The iPhone isn't being 'discriminated" against. The iPhone differs in one major way from other cell phones on a carrier. AT&T may lock all their phones, but if you are using a Sony or a Nokia or a Motorola or a Samsung or an LG, they will provide you an unlock code if you tell them you are travelling. With an iPhone, they apparently won't. Thing is, the iPhone is where you especially need to have the device unlocked in order to travel, because with a RAZR or something you can just limit the number of calls you make to a bare minimum, but with the iPhone, as several people have already pointed out, it's going to be accessing the network all the time whether you like it or not.
It's really egregious, and it means that if you do any travelling, you're going to have to have a spare phone from another manufacturer for that purpose.
Thing is, he admits he knew this. So he could have asked for the code ahead of time, and found out there was no code. Did he do this? Noooo. So he knew he would be paying roaming charges (according to the contract) which he should have read.
The only small hitch I see here, may be the fact, that you and a couple others mentioned, that the Apple iPhone cannot be stopped from checking the network for mail, etc. But again, Apple does state you will pay roaming charges ("International Roaming: Substantial charges may be incurred if phone is taken out of the U.S. even if no services are intentionally used.") and it does state "even if no services are intentionally used", which Apple could say covers this.
= Accept the world sucks and don't try to change it??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig
That McDonalds coffee lawsuit was perfectly valid. The coffee was being served far hotter than it should have been. People always bring this lawsuit up as an example, but it really is the poorest example you could choose to use.
"hotter than it should have been" - according to who???? Starbucks currently sells coffee hotter than mcdonalds, home coffee machines can make coffee hotter than 'it should have been'. Its about personal responsibility as a consumer. It is a perfect example of how Americans would rather sue than actually take the responsibility for their actions.
If I am going to travel internationally with an iPhone, heck, even out of state, I am going to check my coverage, and see what additional roaming charges I may incur - IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY as a consumer.
"hotter than it should have been" - according to who???? Starbucks currently sells coffee hotter than mcdonalds, home coffee machines can make coffee hotter than 'it should have been'. Its about personal responsibility as a consumer.
So, you're saying that it's impossible for coffee to be served too hot to a consumer?
So, you're saying that it's impossible for coffee to be served too hot to a consumer?
what are you saying? that the iPhone should be available on EVERY cellular network.
"Apple of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices by failing to properly disclose to iPhone buyers that their phones would be locked to only work with AT&T SIM cards and that the unlock codes would not be provided."
Yeah, I bought the iPhone to use on my Verizon plan. They did not disclose to me the type of network I have to use. I am now going to sue.
Great news, I'd love to see it unlocked--it would suck for AT&T but wouldn't be bad for Apple at all.
Yes it would. Less money for Apple long term especially if they intro cheaper phones....
Apple has a revenue sharing agreement with ATT. They get part of the monthly fee ATT charges to use the phone. This is why no other carrier would go with them and it is an industry first.
Didn't he see any of the iPhone ads? Which part of "Only on the new AT&T" didn't he understand?
Also:
"Injured"? What, like physically? Mentally? Financially? Don't you just love it when lawyers use dramatic language like this to stir up a fuss
Injured in this use is a legal term. It doesn't necessarily mean "hurt" in the way we consider it. This make sense if you consider the etymology of the word. the "jure" is much like "jury" and many other j and i words and terms related to the legal field.
what are you saying? that the iPhone should be available on EVERY cellular network.
"Apple of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices by failing to properly disclose to iPhone buyers that their phones would be locked to only work with AT&T SIM cards and that the unlock codes would not be provided."
Yeah, I bought the iPhone to use on my Verizon plan. They did not disclose to me the type of network I have to use. I am now going to sue.
I think he was pointing out that your dissertation on coffee hotness was ridiculous
Then you go ahead and top it with the Verizon analogy
Well, the guy is correct, there really was probably no way to easily know that AT&T would treat international roaming differently than every other phone they sell. You could probably even ask some of their sales people today and they wouldn't have a clue. In fact when the iPhone came out, I remember people discussing here that they should be able to do this. So, he is probably due some kind of refund (allthough, not looking into international roaming charges before a trip is not an excuse).
But, if the guy wants to sue Apple to force them to sell unlocked phones ... well, there's nothing in US law to force them to do that. He needs to move to Europe or elsewhere where governments actually make laws to encourage competition and protect consumers rather than pander to big business.
