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.
This is not new to any US carrier.
Quote:
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).
apple decided to go with the global standard, gsm. The only other compatable network is t-mobile and their 3G won't work with iPhone.
Since Customers cant force apple to make new hardware or change existing hardware they have 3 choices:
Stick with AT&T
Get apple to go T-mobile - but you don't get 3G!!!
shut up and stop winging that the US uses ancient CDMA technology.
Thats right. I'm sure AT&T doesn't care who you use your iPhone with if you pay the termination fee. There is after all only one option. The termination fee and using the phone unlocked has nothing to do with the exclusivity agreement.
It seems their lawsuit is worded wrong. AT&T isn't doing the restricting, it is the other carriers that don't support their standard and frequencies. It is of course impossible for the other carriers to support the phone because they would be interfering with AT&T's FCC licensed spectrum.
Most phones are single carrier. There are few (if any) phones that will run on multiple carriers in the United States.
Exactly who is affected by what is specified in this lawsuit? People moving to Canada? Those people are probably better off selling their phone on eBay and signing another 2 year agreement anyway. It doesn't matter if you have a contract or not, you still pay the same amount. I had to sign up for a two year agreement in the past with AT&T for a phone I already owned so there may not even be a way out of signing up without a contract anyway.
Patel write on Friday that it's possible the continuing lawsuit could yield more information on the terms of the private contract between Apple and AT&T.
"While we're definitely curious to see if the plaintiffs can... win something more than a token settlement, we're far more interested to see if they can get any more documentation from Apple nailing down its actual agreement with AT&T," he wrote.
With any lawsuit, there is a process of discovery where parties and witnesses must bring with them any written documents that form the basis of Court proceedings, support the position of a party or confirm the testimony of a witness.
Apple and AT&T Mobile cannot possibly escape the public scrutiny of their agreements which will be examined by the Court and lawyers for any illegal, abusive or anti-competitive provisions.
American Antitrust authorities should have examined these documents to determine their legality and pro-competitive character, but failing such an examination, the Court will now examine them at the request of iPhone buyers and their lawyers.
Similarly, California and New York Consumer Protection Agencies should have sued Apple and AT&T Mobile to access these agreements and determine their legality and compliance with State Consumer Protection laws, but failing that, iPhone buyers and their lawyers must now use the Court system to seek justice and quash these agreements, possibly suing for billions if any law was broken.
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.
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
Nobody really knows how much AT&T is paying. The rumors are that AT&T is paying more to Apple for new customers then existing customers. On top of subsidizing the phone, AT&T is also paying a certain amount per month per iphone. If I remember right, analysts think it averages about $12 a month. The cost of an iPhone is around $700. I'm not sure where this $300 amount people are throwing around is coming from. It should be more like $500 after subsidization that AT&T is paying plus around $244 a year in monthly costs. For a two year agreement, AT&T may be paying about $1000 to Apple. I may be way off, but it has got to be a lot closer then some of the estimates in this forum. For a $70/month plan, AT&T wouldn't start making money until the second year. For some iPhone 4 users, they may have only made money on them for 6 months. I think things fare better for AT&T with their enterprise customers. I'm pretty sure my company pays more then $100 a month for my phone.
"AT&T said Wednesday that third quarter sales were boosted by a larger than expected number of iPhone 3G activations, resulting in long-term value at the expense of near-term profits."
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
Nobody really knows how much AT&T is paying. The rumors are that AT&T is paying more to Apple for new customers then existing customers. On top of subsidizing the phone, AT&T is also paying a certain amount per month per iphone. If I remember right, analysts think it averages about $12 a month. The cost of an iPhone is around $700. I'm not sure where this $300 amount people are throwing around is coming from. It should be more like $500 after subsidization that AT&T is paying plus around $244 a year in monthly costs. For a two year agreement, AT&T may be paying about $1000 to Apple. I may be way off, but it has got to be a lot closer then some of the estimates in this forum. For a $70/month plan, AT&T wouldn't start making money until the second year. For some iPhone 4 users, they may have only made money on them for 6 months. I think things fare better for AT&T with their enterprise customers. I'm pretty sure my company pays more then $100 a month for my phone.
Apple said that they get the full price from carriers but also noted that some international carriers may pay more than others. Furthermore, the shared monthly revenue plan, where Apple gets part of the monthly payments from carriers, ended when Apple released iPhone 3G in 2008.
