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.
You are the third or fourth poster making the implicit assumption that the handset is 'subsidized' by ATT.
That is incorrect.
ATT simply lowers the upfront price to entice you and lock you into a plan, pays Apple the full sale price of the handset (almost all of which Apple books as it's revenue when it is sold to you) and then gets the balance from you in a monthly installment of a few dollars over the next 24 months of your contract. By the time you're done with your two year contract, you have have fully paid for the handset, whether you know it or not. It is yours. ATT cannot ask for it back. You can, for instance, sell it on eBay if you wish, and keep the cash. You can throw it away. You can gift it. You can use it as an iPod Touch. You can blend it. You can do whatever the heck you want to do with it. Except, that is, unlock it, because Apple and ATT will not allow you to.
Note: To be crystal clear, because I believe in a free market I don't believe Apple should be required to sell unsubsidized, unlocked iPhones, or sell through any and all carriers if they dont want to. The only issue I have is the phone still being unlocked after the contract has been fulfilled.
I agree with you, to a point. I feel that the time has more than come for all cell phones to be unlocked in the US. However, device creators should not be forced into supporting tech they don't want to. So if a company wants to make only GSM phones, that should be their right. etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs
maybe because they want you to buy a new iPhone.
That is something I have to laugh about with this whole case. I don't no anyone that doesn't buy the next great iphone the second ATT will let them get the subsidy. And I know a good number that will just pay the extra $200.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.
That might actually be part of Apple's plan. If they take too much of the smartphone/cellphone market then they are open to all kinds of antitrust suits. By easing into things, they can push that back longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Is iPhone demand THIS high??
1 million in 2.5 days. so yeah
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock
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 are wrong. There are a score of laws that prohibit such behavior as violations of the civil rights laws, the ADA etc. And hate speech laws.
Even though places say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" it's a fine line. I can't kick you out for being black, white or purple. Being in a wheelchair,or being a guy. But I can and will kick you out for being a smelly, dirty (literally) loitering peeping tom who tries to look up 10 year old girls skirts and yells and cusses at me. (true story)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveO
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>
A part of me has to agree with you and smile a little. I have a coworker that rants about how crappy Apple is, 24/7 if you let him. A couple of days ago he gets on a tear, about their service, their prices, the Apple Tax, all the (in the end not so) major design flaws.on and on. I tuned him out after about 10 seconds. About 10 minutes in, his phone rings.And he whips out an iphone. shiny black model 4. I just looked at him and asked him why if Apple is such utter shite, did he buy an iphone and support them with his wallet.
He still hasn't answered me. Actually he's avoiding me it seems. Not that I mind.
You are the third or fourth poster making the implicit assumption that the handset is 'subsidized' by ATT.
That is incorrect.
ATT simply lowers the upfront price to entice you and lock you into a plan, pays Apple the full sale price of the handset (almost all of which Apple books as it's revenue when it is sold to you) and then gets the balance from you in a monthly installment of a few dollars over the next 24 months of your contract. By the time you're done with your two year contract, you have have fully paid for the handset, whether you know it or not. It is yours. ATT cannot ask for it back. You can, for instance, sell it on eBay if you wish, and keep the cash. You can throw it away. You can gift it. You can use it as an iPod Touch. You can blend it. You can do whatever the heck you want to do with it. Except, that is, unlock it, because Apple and ATT will not allow you to.
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
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.
Nothing has changed on this issue for it to have"reached a point of bs by now". You could argue the original contract in 2007 was bs but the rest of your comment works against it. It does suck waiting but there is a solid end date 2012. Maybe sooner if apple was able to renegotiate the contract.
Apple doesn't need to run android out of town. They just need to be popular enough for developers to write programs and for consumers to purchase. They've got that in spades. It'll come to verizon eventually, as contracts expire and factories get built. It does suck waiting though, I have several friends that are tired of it.
I too am dubious about the success of this suit. I think this is a classic case of the law needing to catch up with the times/technology.
Nothing has changed on this issue for it to have"reached a point of bs by now". You could argue the original contract in 2007 was bs but the rest of your comment works against it. It does suck waiting but there is a solid end date 2012. Maybe sooner if apple was able to renegotiate the contract.
Apple doesn't need to run android out of town. They just need to be popular enough for developers to write programs and for consumers to purchase. They've got that in spades. It'll come to verizon eventually, as contracts expire and factories get built. It does suck waiting though, I have several friends that are tired of it.
I too am dubious about the success of this suit. I think this is a classic case of the law needing to catch up with the times/technology.
Doctor (?)
