You may not know this, but I can already use my iPhone with T-Mobile. Also, if Apple is stupid enough to release an iPhone with a CDMA chip, I'll be able to use it with Sprint, too.
Sincerely,
Everyone with an inkling of how to jailbreak/unlock.
Dear "Everyone With an Inkling",
You make up a very small percentage of the population and will likely remain so regardless of your threats. Go ahead and bolt to T-Mobile or Sprint. Make our day.
I don't think you understand things as well as you are trying to make us believe. iPhone as it is now works on T-Mobile EDGE because they and AT&T use the same frequencies. Sprint and Verizon do not. Yes, they are both CDMA, but without a radio capable of talking to specific frequencies, it is a moot point. Also, you can't just simply unlock a CDMA device, since there is no SIM card you can just swap into it. You literally HAVE to have a carrier activate the phone, so good luck with that process too, even if you did have compatible frequencies.
People unlock Verizon phones for use on Cricket here in Phoenix. $55 per month for unlimited everything.
And? I'll continue to do it, as will millions of others. We'll enjoy our network of choice.
I'm pretty sure that the other poster's point (which is mine as well) is that Verizon doesn't care about the small fraction of people that could jailbreak and migrate to another (competing) carrier. It's just too small of a number to impact their business decisions. Your "letter" made it seem like you were bringing something to Verizon's attention that they should really care about. They shouldn't.
By the way, I too have a jail-broken iPhone. Saying that people like us don't really effect Verizon's business model much is not the same thing as saying that you shouldn't be doing it.
So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.
I really don't believe that Apple cares much whether a small fraction of people jailbreak their phones.
This report lost all credibility the moment I saw the name Shaw Wu. The guy is a total Moran. His rate of correct predictions is in single digits. And more often than not he has basic facts all wrong.
A Verizon iPhone is still just a rumor. Yes it is a very likely rumor but at this point it is not confirmed by any party actually in the know. All these suppliers could be leaking this stuff to raise their stocks. Or it could be that yes Apple ordered the parts, but for the iPad, not the phone. And given the lack of proof that the AT&T contract is ending this year or could be paid off to end this year, it is possible that Apple is mealy in the beginning phases of working out if a Verizon iPhone is worth the efforts needed.
Also given all the flack over the years it seems a foolish move for Apple to enter into any kind of exclusive deals. Wu hasn't shown us why Apple would benefit from such a term, rather than being open to both Verizon and Sprint and letting consumers choose what they wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
I don't think it's essential to add Sprint and t-mobile.
But what is the harm. There are some areas, particularly in the Midwest where sprint and t-mobile have the better service, so why should they be cut out on the whim of some outside company that wants to demand terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx
Just start selling unlocked and unsubsidized phones in the USA the way it is done elsewhere and be done with this carrier-exclusive BS. .
I am inclined to agree with you. Or rather make it an option. I go to Apple, I buy it full price, unlocked. If I choose to go to a carrier for a deal then yes it can be locked to that carrier for the period of that deal, with the right to buy out early via paying the ETF
But at the same time, service fees and device costs should be separate line items. If I am not paying back a device subsidy I should not have to pay the same monthly as someone paying for the same level of service plus his device. And the device cost should be spread equally across the months of the contract, spelled out on each monthly bill and the ETF should be the remaining cost, not a penny more or less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazimzadeh
also better if Apple can get on Verizon without compromising on other details, such as a separate Verizon app store, Verizon managed music store, and Verizon stickers on the phone.
Those a likely the terms Apple put on the table that Verizon is allegedly willing to agree to if they have a contract exclusivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
And you're probably thinking that Apple must still support you even after jailbreaking your phone?
I am torn on this issue. Yes jail breaking is legal in the US. And yes it is legal for Apple to not support the phones if you do it. But if the issue does come from the jailbreak then why shouldn't it be supported, especially if you can restore the phone to factory settings and the problem still exists. So in cases like that i'm not going to damn someone to h*ll for a little subterfuge. It is tacky but understandable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
I fear Apple has grown addicted to the money it makes from subsidy.
Apple isn't making that money. AT&T is. Apple might get a tiny cut of perhaps 5%, but the vast majority of that subsidy goes to the carrier. Apple's money was made when AT&T bought the phones at full price from them.