So, Apple get around $600 (for 16GB iPhone) and AT&T gets $200 from customers. This means AT&T is paying $400 for each iPhone. No monthly payments to Apple from AT&T.
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.
Are you sure?
My understanding is that after you have complied fully with your contract, i.e., by purchasing it outright, completing your multi-year data plan or buying out of the data plan during the contract period, the iPhone is yours. Period.
Unlock it. Use it on another carrier of your choice. Put a foreign Sim card in it.
As many have posted, only AT&T has the network in the US to provide all the functionality that the iPhone was featured to provide. So if you are happy with that, well, that is an individual choice.
However, AT&T and Apple are just not obligated to provide support for an unlocked iPhone. They are not obligated to ensure that updates or apps will work or be required to help you get them to work on an unlocked iPhone.*
The only legal issue that one really has to worry about would be trying to profit from the activity.?**
But yeah, it sucks that after 2 years and contract expiration i can not use my iPhone anymore, since I moved to other carrier. And it collects dust...
That should be changed by official unlock service.
as shown above by Joe_hs, which network would you "use" it with other than AT&T? T-Mobile is the only option, and apparently there would be no 3G...
the only issue here for mine (as a non-US resident) is getting a phone unlocked for use when going overseas. that, and it actually makes no sense that AT&T don't allow it to be unlocked (because you can't use it to it's full capabilities on another network).
I think that the original idea of tying the iPhone to AT&T and not unlocking the device at the end of the contract was to stop phones being exported?
I have been with Orange UK almost since its inception. I have been on £25 pmth and £35 pmth 12-month contracts, and each year I would get a subsidised phone, either very low cost or even free-of-charge. At £35 per month, I was getting 500 pre-paid minutes, 100 SMS and free landline calls.
When I purchased the original iPhone (O2), there was no requirement to sign any fixed-term contracts, and within 20 minutes of getting home my iPhone was jailbroken, activated and unlocked. I simply put my Orange SIM in the iPhone and it worked. I changed my plan to SIM-only, and this brought my monthly subs to £15.
I skipped the 3G but bought a PAYG 3GS, again on O2 and again JB/unlocked the phone. I then had the iPhone officially unlocked by paying a one-off £15 fee but losing the data package -- no big deal for me as the iPad was on the horizon...
I am now on a £10 per month SIM-only package, get 600 pre-paid minutes, 600 SMS, free landline calls and "unlimited" (fair usage applies) data. I would get the same package on a £35 per month 24-month contract but I would have to pay £200 for the iPhone, plus £840 (35 x 24) for the whole package. At £10 per month I'm only spending £240 over 24 months (£800 less than the 24 month contract) with my 3GS. The unlocked iPhone4 from Apple only costs £600 so I can "upgrade and still spend £200 less.
Bottom line: your iPhone isn't subsidised, you're paying for it as part of your monthly subscription.
If you still have the original iPhone, just jailbreak it -- Apple doesn't even bother with updates to break jailbreaking anymore.
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..
AT&T just lost a broader law suit over this exact issue, covering every other phone they have sold. By what logic is it not OK to lock any Nomia, Motorola,'RIM, HTC, Samsung, or other vendors phones, but it is perfectly OK to lock the iPhone?
By making the argument that the iPhone is different from all other phones, and should be excluded from the prior settlement, AT&T may have just made the case for a monopoly. It is silly, but they can not have their cake and eat it too. If it is a phone, unlock it like every other phone. If it is something unique, you have a monopoly and are violating anti trust laws. Since the last law suit on locked phones made it to a settlement with AT&T forced to unlock old phones and change their policy on new phones, I can not see how a lawsuit seeking equal treatment for iPhones is frivolous or likely to go nowhere.
BTW, where in my contract does it state that my phone will remain locked to the carrier after the terms of the contract have been completed? It was clear that I needed to maintain a 2 yr contract with AT&T but they did not tell consumers that the device would be permanently locked to AT&T. Given the precedent of other phones that were initially locked, getting carrier or manufacturer unlocks, there is no validity to the "you should have known it would stay locked" argument unless they put it in writing. They did not, so the terms of the initial sale were misleading.
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..
The monopoly aspects of the case may go nowhere but carriers have consistently been ordered to unlock phones and this case will be no different in that regard.
apple decided to go with the global standard, gsm. The only other compatable network is t-mobile and their 3G won't work with iPhone.