Have you read this post? It's just an opinion but one with a possible explanaation why Apple are willing to wait till 2012
The lawsuit, filed in 2007, accuses both the iPhone maker and AT&T of illegally exerting a monopoly over iPhone customers.
There's only one smart phone out there that users can utilize? This is news to me! The iPhone is a "Smart Phone", and the smart phone comes in a multitude of makers and options. I'm sure Droid will be surprised to hear of this.
Quote:
"The court has allowed (multiple) plaintiffs to represent 20 million customers who have been forced to use AT&T for iPhone voice and data service," Rifkin reportedly said, "despite an agreement that allows them to terminate at any time and presumably switch carriers."
Forced?! I looked at all those iPhone launch photos and not once did I see either an Apple employee or a AT&T rep hold a gun to anyones head and FORCE them to enter into an agreement under duress!
Figures a fruitcake court in CA allows this to go forward.
Before anyone goes on the warpath, hey I'd like more choices to, but since when is it the right of a court to break a legal contract between two companies? And it is between Apple and AT&T. Any customer utilizing the service to purchase an iPhone and utilize AT&T's service for an obligated two years does not mean that once the two years is up, it breaks the exclusivity contract of Apple's and AT&T's - sorry folks!
I mean what's next for the courts, will the courts tell Delta that if it just entered into a contract with Boeing, that they also have to purchase from Airbus because of a preference of the traveler to utilize that brand/make of aircraft?
Of course, over the past couple of years, what has the "LAW" have to do with anything in this country anymore!
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
AT&T did state in 2008 earnings (the quarter after the 3G release) that they will be losing money on every iPhone sold. Their plan is to keep people on their network even after their contract is over. One of the reasons they are giving early upgrade price on new iPhone models is because they know that the old iPhone will be back on their network with new contract.
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
Plans run typically at least $80 per month, but often $100. Those plans do not even include unlimited data, voice, or text. That works out to somewhere between $1920 and $2400 that ATT is making from a typical iPhone customer (it's usually more). You can bet that ATT has easily snuck in the $300 in there (which works out to $12.50 per month).
AT&T did state in 2008 earnings (the quarter after the 3G release) that they will be losing money on every iPhone sold. Their plan is to keep people on their network even after their contract is over. One of the reasons they are giving early upgrade price on new iPhone models is because they know that the old iPhone will be back on their network with new contract.
Fair enough, I stand corrected. ATT are losing money on every iPhone user. Crazy business plan.
Having a poor signal in metropolitan places like San Fran and New York seems an even more bizarre way of hoping to of trying to keep customers in the hope they (ATT) eventually make money from those customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Plans run typically at least $80 per month, but often $100. Those plans do not even include unlimited data, voice, or text. That works out to somewhere between $1920 and $2400 that ATT is making from a typical iPhone customer (it's usually more). You can bet that ATT has easily snuck in the $300 in there (which works out to $12.50 per month).
OK Stand potentially corrected for the second time ( should I take my ball home ? )
There is conflicting info here. Though it seems ATT may actually make money on every iPhone user [ according to anantksundaram] However according to [NasserAE ] they don't.
Time to recuse myself from this conversation and return to lurker mode
I hadn't read that but I've been thinking they might wait for 4g on verizon. IMO when the first iPhone came out the tech was just barely there to make it happen. Now in general the tech for smartphones is cruising at a decent clip. Data speed is what's needed most right now. Not that I'm complaining, my iphone4 is so much nicer, faster etc than my 3G.
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
AT&T makes money off of all the extras that we usually, needlessly, buy into. For example I purchase 450 worth of minutes plus unlimited data and unlimited text messaging. It costs NOTHING for AT&T to provide text messaging (used to be free yrs ago until cell companies decided to profit from the service) and if you're sending picture messages then that effectively becomes data usage. Someone like myself who never uses all of their minutes essentially fattens AT&T's bottom line because I'm paying for goods/services that I never receive. I have nearly 3000 roll over minutes that will never be used. It's a huge cash cow for AT&T. You will never convince me that AT&T has a hard time recovering their investment over a 2 yr contract. If you don't fatten their wallet with unused minutes then chances are you are doing so in other ways like text messages or ring tones etc.
Toyota can force you to buy NEW cars from an authorized dealer, but they can not force you to buy Shell gas for the life of the car YOU paid for. That would violate anti trust laws.
Offering a phone through an exclusive provider who subsidizes the phone is legit, but permanently tying you to the network is a grey area and certainly unethical if not also illegal.
Toyota licenses the right to dealerships, to sell their cars, exclusively.
AT&T doesn't make the iPhone.
Neither can force me to either buy a new Toyota or an iPhone.
I think the primary outcome of this suit will be that AT&T/Apple will be forced to unlock iPhones, at least at contract termination.