Do people really think this is unusual? How do you think AT&T exclusivity works? AT&T just said "hey, would you mind not letting VZN or the others get their hands on the iPhone?" They're paying AAPL for exclusivity. Now VZN will pay for semi-exclusivity. Nothing illegal about this. It happens with just about every phone.
Meanwhile, great news for AAPL. More money for nothing (margins up!), while they're more than doubling their potential customer base in the US.
Doesn't matter if it's unusual. You have pissed off new york senators and agency heads not liking the apple/att exclusive ... so you can kiss those deals good buy within 2-5 years.
No BS is telling you what you can do with your equipment after you completed the terms of the contract. If you sign up for a two year contract and complete the terms of it, but afterwards by no means other than software, Apple and others desire to keep you from using your device, then it is morally right to circumvent this just as it is morally right to lie to a man with a gun who wants to murder the child hiding in your closet when asked the child's location.
One can hope...
There's a difference between the terms of AT&T's service contract and the EULA you agreed to when you bought the phone. You agreed to a set of rules. Now you're breaking those rules. You're like an unruly child with a new toy - mine! mine! mine!.
Some people love the iPhone, but hate that Apple tells them what they can and can't install on it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with jailbreaking, and your comment just sums up what it is to be a mindless follower.
I would bet money that Steve Jobs has an unlocked iphone.
Well, he is on an enterprise network. A company can distribute what apps they like. It does not require jailbreaking.
IME, in big deals like this, there are dozens of different things that the two sides want, with varying degrees of importance. So there are dozens of different points of leverage.
My guess is that 30 -50 percent greater iPhone sales in the US might be a point of leverage that Apple values highly. But I'm less likely to come to any real firm conclusions on complicated situations. Especially wheen I have no hard information.
And? I'll continue to do it, as will millions of others. We'll enjoy our network of choice.
Voids it if you're foolish enough to take it to an Apple Store without having restored to the stock firmware, sure.
I would really like to know how he got the fact that
"Dear Tallest Skil,
The VAST majority of iPhone owners do not jailbreak their phones.
Sincerely,
Reality"
most of the people that don't, dont know how or is too lazy. there is nothing wrong with jailbreaking your phone for functions that apple does not offer because most third-party developed apps are relatively unstable. But if you know how to fix your own phone, there is no reason why you shouldn't jailbreak.
and again, to 2cents' post:
"Jailbreaking an iPhone voids the warranty and support... It's not a good idea anyway"
you're a dumbass. unless you're being sarcastic, then im sorry.
Do people really think this is unusual? How do you think AT&T exclusivity works? AT&T just said "hey, would you mind not letting VZN or the others get their hands on the iPhone?" They're paying AAPL for exclusivity. Now VZN will pay for semi-exclusivity. Nothing illegal about this. It happens with just about every phone.
I think that the Feds sometimes frown upon combinations in restraint of trade.
When a smartphone with zero market share was made exclusive on ATT, who had less then half the market, I'm pretty sure nobody cared. But when the single most dominant smartphone is made exclusive the two oligopolistic carriers, who together own nearly all the market, I don't know enough to predict what might happen.
So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.
I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?
please curmudgeon, let the adults talk. go home and tell your mommy that we're doing something bad.
Taking the exclusivity money makes no sense given the likely reason they are moving to Verizon (i.e. the increase in potential audience).
I can't see Verizon paying it either, as their biggest competition is AT&T and they already have iPhone. Between iPhone on Sprint, iPhone on T-Mobile and iPhone on Verizon most people are going to pick the network which rules the air anyway. From their perspective the strength of the network will win out anyway.
Now Verizon might be prepared to pay big for a 6 month exclusivity window on iPhone 5, but that is an entirely different proposition and one which I doubt Apple would be willing to grant.
I'm not sure that I would make the same guesses as you do.
One very important point no one has even mentioned in this thread is why Verizon and indeed AT&T are both desperate to keep the iPhone from T-Mo and Sprint. That reason is their monthly plan prices. Both T-Mo and Sprint would be far cheaper. I am a Sprint user with a discounted plan. I currently have an Evo and I think it is fair to assume my plan price would not change if the iPhone were available. I pay $50 a month which includes unlimited data, unlimited text messages, unlimited calls to any mobile network, and 500 minutes for calls to landlines between 7AM and 6PM on weekdays. Granted my plan is heavily discounted, but the standard Evo plan is only $79 and pretty much everyone qualifies for some type of discount. Corporate discounts can be as much as 28% off and people with a credit union account can get 10% off their bill.