Since Customers cant force apple to make new hardware or change existing hardware they have 3 choices:
Stick with AT&T
Get apple to go T-mobile - but you don't get 3G!!!
shut up and stop winging that the US uses ancient CDMA technology.
Yes, but locking your phone to ATT eventhough 2 year agreement had expired is a robbery. I came back from Europe 3 weeks ago, unable to swap SIMs there so I had to pay $2.50 for each minute of. Luckily I found an old unlocked Nokia, but still it sucks having iPhone with all info I need and not be able to use it.
When my 2 year contract expired I took my 1st gen. iPhone to Apple store to unlock it. The guy laughed and told me to jailbreak it myself instead, because he would be fired if he'd do it.
Actually, I think that they might have a case about people being unable to unlock their phones. I just bought an iPhone4, and committed to AT&T for a 2-year contract... why can't I go to Europe, slip a sim card into the phone and use it there? I'm still paying the AT&T contract, and there is no technological reason I can't (the same model phone works just fine on Orange in the UK).
I don't really think that kind of logic is what's motivating the people suing, but it is a reasonable question, and one that I wouldn't mind seeing addressed.
Thank you. This is exactly, verbatim, what I have been saying for 2 years since I bought our 3G's and now with our 4's. I'm paying our bill monthly. I want to use the phone in Italy or France for 2 weeks with another SIM card. Why not? Why am I supposed to ask a friend in Rome to call me on a New York number when I'm a mile away? Its absurd. ATT unlocked my Samsung GSM phones which I bought in 2005 on contract. We used them here and in Europe. (And still use them actually). It's blatantly unfair.
We really need 'loser pays' for lawsuits in this country.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more. And I think it should be, "If you are suing someone for 1 million dollars, and you lose (because it's dumb lawsuit brought on be greedy lawyers) - they YOU have to pay the 1 million dollars to those who you sued, oh, and their legal fees to defend themselves against the dumb ass lawsuits like the one you just brought on.
Hey, if all you want is a quick $5,000.00 so you can go out and buy yourself a Bass Boat, get a job, save up the money or go to the bank (and that's not the Bank of Apple!).
I believe that if you have a case, and if a lawyer feels or knows they will make a pile of money, they will take on your case, if they KNOW it will cost you and them, because they can't just sue because it's good for a few thousand token dollars to settle out of court, then they won't file the lawsuit.
And yes, I'm sure Class Action Lawsuits will drop in numbers, when the lawyers know - they can't get rich off of others misfortunes. Again, if a product really warrants a Class Action Lawsuit, and can be won (and not settled out of court just to make folks happy), then I'm sure the suit will be filed.
Here's hoping Apple never sells or provides a free cup of HOT coffee with every iPhone purchased.
Apple and AT&T need to unlock those iphones that are out of contract. Since the users pay for the product, they should be able to use it any way they want after their contracts expire. Either that, or give those customers their money back. Perhaps AT&T and Apple can STOP SELLING those iPhones. Instead they can start leasing them. For example: GIVE the customer an iphone to use for as long as they are on AT&T. The customer, of course, needs to pay a deposit fee for the iPhone in case it gets lost or stolen. Once they no longer want to use AT&T, they can return the phone back to AT&T or Apple and get their deposit back provided the iPhone isn't abused. This is the model that DirecTV uses. Once my contract with them ends and I no longer wish to use DirecTV, I simply return the receiver to them. It's that easy.
[EDIT] If Apple, and AT&T do that, then there is no cause for a lawsuit. If the customer wishes to keep the iphone, they will need to pay for full price of the phone just like when you decide to keep the DirecTV receiver... which is useless to the user who doesn't use DirecTV anyway.
The way it is now is just fine Apple nor AT&T put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy an iPhone which they know come with a contract and with AT&T's service.
I have had the 3G, the 3GS and now the iPhone 4, and I am not crying, so grow up people and quit crying like babies.
And the service is not as bad as some people try to claim, I travel all over this country and 90% of the time I have 3G service.
Comments
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.
This is not new to any US carrier.
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).
That is exactly what you should do. Good luck.
as far as I'm aware: in the US there is:
AT&T - GSM - global standard
T-mobile - GSM
verizon - CDMA
Sprint - CDMA
virgin mobile - CDMA
apple decided to go with the global standard, gsm. The only other compatable network is t-mobile and their 3G won't work with iPhone.
Since Customers cant force apple to make new hardware or change existing hardware they have 3 choices:
Stick with AT&T
Get apple to go T-mobile - but you don't get 3G!!!
shut up and stop winging that the US uses ancient CDMA technology.