= Accept the world sucks and don't try to change it??
You can change things. Vote with your wallet. That's how capitalism works, not mucking around with lawyers and crap like that, suing because you're an irresponsible pinhead who didn't even read the contract you signed.
i guess it would be inevitable that someone would sue over international charges. If ATT would give it to you out of their own accord just bring in a lawyer to do. According to my manager, when cingular was the only company with the razr they would not give out the unlock for them at the time, so precedent is on their side. If he did call in before going to Mexico, he would have known that he couldn't use a foreign, why did he use the data part of the phone. Oh well ATT will probably settle with the guy and credit his account for the overages to save the bad press.
Seems like this guy just wants to get out of paying his bill, but maybe he'll end up with an extra fee for the lawyers as well after he loses.
Attorneys usually work on contingency in these types of cases. Dare I say, the attorney may even have been a persuasive influence in the decision to file a suit in the first place.
But on the other hand how would you feel if simply by leaving your cell phone on, you were unknowingly accessing data over Edge and ended up with an unexpected $2,000 invoice? Not too happy I'm assuming.
How they could pretend that the advertisement wasn't enough clear?
When I read the post, I couldn't believe my eyes...
Please: instead of buying phones and bore us with your foolish demands, buy a bicycle and ride through the country, relax, take a deep breath and, most of all, get lost.
I think he was pointing out that your dissertation on coffee hotness was ridiculous
Then you go ahead and top it with the Verizon analogy
what's ridiculous are these lawsuits - whether its coffeee or the iPhone.
Educate yourself, don't be stupid to put hot coffee between your legs, don't buy the iPhone if you don't want AT&T, don't sue a company because YOU made an assumption on roaming charges. No company OWES you an iPhone. Nobody owes you a phone to use with any network you want. Nobody owes you international unlimited airtime just because you THOUGHT you were getting it.
what's ridiculous are these lawsuits - whether its coffeee or the iPhone.
Educate yourself, don't be stupid to put hot coffee between your legs, don't buy the iPhone if you don't want AT&T, don't sue a company because YOU made an assumption on roaming charges. No company OWES you an iPhone. Nobody owes you a phone to use with any network you want. Nobody owes you international unlimited airtime just because you THOUGHT you were getting it.
You are correct, about nobody owing anything, but still iPhone is sold as a GSM phone, and GSM phones were designed, with removable and changeable SIM cards on purpose.
Comments
The iPhone isn't being 'discriminated" against. The iPhone differs in one major way from other cell phones on a carrier. AT&T may lock all their phones, but if you are using a Sony or a Nokia or a Motorola or a Samsung or an LG, they will provide you an unlock code if you tell them you are travelling. With an iPhone, they apparently won't. Thing is, the iPhone is where you especially need to have the device unlocked in order to travel, because with a RAZR or something you can just limit the number of calls you make to a bare minimum, but with the iPhone, as several people have already pointed out, it's going to be accessing the network all the time whether you like it or not.
It's really egregious, and it means that if you do any travelling, you're going to have to have a spare phone from another manufacturer for that purpose.
Thing is, he admits he knew this. So he could have asked for the code ahead of time, and found out there was no code. Did he do this? Noooo. So he knew he would be paying roaming charges (according to the contract) which he should have read.
The only small hitch I see here, may be the fact, that you and a couple others mentioned, that the Apple iPhone cannot be stopped from checking the network for mail, etc. But again, Apple does state you will pay roaming charges ("International Roaming: Substantial charges may be incurred if phone is taken out of the U.S. even if no services are intentionally used.") and it does state "even if no services are intentionally used", which Apple could say covers this.
= Accept the world sucks and don't try to change it??
That McDonalds coffee lawsuit was perfectly valid. The coffee was being served far hotter than it should have been. People always bring this lawsuit up as an example, but it really is the poorest example you could choose to use.
"hotter than it should have been" - according to who???? Starbucks currently sells coffee hotter than mcdonalds, home coffee machines can make coffee hotter than 'it should have been'. Its about personal responsibility as a consumer. It is a perfect example of how Americans would rather sue than actually take the responsibility for their actions.
If I am going to travel internationally with an iPhone, heck, even out of state, I am going to check my coverage, and see what additional roaming charges I may incur - IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY as a consumer.