Because T-Mo and Sprint are smaller, they have far cheaper and more flexible options for their plans. I have excellent coverage with Sprint and no dropped calls, unlike I had with Cingular before I switched. Sprint's 3G map is also a lot bigger than AT&T, but smaller than Verizon. I have stayed with Sprint because I am getting great service for an awesome price. SUre I would love to have an iPhone, but a similar plan on AT&T or Verizon would be over $100 a month. I like the iPhone, but not enough to pay an extra $600 to $800 a year.
So I would not be surprised if AT&T would work with Verizon to pressure Apple to keep the iPhone off of T-Mobile and Sprint. They know they can't keep their exclusivity, but at least with Verizon they know they will gouge their customers the same and not have to lower their plan rates.
How many of you wouldn't consider at least trying Sprint out since you have a 30 day full refund option
if they carried the iPhone and you could get it for around $70 a month with unlimited data?
So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.
I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?
Jailbreakers lost all their excuses now that the iPhone multitasks. Jailbreakers steal software. Period.
please curmudgeon, let the adults talk. go home and tell your mommy that we're doing something bad.
So it's adults that can blow off EULA's? Do you believe you get to ignore the EULA on software products? If Adobe declares in their EULA that installing PhotoShop on multiple computers is wrong, do adults get to ignore that and install it wherever they desire? You don't get to ignore the rules just because you don't like them. If you agreed to the rules, you must abide by the rules. That's what adults do.
Comments
Dear Verizon,
You may not know this, but I can already use my iPhone with T-Mobile. Also, if Apple is stupid enough to release an iPhone with a CDMA chip, I'll be able to use it with Sprint, too.
Sincerely,
Everyone with an inkling of how to jailbreak/unlock.
Dear "Everyone With an Inkling",
You make up a very small percentage of the population and will likely remain so regardless of your threats. Go ahead and bolt to T-Mobile or Sprint. Make our day.
Sincerely,
Verizon Business Managers
I don't think you understand things as well as you are trying to make us believe. iPhone as it is now works on T-Mobile EDGE because they and AT&T use the same frequencies. Sprint and Verizon do not. Yes, they are both CDMA, but without a radio capable of talking to specific frequencies, it is a moot point. Also, you can't just simply unlock a CDMA device, since there is no SIM card you can just swap into it. You literally HAVE to have a carrier activate the phone, so good luck with that process too, even if you did have compatible frequencies.
People unlock Verizon phones for use on Cricket here in Phoenix. $55 per month for unlimited everything.
And? I'll continue to do it, as will millions of others. We'll enjoy our network of choice.
I'm pretty sure that the other poster's point (which is mine as well) is that Verizon doesn't care about the small fraction of people that could jailbreak and migrate to another (competing) carrier. It's just too small of a number to impact their business decisions. Your "letter" made it seem like you were bringing something to Verizon's attention that they should really care about. They shouldn't.
By the way, I too have a jail-broken iPhone. Saying that people like us don't really effect Verizon's business model much is not the same thing as saying that you shouldn't be doing it.
Thompson
So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.
I really don't believe that Apple cares much whether a small fraction of people jailbreak their phones.
Thompson
A Verizon iPhone is still just a rumor. Yes it is a very likely rumor but at this point it is not confirmed by any party actually in the know. All these suppliers could be leaking this stuff to raise their stocks. Or it could be that yes Apple ordered the parts, but for the iPad, not the phone. And given the lack of proof that the AT&T contract is ending this year or could be paid off to end this year, it is possible that Apple is mealy in the beginning phases of working out if a Verizon iPhone is worth the efforts needed.
Also given all the flack over the years it seems a foolish move for Apple to enter into any kind of exclusive deals. Wu hasn't shown us why Apple would benefit from such a term, rather than being open to both Verizon and Sprint and letting consumers choose what they wish.
I don't think it's essential to add Sprint and t-mobile.