Thats right. I'm sure AT&T doesn't care who you use your iPhone with if you pay the termination fee. There is after all only one option. The termination fee and using the phone unlocked has nothing to do with the exclusivity agreement.
It seems their lawsuit is worded wrong. AT&T isn't doing the restricting, it is the other carriers that don't support their standard and frequencies. It is of course impossible for the other carriers to support the phone because they would be interfering with AT&T's FCC licensed spectrum.
Most phones are single carrier. There are few (if any) phones that will run on multiple carriers in the United States.
Exactly who is affected by what is specified in this lawsuit? People moving to Canada? Those people are probably better off selling their phone on eBay and signing another 2 year agreement anyway. It doesn't matter if you have a contract or not, you still pay the same amount. I had to sign up for a two year agreement in the past with AT&T for a phone I already owned so there may not even be a way out of signing up without a contract anyway.
Patel write on Friday that it's possible the continuing lawsuit could yield more information on the terms of the private contract between Apple and AT&T.
"While we're definitely curious to see if the plaintiffs can... win something more than a token settlement, we're far more interested to see if they can get any more documentation from Apple nailing down its actual agreement with AT&T," he wrote.
With any lawsuit, there is a process of discovery where parties and witnesses must bring with them any written documents that form the basis of Court proceedings, support the position of a party or confirm the testimony of a witness.
Apple and AT&T Mobile cannot possibly escape the public scrutiny of their agreements which will be examined by the Court and lawyers for any illegal, abusive or anti-competitive provisions.
American Antitrust authorities should have examined these documents to determine their legality and pro-competitive character, but failing such an examination, the Court will now examine them at the request of iPhone buyers and their lawyers.
Similarly, California and New York Consumer Protection Agencies should have sued Apple and AT&T Mobile to access these agreements and determine their legality and compliance with State Consumer Protection laws, but failing that, iPhone buyers and their lawyers must now use the Court system to seek justice and quash these agreements, possibly suing for billions if any law was broken.
There is nothing like self-help.
Wrong link?
Look at post 113... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=113
Look at post 113... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=113
For your sake I hope Apple wins.
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.
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
Nobody really knows how much AT&T is paying. The rumors are that AT&T is paying more to Apple for new customers then existing customers. On top of subsidizing the phone, AT&T is also paying a certain amount per month per iphone. If I remember right, analysts think it averages about $12 a month. The cost of an iPhone is around $700. I'm not sure where this $300 amount people are throwing around is coming from. It should be more like $500 after subsidization that AT&T is paying plus around $244 a year in monthly costs. For a two year agreement, AT&T may be paying about $1000 to Apple. I may be way off, but it has got to be a lot closer then some of the estimates in this forum. For a $70/month plan, AT&T wouldn't start making money until the second year. For some iPhone 4 users, they may have only made money on them for 6 months. I think things fare better for AT&T with their enterprise customers. I'm pretty sure my company pays more then $100 a month for my phone.
For your sake I hope Apple wins.
I'd love to see a link for that. Thanks.
Here:
"AT&T said Wednesday that third quarter sales were boosted by a larger than expected number of iPhone 3G activations, resulting in long-term value at the expense of near-term profits."
Nobody really knows how much AT&T is paying. The rumors are that AT&T is paying more to Apple for new customers then existing customers. On top of subsidizing the phone, AT&T is also paying a certain amount per month per iphone. If I remember right, analysts think it averages about $12 a month. The cost of an iPhone is around $700. I'm not sure where this $300 amount people are throwing around is coming from. It should be more like $500 after subsidization that AT&T is paying plus around $244 a year in monthly costs. For a two year agreement, AT&T may be paying about $1000 to Apple. I may be way off, but it has got to be a lot closer then some of the estimates in this forum. For a $70/month plan, AT&T wouldn't start making money until the second year. For some iPhone 4 users, they may have only made money on them for 6 months. I think things fare better for AT&T with their enterprise customers. I'm pretty sure my company pays more then $100 a month for my phone.
Apple said that they get the full price from carriers but also noted that some international carriers may pay more than others. Furthermore, the shared monthly revenue plan, where Apple gets part of the monthly payments from carriers, ended when Apple released iPhone 3G in 2008.
So, Apple get around $600 (for 16GB iPhone) and AT&T gets $200 from customers. This means AT&T is paying $400 for each iPhone. No monthly payments to Apple from AT&T.