I'd like to see legislation take this much further. Effectively, once you've gone past the return period, you own the phone. You've got to either pay through the contract period or pay an ETF, so the phone is at that point yours, one way or another and they ought not be allowed to limit what you can do with the phone outside their network with artificial restrictions.
Currently, the primary use of this for AT&T iPhone customers would be to use another SIM in the phone when travelling abroad. You still have to pay your AT&T bill while doing so, so it's not like they are losing out on the contract while you are doing this. If anything they are making more money off you since you are paying for service you aren't using.
There will likely come a time however when greater homogeneity in cellular networks can make this issue even more important than it is now. It's important to signal to wireless carriers now that artificial barriers to portability will not be allowed, and that they will need to compete on price and service like other industries do, not by using customer lock-in as their primary retention method. It's simply not in the public interest to allow that state of affairs to persist.
I am in discussion with AT&T over this issue. I have been an AT&T customer for nearly 23 years. In two months time I return to Europe permanently. I have asked AT&T to unlock my phone when I cancel my contract with them. So far they are claiming that their policy does not allow them to unlock the Iphone and that they don't know how to do it. However after a lengthy conversation they have agreed to talk to their technical people and get back to me. I get the impression that this is a new wrinkle for them and they are not sure how to deal with someone who is leaving the AT&T network becasue they are moving permanently outside their coverage area. Frankly I am not hopeful but I have told them that if they refuse to unlock the phone when my contract is terminated I will expect them either to buy it back from me at the price I paid for it or explain why not to my lawyer. (My contract requires me to pay AT&T the residual value of the phone if I cancel within the 2 year contract period and they have admitted that at that moment I own the phone free and clear).
I think the primary outcome of this suit will be that AT&T/Apple will be forced to unlock iPhones, at least at contract termination.
My money is on this particular lawsuit going nowhere, with a strong likelihood of it never being heard from again in a couple weeks.
It's simply unjust to say that only AT&T and Apple's union is unfair when this goes on with all carriers and handset vendors, and existed well before the iPhone made Jobs' conquesticles heavy with the thought of dominating the smartphone industry..
Comments
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.
You are the third or fourth poster making the implicit assumption that the handset is 'subsidized' by ATT.
That is incorrect.
ATT simply lowers the upfront price to entice you and lock you into a plan, pays Apple the full sale price of the handset (almost all of which Apple books as it's revenue when it is sold to you) and then gets the balance from you in a monthly installment of a few dollars over the next 24 months of your contract. By the time you're done with your two year contract, you have have fully paid for the handset, whether you know it or not. It is yours. ATT cannot ask for it back. You can, for instance, sell it on eBay if you wish, and keep the cash. You can throw it away. You can gift it. You can use it as an iPod Touch. You can blend it. You can do whatever the heck you want to do with it. Except, that is, unlock it, because Apple and ATT will not allow you to.
Note: To be crystal clear, because I believe in a free market I don't believe Apple should be required to sell unsubsidized, unlocked iPhones, or sell through any and all carriers if they dont want to. The only issue I have is the phone still being unlocked after the contract has been fulfilled.
I agree with you, to a point. I feel that the time has more than come for all cell phones to be unlocked in the US. However, device creators should not be forced into supporting tech they don't want to. So if a company wants to make only GSM phones, that should be their right. etc
maybe because they want you to buy a new iPhone.
That is something I have to laugh about with this whole case. I don't no anyone that doesn't buy the next great iphone the second ATT will let them get the subsidy. And I know a good number that will just pay the extra $200.
Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.
That might actually be part of Apple's plan. If they take too much of the smartphone/cellphone market then they are open to all kinds of antitrust suits. By easing into things, they can push that back longer.
Is iPhone demand THIS high??
1 million in 2.5 days. so yeah
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 are wrong. There are a score of laws that prohibit such behavior as violations of the civil rights laws, the ADA etc. And hate speech laws.
Even though places say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" it's a fine line. I can't kick you out for being black, white or purple. Being in a wheelchair,or being a guy. But I can and will kick you out for being a smelly, dirty (literally) loitering peeping tom who tries to look up 10 year old girls skirts and yells and cusses at me. (true story)
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>
A part of me has to agree with you and smile a little. I have a coworker that rants about how crappy Apple is, 24/7 if you let him. A couple of days ago he gets on a tear, about their service, their prices, the Apple Tax, all the (in the end not so) major design flaws.on and on. I tuned him out after about 10 seconds. About 10 minutes in, his phone rings.And he whips out an iphone. shiny black model 4. I just looked at him and asked him why if Apple is such utter shite, did he buy an iphone and support them with his wallet.