But what is the harm. There are some areas, particularly in the Midwest where sprint and t-mobile have the better service, so why should they be cut out on the whim of some outside company that wants to demand terms.
Just start selling unlocked and unsubsidized phones in the USA the way it is done elsewhere and be done with this carrier-exclusive BS. .
I am inclined to agree with you. Or rather make it an option. I go to Apple, I buy it full price, unlocked. If I choose to go to a carrier for a deal then yes it can be locked to that carrier for the period of that deal, with the right to buy out early via paying the ETF
But at the same time, service fees and device costs should be separate line items. If I am not paying back a device subsidy I should not have to pay the same monthly as someone paying for the same level of service plus his device. And the device cost should be spread equally across the months of the contract, spelled out on each monthly bill and the ETF should be the remaining cost, not a penny more or less.
also better if Apple can get on Verizon without compromising on other details, such as a separate Verizon app store, Verizon managed music store, and Verizon stickers on the phone.
Those a likely the terms Apple put on the table that Verizon is allegedly willing to agree to if they have a contract exclusivity.
And you're probably thinking that Apple must still support you even after jailbreaking your phone?
I am torn on this issue. Yes jail breaking is legal in the US. And yes it is legal for Apple to not support the phones if you do it. But if the issue does come from the jailbreak then why shouldn't it be supported, especially if you can restore the phone to factory settings and the problem still exists. So in cases like that i'm not going to damn someone to h*ll for a little subterfuge. It is tacky but understandable.
I fear Apple has grown addicted to the money it makes from subsidy.
Apple isn't making that money. AT&T is. Apple might get a tiny cut of perhaps 5%, but the vast majority of that subsidy goes to the carrier. Apple's money was made when AT&T bought the phones at full price from them.
This report lost all credibility the moment I saw the name Shaw Wu. The guy is a total Moran.
Thanks for enlightening us. All this time I thought Wu's ancestry was Oriental. The Irish connection explains everything!
Do people really think this is unusual? How do you think AT&T exclusivity works? AT&T just said "hey, would you mind not letting VZN or the others get their hands on the iPhone?" They're paying AAPL for exclusivity. Now VZN will pay for semi-exclusivity. Nothing illegal about this. It happens with just about every phone.
Meanwhile, great news for AAPL. More money for nothing (margins up!), while they're more than doubling their potential customer base in the US.
Doesn't matter if it's unusual. You have pissed off new york senators and agency heads not liking the apple/att exclusive ... so you can kiss those deals good buy within 2-5 years.
Morally right does not equal contract language.
No BS is telling you what you can do with your equipment after you completed the terms of the contract. If you sign up for a two year contract and complete the terms of it, but afterwards by no means other than software, Apple and others desire to keep you from using your device, then it is morally right to circumvent this just as it is morally right to lie to a man with a gun who wants to murder the child hiding in your closet when asked the child's location.
One can hope...
There's a difference between the terms of AT&T's service contract and the EULA you agreed to when you bought the phone. You agreed to a set of rules. Now you're breaking those rules. You're like an unruly child with a new toy - mine! mine! mine!.
Seems to me this is just as important a part of the quote. Why is it android is losing its luster?
Its an anti-trust action and/or collusion to suppress competition.
To pay a vendor not to sell with others and prohibit competition in that manner is a monopolistic act.
Thats even more flagarant than Apple's monopolistic practices against Adobe...
The feds would never allow Verizon to do this.
Thats even more flagarant than Apple's monopolistic practices against Adobe...
And it suddenly appears you have no idea what you're talking about.
Some people love the iPhone, but hate that Apple tells them what they can and can't install on it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with jailbreaking, and your comment just sums up what it is to be a mindless follower.
I would bet money that Steve Jobs has an unlocked iphone.
Well, he is on an enterprise network. A company can distribute what apps they like. It does not require jailbreaking.
Jailbreaking an iPhone voids the warranty and support... It's not a good idea anyway
please tell me thats sarcasm. as of right now, im laughing as if it is.
Apple has the leverage. Verizon has none.
IME, in big deals like this, there are dozens of different things that the two sides want, with varying degrees of importance. So there are dozens of different points of leverage.
