I'm sorry but I must reiterate - get a clue about monopolies!!
Most 'monopolistic behaviors' as you put it are just basic good business practices in a competitive environment AS LONG AS you are not a monopoly - which Apple and iPhone are NOT. It is only for monopolies that society chooses to curb these practices to encourage innovation, or control prices, etc. MSFT's practice with WMP and IE is no different than Apple's with Safari and QT/iTunes. It is because MSFT IS a monopoly that that practice was curbed.
There are NO monopoly issues with the iPhone.
Agreed--- the following from Wikipedia:
Monopoly power alone, without some act of wrongful exclusion or other legally cognizable anticompetitive conduct, is not prohibited. To the contrary, as the respected jurist Learned Hand noted, "[t]he successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins."[6] U.S. antitrust law thus does not attack monopoly power obtained through "superior skill, foresight and industry."[7]
The use of the word "monopoly" has for the most part here, been an abuse of the word. Ignorance is bliss but is darn hard to argue against.
Not that it rises to the level of making a lawsuit valid, nor that it obviates the fact that anyone trying to unlock an iPhone should know they're taking a risk for which Apple can't be held liable, there's a separate issue of whether any lock should be there in the first place. The lock is a deliberately anti-competitive business practice. The legal question is whether it's anti-competitive in a way that violates existing laws. It probably isn't. But I hope it is, or at least that laws are changed so such practices become illegal.
It's a business practice intended to help apple and ATT, but that doesn't make it "anti-competitive" (a term with a specific definition) or illegal.
Bundling things together, such as a phone and phone service, is legal as long as the products are related (they are) and it's not a monopoly (it's not).
Hoping it's illegal doesn't make it illegal. They're offering a product with terms, and you want to get the product and set your own terms. Sorry, it doesn't work like that, and pretending it's illegal doesn't help. If you don't like the terms, just buy a different phone.
If you don't like the terms, just buy a different phone.
I really, really wish people would stop repeating the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra as if that answers everything. It's a tiring, sadly predictable, and simpleminded way of boiling complex issues down casual toss-off aphorisms.
And if you don't like what I just said, please refrain from predictably transforming the above into a cartoonish, exaggerated parody of itself and then arguing against that straw man. Is that so much to ask for? I'd greatly appreciate it if for once someone on the internet could manage a nuanced disagreement with a nuanced position.
I really, really wish people would stop repeating the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra as if that answers everything. It's a tiring, sadly predictable, and simpleminded way of boiling complex issues down casual toss-off aphorisms.
And if you don't like what I just said, please refrain from predictably transforming the above into a cartoonish, exaggerated parody of itself and then arguing against that straw man. Is that so much to ask for? I'd greatly appreciate it if for once someone on the internet could manage a nuanced disagreement with a nuanced position.
Just couldn't resist. As they say good for the goose, good for the gander. Also, changing one cartoon into another is just too easy.
I'll stop saying don't like it don't buy it, if you'll stop dragging discussions of Apple and iPhone into discussions of 'telcom bad'. Almost all of the Apple/iPhone discussions on this issue are really about the state of wireless in the US and has NOTHING to do with Apple/iPhone. The 'don't like/don't buy' statement is the right answer to most of these discussions because there are so many choices. You want an unlocked phone, go buy it. You want to rant about locking of phones, go to another forum. Almost all of the issues here are not Apple's and can't be fixed by Apple and the iPhone.
You want to rant about locking of phones, go to another forum. Almost all of the issues here are not Apple's and can't be fixed by Apple and the iPhone.
These are discussion forums. People discuss related and tangential issues all the time -- that's what makes them interesting. It's not like we've wandered off into recipes for pancakes or Martian terraforming techniques.
The title of the thread is "Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices". You can't discuss that very well without getting into the reasons -- good or bad -- that lead someone to file a suit like that in the first place. That's going to lead to a discussion of Apple's business practices, including possibly negative opinions of practices which are nevertheless still within the law. It's going to lead to discussion of the Telco industry as a whole.
Further, I think what I'm saying is a lot more nuanced that "telcom bad". Perhaps telcom is basically good, but has just gotten in with a bad crowd.
I'm sorry but I must reiterate - get a clue about monopolies!!
Most 'monopolistic behaviors' as you put it are just basic good business practices in a competitive environment AS LONG AS you are not a monopoly - which Apple and iPhone are NOT. It is only for monopolies that society chooses to curb these practices to encourage innovation, or control prices, etc. MSFT's practice with WMP and IE is no different than Apple's with Safari and QT/iTunes. It is because MSFT IS a monopoly that that practice was curbed.
There are NO monopoly issues with the iPhone.
To say that a company (Apple) which had 0% of market could be characterized as being "monopolistic" within the market space in releasing their initial entry into the market is simply not credible. I find it odd also the number of phones which only work on one network that only Apple is essentially being sued for restricting choice. Very odd.
Exactly right. Nothing these users are doing is in violation of any law or contract. You can buy an iPhone (and it becomes YOUR PROPERTY without signing anything at all with AT&T. There is positively nothing outside the law or in violation of any legal agreements by unlocking your phone and using it with another carrier.
Apple is essentially going out of their way to force lock-in to one carrier in the US without any technical reason whatsoever. This is monopolistic. Those who buy an iPhone are not legally bound to have an AT&T account.
You are right. Just a thought though. Is the user obligated to run updates on the phone for it to continue to work. If Apple warned people that these updates might disable the phone, are not these people agreeing to the risk when the run the update?
These are discussion forums. People discuss related and tangential issues all the time -- that's what makes them interesting. It's not like we've wandered off into recipes for pancakes or Martian terraforming techniques.