He still hasn't answered me. Actually he's avoiding me it seems. Not that I mind.
It seems odd, but the way the present system works is you NEVER REALLY OWN THE PHONE.
Etc etc
See above. (There you go again)
Btw, ask yourself: Why does ATT allow other phones out of contract to be unlocked? Why would ATT want to gift you $300?
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If you think you found a $300 bill lying on the ground, think again.
You are the third or fourth poster making the implicit assumption that the handset is 'subsidized' by ATT.
That is incorrect.
ATT simply lowers the upfront price to entice you and lock you into a plan, pays Apple the full sale price of the handset (almost all of which Apple books as it's revenue when it is sold to you) and then gets the balance from you in a monthly installment of a few dollars over the next 24 months of your contract. By the time you're done with your two year contract, you have have fully paid for the handset, whether you know it or not. It is yours. ATT cannot ask for it back. You can, for instance, sell it on eBay if you wish, and keep the cash. You can throw it away. You can gift it. You can use it as an iPod Touch. You can blend it. You can do whatever the heck you want to do with it. Except, that is, unlock it, because Apple and ATT will not allow you to.
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
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.
Nothing has changed on this issue for it to have"reached a point of bs by now". You could argue the original contract in 2007 was bs but the rest of your comment works against it. It does suck waiting but there is a solid end date 2012. Maybe sooner if apple was able to renegotiate the contract.
Apple doesn't need to run android out of town. They just need to be popular enough for developers to write programs and for consumers to purchase. They've got that in spades. It'll come to verizon eventually, as contracts expire and factories get built. It does suck waiting though, I have several friends that are tired of it.
I too am dubious about the success of this suit. I think this is a classic case of the law needing to catch up with the times/technology.
Nothing has changed on this issue for it to have"reached a point of bs by now". You could argue the original contract in 2007 was bs but the rest of your comment works against it. It does suck waiting but there is a solid end date 2012. Maybe sooner if apple was able to renegotiate the contract.
Apple doesn't need to run android out of town. They just need to be popular enough for developers to write programs and for consumers to purchase. They've got that in spades. It'll come to verizon eventually, as contracts expire and factories get built. It does suck waiting though, I have several friends that are tired of it.
I too am dubious about the success of this suit. I think this is a classic case of the law needing to catch up with the times/technology.
Doctor (?)
Have you read this post? It's just an opinion but one with a possible explanaation why Apple are willing to wait till 2012
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...18&postcount=9
The lawsuit, filed in 2007, accuses both the iPhone maker and AT&T of illegally exerting a monopoly over iPhone customers.
There's only one smart phone out there that users can utilize? This is news to me! The iPhone is a "Smart Phone", and the smart phone comes in a multitude of makers and options. I'm sure Droid will be surprised to hear of this.
"The court has allowed (multiple) plaintiffs to represent 20 million customers who have been forced to use AT&T for iPhone voice and data service," Rifkin reportedly said, "despite an agreement that allows them to terminate at any time and presumably switch carriers."
Forced?! I looked at all those iPhone launch photos and not once did I see either an Apple employee or a AT&T rep hold a gun to anyones head and FORCE them to enter into an agreement under duress!
Figures a fruitcake court in CA allows this to go forward.
Before anyone goes on the warpath, hey I'd like more choices to, but since when is it the right of a court to break a legal contract between two companies? And it is between Apple and AT&T. Any customer utilizing the service to purchase an iPhone and utilize AT&T's service for an obligated two years does not mean that once the two years is up, it breaks the exclusivity contract of Apple's and AT&T's - sorry folks!
I mean what's next for the courts, will the courts tell Delta that if it just entered into a contract with Boeing, that they also have to purchase from Airbus because of a preference of the traveler to utilize that brand/make of aircraft?
Of course, over the past couple of years, what has the "LAW" have to do with anything in this country anymore!
/
/
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
AT&T did state in 2008 earnings (the quarter after the 3G release) that they will be losing money on every iPhone sold. Their plan is to keep people on their network even after their contract is over. One of the reasons they are giving early upgrade price on new iPhone models is because they know that the old iPhone will be back on their network with new contract.
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
Plans run typically at least $80 per month, but often $100. Those plans do not even include unlimited data, voice, or text. That works out to somewhere between $1920 and $2400 that ATT is making from a typical iPhone customer (it's usually more). You can bet that ATT has easily snuck in the $300 in there (which works out to $12.50 per month).
AT&T did state in 2008 earnings (the quarter after the 3G release) that they will be losing money on every iPhone sold.
I'd love to see a link for that. Thanks.