Then monopoly on what? On their own product? Which is protected by patents?
I am certain that it is correct that no one else is allowed to produce iPhone except Apple - because it is their product.
But yeah, it sucks that after 2 years and contract expiration i can not use my iPhone anymore, since I moved to other carrier. And it collects dust...
That should be changed by official unlock service.
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.
Are you sure?
My understanding is that after you have complied fully with your contract, i.e., by purchasing it outright, completing your multi-year data plan or buying out of the data plan during the contract period, the iPhone is yours. Period.
Unlock it. Use it on another carrier of your choice. Put a foreign Sim card in it.
As many have posted, only AT&T has the network in the US to provide all the functionality that the iPhone was featured to provide. So if you are happy with that, well, that is an individual choice.
However, AT&T and Apple are just not obligated to provide support for an unlocked iPhone. They are not obligated to ensure that updates or apps will work or be required to help you get them to work on an unlocked iPhone.*
The only legal issue that one really has to worry about would be trying to profit from the activity.?**
* http://www.iphone-codes.com/20100418...ock-an-iphone/
? http://www.tuaw.com/2007/08/26/is-it...k-your-iphone/
** http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/24/k...ock-my-iphone/
FYI: http://iphone.unlock.no/
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.
It is your hardware. But you don't own the software that makes it run only on ATT.
But yeah, it sucks that after 2 years and contract expiration i can not use my iPhone anymore, since I moved to other carrier. And it collects dust...
That should be changed by official unlock service.
as shown above by Joe_hs, which network would you "use" it with other than AT&T? T-Mobile is the only option, and apparently there would be no 3G...
the only issue here for mine (as a non-US resident) is getting a phone unlocked for use when going overseas. that, and it actually makes no sense that AT&T don't allow it to be unlocked (because you can't use it to it's full capabilities on another network).
I have been with Orange UK almost since its inception. I have been on £25 pmth and £35 pmth 12-month contracts, and each year I would get a subsidised phone, either very low cost or even free-of-charge. At £35 per month, I was getting 500 pre-paid minutes, 100 SMS and free landline calls.
When I purchased the original iPhone (O2), there was no requirement to sign any fixed-term contracts, and within 20 minutes of getting home my iPhone was jailbroken, activated and unlocked. I simply put my Orange SIM in the iPhone and it worked. I changed my plan to SIM-only, and this brought my monthly subs to £15.
I skipped the 3G but bought a PAYG 3GS, again on O2 and again JB/unlocked the phone. I then had the iPhone officially unlocked by paying a one-off £15 fee but losing the data package -- no big deal for me as the iPad was on the horizon...
I am now on a £10 per month SIM-only package, get 600 pre-paid minutes, 600 SMS, free landline calls and "unlimited" (fair usage applies) data. I would get the same package on a £35 per month 24-month contract but I would have to pay £200 for the iPhone, plus £840 (35 x 24) for the whole package. At £10 per month I'm only spending £240 over 24 months (£800 less than the 24 month contract) with my 3GS. The unlocked iPhone4 from Apple only costs £600 so I can "upgrade and still spend £200 less.
Bottom line: your iPhone isn't subsidised, you're paying for it as part of your monthly subscription.
If you still have the original iPhone, just jailbreak it -- Apple doesn't even bother with updates to break jailbreaking anymore.
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..
AT&T just lost a broader law suit over this exact issue, covering every other phone they have sold. By what logic is it not OK to lock any Nomia, Motorola,'RIM, HTC, Samsung, or other vendors phones, but it is perfectly OK to lock the iPhone?
By making the argument that the iPhone is different from all other phones, and should be excluded from the prior settlement, AT&T may have just made the case for a monopoly. It is silly, but they can not have their cake and eat it too. If it is a phone, unlock it like every other phone. If it is something unique, you have a monopoly and are violating anti trust laws. Since the last law suit on locked phones made it to a settlement with AT&T forced to unlock old phones and change their policy on new phones, I can not see how a lawsuit seeking equal treatment for iPhones is frivolous or likely to go nowhere.
BTW, where in my contract does it state that my phone will remain locked to the carrier after the terms of the contract have been completed? It was clear that I needed to maintain a 2 yr contract with AT&T but they did not tell consumers that the device would be permanently locked to AT&T. Given the precedent of other phones that were initially locked, getting carrier or manufacturer unlocks, there is no validity to the "you should have known it would stay locked" argument unless they put it in writing. They did not, so the terms of the initial sale were misleading.