My guess is that 30 -50 percent greater iPhone sales in the US might be a point of leverage that Apple values highly. But I'm less likely to come to any real firm conclusions on complicated situations. Especially wheen I have no hard information.
And? I'll continue to do it, as will millions of others. We'll enjoy our network of choice.
Voids it if you're foolish enough to take it to an Apple Store without having restored to the stock firmware, sure.
I would really like to know how he got the fact that
"Dear Tallest Skil,
The VAST majority of iPhone owners do not jailbreak their phones.
Sincerely,
Reality"
most of the people that don't, dont know how or is too lazy. there is nothing wrong with jailbreaking your phone for functions that apple does not offer because most third-party developed apps are relatively unstable. But if you know how to fix your own phone, there is no reason why you shouldn't jailbreak.
and again, to 2cents' post:
"Jailbreaking an iPhone voids the warranty and support... It's not a good idea anyway"
you're a dumbass. unless you're being sarcastic, then im sorry.
@Curmudgeon:
**** you and your ethics. who are you to say whether I qualify for apple's updates or not.
go buy some other shitty phone, you're not qualified to use apple products. you don't deserve the quality and intelligence of technology.
Do people really think this is unusual? How do you think AT&T exclusivity works? AT&T just said "hey, would you mind not letting VZN or the others get their hands on the iPhone?" They're paying AAPL for exclusivity. Now VZN will pay for semi-exclusivity. Nothing illegal about this. It happens with just about every phone.
I think that the Feds sometimes frown upon combinations in restraint of trade.
When a smartphone with zero market share was made exclusive on ATT, who had less then half the market, I'm pretty sure nobody cared. But when the single most dominant smartphone is made exclusive the two oligopolistic carriers, who together own nearly all the market, I don't know enough to predict what might happen.
So as long as Apple doesn't know you're breaking the EULA....? This is like those criminals that only regret their crime after they're caught. If they're not caught, well no crime then. BS.
So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.
I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?
please curmudgeon, let the adults talk. go home and tell your mommy that we're doing something bad.
Taking the exclusivity money makes no sense given the likely reason they are moving to Verizon (i.e. the increase in potential audience).
I can't see Verizon paying it either, as their biggest competition is AT&T and they already have iPhone. Between iPhone on Sprint, iPhone on T-Mobile and iPhone on Verizon most people are going to pick the network which rules the air anyway. From their perspective the strength of the network will win out anyway.
Now Verizon might be prepared to pay big for a 6 month exclusivity window on iPhone 5, but that is an entirely different proposition and one which I doubt Apple would be willing to grant.
I'm not sure that I would make the same guesses as you do.
Because T-Mo and Sprint are smaller, they have far cheaper and more flexible options for their plans. I have excellent coverage with Sprint and no dropped calls, unlike I had with Cingular before I switched. Sprint's 3G map is also a lot bigger than AT&T, but smaller than Verizon. I have stayed with Sprint because I am getting great service for an awesome price. SUre I would love to have an iPhone, but a similar plan on AT&T or Verizon would be over $100 a month. I like the iPhone, but not enough to pay an extra $600 to $800 a year.
So I would not be surprised if AT&T would work with Verizon to pressure Apple to keep the iPhone off of T-Mobile and Sprint. They know they can't keep their exclusivity, but at least with Verizon they know they will gouge their customers the same and not have to lower their plan rates.
How many of you wouldn't consider at least trying Sprint out since you have a 30 day full refund option
if they carried the iPhone and you could get it for around $70 a month with unlimited data?
So you basically don't think EULA's exist? That you didn't agree to anything? Now that's mindless.
I'm not talking legal or illegal, but right and wrong. Continuing to take advantage of Apple's software support after jailbreaking your phone is morally wrong. Didn't your parents teach you right and wrong?
Jailbreakers lost all their excuses now that the iPhone multitasks. Jailbreakers steal software. Period.
please curmudgeon, let the adults talk. go home and tell your mommy that we're doing something bad.
So it's adults that can blow off EULA's? Do you believe you get to ignore the EULA on software products? If Adobe declares in their EULA that installing PhotoShop on multiple computers is wrong, do adults get to ignore that and install it wherever they desire? You don't get to ignore the rules just because you don't like them. If you agreed to the rules, you must abide by the rules. That's what adults do.