"hotter than it should have been" - according to who???? Starbucks currently sells coffee hotter than mcdonalds, home coffee machines can make coffee hotter than 'it should have been'. Its about personal responsibility as a consumer.
So, you're saying that it's impossible for coffee to be served too hot to a consumer?
Airuser
So, you're saying that it's impossible for coffee to be served too hot to a consumer?
what are you saying? that the iPhone should be available on EVERY cellular network.
"Apple of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices by failing to properly disclose to iPhone buyers that their phones would be locked to only work with AT&T SIM cards and that the unlock codes would not be provided."
Yeah, I bought the iPhone to use on my Verizon plan. They did not disclose to me the type of network I have to use. I am now going to sue.
Great news, I'd love to see it unlocked--it would suck for AT&T but wouldn't be bad for Apple at all.
Yes it would. Less money for Apple long term especially if they intro cheaper phones....
Apple has a revenue sharing agreement with ATT. They get part of the monthly fee ATT charges to use the phone. This is why no other carrier would go with them and it is an industry first.
Didn't he see any of the iPhone ads? Which part of "Only on the new AT&T" didn't he understand?
Also:
"Injured"? What, like physically? Mentally? Financially? Don't you just love it when lawyers use dramatic language like this to stir up a fuss
Injured in this use is a legal term. It doesn't necessarily mean "hurt" in the way we consider it. This make sense if you consider the etymology of the word. the "jure" is much like "jury" and many other j and i words and terms related to the legal field.
what are you saying? that the iPhone should be available on EVERY cellular network.
"Apple of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices by failing to properly disclose to iPhone buyers that their phones would be locked to only work with AT&T SIM cards and that the unlock codes would not be provided."
Yeah, I bought the iPhone to use on my Verizon plan. They did not disclose to me the type of network I have to use. I am now going to sue.
I think he was pointing out that your dissertation on coffee hotness was ridiculous
Then you go ahead and top it with the Verizon analogy
But, if the guy wants to sue Apple to force them to sell unlocked phones ... well, there's nothing in US law to force them to do that. He needs to move to Europe or elsewhere where governments actually make laws to encourage competition and protect consumers rather than pander to big business.
= Accept the world sucks and don't try to change it??
You can change things. Vote with your wallet. That's how capitalism works, not mucking around with lawyers and crap like that, suing because you're an irresponsible pinhead who didn't even read the contract you signed.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireles...d_N.htm?csp=34
Perhaps unlocking will happen eventually anyway.
Seems like this guy just wants to get out of paying his bill, but maybe he'll end up with an extra fee for the lawyers as well after he loses.
Seems like this guy just wants to get out of paying his bill, but maybe he'll end up with an extra fee for the lawyers as well after he loses.
Attorneys usually work on contingency in these types of cases. Dare I say, the attorney may even have been a persuasive influence in the decision to file a suit in the first place.
But on the other hand how would you feel if simply by leaving your cell phone on, you were unknowingly accessing data over Edge and ended up with an unexpected $2,000 invoice? Not too happy I'm assuming.
m
I completely agree with you!
How they could pretend that the advertisement wasn't enough clear?
When I read the post, I couldn't believe my eyes...
Please: instead of buying phones and bore us with your foolish demands, buy a bicycle and ride through the country, relax, take a deep breath and, most of all, get lost.
Please.
Amen!
I think he was pointing out that your dissertation on coffee hotness was ridiculous
Then you go ahead and top it with the Verizon analogy
what's ridiculous are these lawsuits - whether its coffeee or the iPhone.
Educate yourself, don't be stupid to put hot coffee between your legs, don't buy the iPhone if you don't want AT&T, don't sue a company because YOU made an assumption on roaming charges. No company OWES you an iPhone. Nobody owes you a phone to use with any network you want. Nobody owes you international unlimited airtime just because you THOUGHT you were getting it.
what's ridiculous are these lawsuits - whether its coffeee or the iPhone.
Educate yourself, don't be stupid to put hot coffee between your legs, don't buy the iPhone if you don't want AT&T, don't sue a company because YOU made an assumption on roaming charges. No company OWES you an iPhone. Nobody owes you a phone to use with any network you want. Nobody owes you international unlimited airtime just because you THOUGHT you were getting it.
You are correct, about nobody owing anything, but still iPhone is sold as a GSM phone, and GSM phones were designed, with removable and changeable SIM cards on purpose.