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? \\
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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>
It seems odd, but the way the present system works is you NEVER REALLY OWN THE PHONE.
The cost of an unlocked iPhone is ~$599
The price most consumers pay ~$200 The price paid for contract (2yr) ~$200
Money owed @ contract end ~$300
Which means ATT still own the iPhone. You have the right to keep it and not use an ATT service or the right to buy another ATT contract.
Unless you fork over ~$300 you don't own the phone.
If you buy an unlocked iPhone, that's a different matter. Then you own the phone and are only paying for the ATT service or any oher phone service you choose.
Are people prepared to pay an extra ~$300 just to own the iPhone outright?
Would you pay an extra ~$300 for a consumable item that's effectively disposable after 2-3 years?
Comments
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? \\
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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>
The cost of an unlocked iPhone is ~$599
The price most consumers pay ~$200 The price paid for contract (2yr) ~$200
Money owed @ contract end ~$300
Which means ATT still own the iPhone. You have the right to keep it and not use an ATT service or the right to buy another ATT contract.
Unless you fork over ~$300 you don't own the phone.
If you buy an unlocked iPhone, that's a different matter. Then you own the phone and are only paying for the ATT service or any oher phone service you choose.
Are people prepared to pay an extra ~$300 just to own the iPhone outright?
Would you pay an extra ~$300 for a consumable item that's effectively disposable after 2-3 years?