AT&T did state in 2008 earnings (the quarter after the 3G release) that they will be losing money on every iPhone sold. Their plan is to keep people on their network even after their contract is over. One of the reasons they are giving early upgrade price on new iPhone models is because they know that the old iPhone will be back on their network with new contract.
Fair enough, I stand corrected. ATT are losing money on every iPhone user. Crazy business plan.
Having a poor signal in metropolitan places like San Fran and New York seems an even more bizarre way of hoping to of trying to keep customers in the hope they (ATT) eventually make money from those customers.
Plans run typically at least $80 per month, but often $100. Those plans do not even include unlimited data, voice, or text. That works out to somewhere between $1920 and $2400 that ATT is making from a typical iPhone customer (it's usually more). You can bet that ATT has easily snuck in the $300 in there (which works out to $12.50 per month).
OK Stand potentially corrected for the second time ( should I take my ball home ?
There is conflicting info here. Though it seems ATT may actually make money on every iPhone user [ according to anantksundaram] However according to [NasserAE ] they don't.
Time to recuse myself from this conversation and return to lurker mode
Doctor (?)
Have you read this post? It's just an opinion but one with a possible explanaation why Apple are willing to wait till 2012
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...18&postcount=9
I hadn't read that but I've been thinking they might wait for 4g on verizon. IMO when the first iPhone came out the tech was just barely there to make it happen. Now in general the tech for smartphones is cruising at a decent clip. Data speed is what's needed most right now. Not that I'm complaining, my iphone4 is so much nicer, faster etc than my 3G.
Late Much? http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=111227&page=3
May Justice Be Served... Just as posted some 2 days ago on this very topic.
Late Much? http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=111227&page=3
Wrong link?
I've made the assumption that the subsidy plan used in Europe is also used in the US.
For you statement to work though ATT would have to make more than ~$300 difference of you in service charges. Other wise they'd be losing money on each iPhone customer, which doesn't make sense.
Remember the real cost of the phone is ~$599. ( which ATT pay Apple)
So with you paying ~199 - 299
That leaves ATT needing to make ~$300 - ~$200 from you during your 2 year contract just to break even.
So if you're right ATT are more likely than not losing money on every iPhone user they have. Doesn't make sense to me.
AT&T makes money off of all the extras that we usually, needlessly, buy into. For example I purchase 450 worth of minutes plus unlimited data and unlimited text messaging. It costs NOTHING for AT&T to provide text messaging (used to be free yrs ago until cell companies decided to profit from the service) and if you're sending picture messages then that effectively becomes data usage. Someone like myself who never uses all of their minutes essentially fattens AT&T's bottom line because I'm paying for goods/services that I never receive. I have nearly 3000 roll over minutes that will never be used. It's a huge cash cow for AT&T. You will never convince me that AT&T has a hard time recovering their investment over a 2 yr contract. If you don't fatten their wallet with unused minutes then chances are you are doing so in other ways like text messages or ring tones etc.
Toyota can force you to buy NEW cars from an authorized dealer, but they can not force you to buy Shell gas for the life of the car YOU paid for. That would violate anti trust laws.
Offering a phone through an exclusive provider who subsidizes the phone is legit, but permanently tying you to the network is a grey area and certainly unethical if not also illegal.
Toyota licenses the right to dealerships, to sell their cars, exclusively.
AT&T doesn't make the iPhone.
Neither can force me to either buy a new Toyota or an iPhone.
I'd like to see legislation take this much further. Effectively, once you've gone past the return period, you own the phone. You've got to either pay through the contract period or pay an ETF, so the phone is at that point yours, one way or another and they ought not be allowed to limit what you can do with the phone outside their network with artificial restrictions.
Currently, the primary use of this for AT&T iPhone customers would be to use another SIM in the phone when travelling abroad. You still have to pay your AT&T bill while doing so, so it's not like they are losing out on the contract while you are doing this. If anything they are making more money off you since you are paying for service you aren't using.
There will likely come a time however when greater homogeneity in cellular networks can make this issue even more important than it is now. It's important to signal to wireless carriers now that artificial barriers to portability will not be allowed, and that they will need to compete on price and service like other industries do, not by using customer lock-in as their primary retention method. It's simply not in the public interest to allow that state of affairs to persist.
I think the primary outcome of this suit will be that AT&T/Apple will be forced to unlock iPhones, at least at contract termination.
My money is on this particular lawsuit going nowhere, with a strong likelihood of it never being heard from again in a couple weeks.
It's simply unjust to say that only AT&T and Apple's union is unfair when this goes on with all carriers and handset vendors, and existed well before the iPhone made Jobs' conquesticles heavy with the thought of dominating the smartphone industry..