to purchase an iPhone, unlocking it and using whichever carrier you want.
I'm very happy for you that you have so many choices in Australia. That is not how it works in the US.
Apple does have an exclusive deal with AT&T in the US, as referenced twice in the paragraph you quoted.
AT&T is unwilling to unlock the iPhone I have which is now out of contract.
I shouldn't have to travel half a world away from home to get a better deal than I can in the US from a domestically based company. Unfortunately, the obvious fact that politicians here place corporate profits ahead of the common good, and consumer rights, should be no surprise to anyone who has the most rudimentary knowledge of influence-pedaling in Washington.
Aside: If anyone really thinks that the current economic crisis was just due to a series of mistakes, or unanticipated events, you're not paying attention to anything other than the headlines handed out by the media that enabled it to happen. The following link is an excellent place to start paying attention if you're interested:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...one/index.html