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..
The monopoly aspects of the case may go nowhere but carriers have consistently been ordered to unlock phones and this case will be no different in that regard.
once the contract term has expired?
as far as I'm aware: in the US there is:
AT&T - GSM - global standard
T-mobile - GSM
verizon - CDMA
Sprint - CDMA
virgin mobile - CDMA
apple decided to go with the global standard, gsm. The only other compatable network is t-mobile and their 3G won't work with iPhone.
Since Customers cant force apple to make new hardware or change existing hardware they have 3 choices:
Stick with AT&T
Get apple to go T-mobile - but you don't get 3G!!!
shut up and stop winging that the US uses ancient CDMA technology.
Yes, but locking your phone to ATT eventhough 2 year agreement had expired is a robbery. I came back from Europe 3 weeks ago, unable to swap SIMs there so I had to pay $2.50 for each minute of. Luckily I found an old unlocked Nokia, but still it sucks having iPhone with all info I need and not be able to use it.
When my 2 year contract expired I took my 1st gen. iPhone to Apple store to unlock it. The guy laughed and told me to jailbreak it myself instead, because he would be fired if he'd do it.
Actually, I think that they might have a case about people being unable to unlock their phones. I just bought an iPhone4, and committed to AT&T for a 2-year contract... why can't I go to Europe, slip a sim card into the phone and use it there? I'm still paying the AT&T contract, and there is no technological reason I can't (the same model phone works just fine on Orange in the UK).
I don't really think that kind of logic is what's motivating the people suing, but it is a reasonable question, and one that I wouldn't mind seeing addressed.
Thank you. This is exactly, verbatim, what I have been saying for 2 years since I bought our 3G's and now with our 4's. I'm paying our bill monthly. I want to use the phone in Italy or France for 2 weeks with another SIM card. Why not? Why am I supposed to ask a friend in Rome to call me on a New York number when I'm a mile away? Its absurd. ATT unlocked my Samsung GSM phones which I bought in 2005 on contract. We used them here and in Europe. (And still use them actually). It's blatantly unfair.
I couldn't agree more. And I think it should be, "If you are suing someone for 1 million dollars, and you lose (because it's dumb lawsuit brought on be greedy lawyers) - they YOU have to pay the 1 million dollars to those who you sued, oh, and their legal fees to defend themselves against the dumb ass lawsuits like the one you just brought on.
Hey, if all you want is a quick $5,000.00 so you can go out and buy yourself a Bass Boat, get a job, save up the money or go to the bank (and that's not the Bank of Apple!).
I believe that if you have a case, and if a lawyer feels or knows they will make a pile of money, they will take on your case, if they KNOW it will cost you and them, because they can't just sue because it's good for a few thousand token dollars to settle out of court, then they won't file the lawsuit.
And yes, I'm sure Class Action Lawsuits will drop in numbers, when the lawyers know - they can't get rich off of others misfortunes. Again, if a product really warrants a Class Action Lawsuit, and can be won (and not settled out of court just to make folks happy), then I'm sure the suit will be filed.
Here's hoping Apple never sells or provides a free cup of HOT coffee with every iPhone purchased.
Skip
Apple and AT&T need to unlock those iphones that are out of contract. Since the users pay for the product, they should be able to use it any way they want after their contracts expire. Either that, or give those customers their money back. Perhaps AT&T and Apple can STOP SELLING those iPhones. Instead they can start leasing them. For example: GIVE the customer an iphone to use for as long as they are on AT&T. The customer, of course, needs to pay a deposit fee for the iPhone in case it gets lost or stolen. Once they no longer want to use AT&T, they can return the phone back to AT&T or Apple and get their deposit back provided the iPhone isn't abused. This is the model that DirecTV uses. Once my contract with them ends and I no longer wish to use DirecTV, I simply return the receiver to them. It's that easy.
[EDIT] If Apple, and AT&T do that, then there is no cause for a lawsuit. If the customer wishes to keep the iphone, they will need to pay for full price of the phone just like when you decide to keep the DirecTV receiver... which is useless to the user who doesn't use DirecTV anyway.
The way it is now is just fine Apple nor AT&T put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy an iPhone which they know come with a contract and with AT&T's service.
I have had the 3G, the 3GS and now the iPhone 4, and I am not crying, so grow up people and quit crying like babies.
And the service is not as bad as some people try to claim, I travel all over this country and 90% of the time I have 3G service.