The title of the thread is "Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices". You can't discuss that very well without getting into the reasons -- good or bad -- that lead someone to file a suit like that in the first place. That's going to lead to a discussion of Apple's business practices, including possibly negative opinions of practices which are nevertheless still within the law. It's going to lead to discussion of the Telco industry as a whole.
Further, I think what I'm saying is a lot more nuanced that "telcom bad". Perhaps telcom is basically good, but has just gotten in with a bad crowd.
I don't disagree but then I just think you need to put up woth the 'don't like don't buy' response.
There are always going to be people that can't be pleased, but I think the law suits brought up against Apple in this case are different. There are many people I know who refused to go back to AT&T and I did not want to myself. I had Cingular for many years and the customer service was horrible in my experience. On the other hand, I have all Mac computers and have been waiting for the iPhone for over a year before it was officially announced. I was crushed to learn I was going to be forced back to Cingular just so I could use it. I can unlock any phone manufactured from every manufacture out there and it is perfectly fine. Why should the iPhone be any different? Second, why shouldn't I be able to make my own ringtones out of songs I own. What if I make the song myself with garage band? What if I have my own band? Do I have to have Apple start selling my songs in order to use them as a ringtone? I think Apple's stance on this is wrong and not in the best interest of the customer. I understand that Apple has to please the record giants, but enough is enough. I am with Apple on basically everything except their position with the iPhone.
No, no. Do not take me out of context. I have never once said I thought Apple had a legal obligation to provide unlocked phones. They don't in the US. My previous posts on other threads specifically state that Apple should be required to provide a restore tool to bring the phone back to factory (locked) settings, henceforth unbricking iPhones and allowing users the opportunity to enter into contract with AT&T... or if they so choose, hack again, with the knowledge that Apple will not support unlocked or 3rd party-ready iPhones.
The fact is, Apple has the complete firmware code. It would take a single developer under a week to write a restore applet for iTunes. There's very little monetary consequence to Apple, and it doesn't jeopardize Apple's reputation of becoming a monopolistic entity.
A win-win if you ask me.
-Clive
Ok-- I think Apple has NO obligation to unbrick a phone BUT I would agree that for 100-200 bucks that they should. It should NOT be free as the f***ers who bricked their phones did so in a thumb-nosing act. It was certainly not through righteous necessity. I think Apple's employees need to be instructed to send the phone in for repair just as would happen when the phone is out of warranty. Not fixing the phone is unacceptable. But free??? Never-- that smacks all the people who play by the rules in the face.
I understand that Apple has to please the record giants, but enough is enough. I am with Apple on basically everything except their position with the iPhone.
Then you have to accept there would not be an iPhone. Simple as that. You may want, and wish and demand but the fact is the rules are Apple's and ATT's. If you don't like them, don't buy the iPhone but I detest your supporting the breakdown of the system that got it to those of us who are grateful for it.
There is no harm in wanting unless its coming to fruition is harmful. Apple and ATT have done you NO harm... I ask you do them and me, none. I like my iPhone and do not want to see the system that got it here undermined. Thank you for butting out.
Hey-- buy a Nokia, a Moto, a Samsung, a Sony-Ericksson. Mmmm, that makes me ponder the word MONOPOLY!!!!
I really, really wish people would stop repeating the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra as if that answers everything. It's a tiring, sadly predictable, and simpleminded way of boiling complex issues down casual toss-off aphorisms.
And if you don't like what I just said, please refrain from predictably transforming the above into a cartoonish, exaggerated parody of itself and then arguing against that straw man. Is that so much to ask for? I'd greatly appreciate it if for once someone on the internet could manage a nuanced disagreement with a nuanced position.
Well, you certainly haven't. You posit the idea that no one should make a certain statement, thus making it impossible to respond to that statement. Talk about a check mate!!
Indeed, the don't buy it if you don't like it position is absolutely valid. We are NOT talking about a lifesaving ONE OFF medication here. Apple is a minority entrant into a vast market. It cannot by any definition be seen as a monopoly.
What we have, in these discussions, is a group of people acting very immaturely, not cognizant of the market that Apple decided to get into- a hostile one, by the way- and in their ignorance and selfishness, are touting their wants and needs as more important than the health of this fledgling venture.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for someone on another carrier who would like the iPhone but can't have it. Or, who would like to add 3rd party apps but can't. Or, who wants to resell it at a profit overseas. Or, whatever... The fact is, the rules of engagement are straightforward. And whatever position you are in, is what it is. Tough luck if you have Verizon and can't have an iPhone. Don't worry as it will happen one day.
Would I like a Bentley for 10,000 bucks?? You bet. Why can't I put a Ferrari engine in my VW?
Whine, whine, let me slash my wrists!!!
PS-- why is there no similar outrage for the Blackberries and other devices that can't be used unlocked on the day of purchase on all carriers??? Hey!!! Hey!!!
The people who would take most advantage (possibly many, many times each) would be
unsuccessful hackers. What exactly do you think they would buy from the Apple store
on their tenth visit to have a botched hack reversed? Is good PR in the hacker community
more valuable than the bad PR created in the Apple shareholder community that would
be created by incurring this type of ongoing, open-ended expense (those Apple store
employees get paid, remember)? Also, while the Apple employee is unbricking the iphone
of a failed hacker, he/she is not helping a new customer or an existing customer who
has not done anything to void their warranty.
Actually, Apple will be recording the unique IDs of the phones that are getting reset. After, say, the second time, the Apple Store employee ought to half-jokingly say something like, "Let's not do this again!' and get more prickly with further resets (maybe cutting them off after more than a few.)
Would I like a Bentley for 10,000 bucks?? You bet. Why can't I put a Ferrari engine in my VW?
If you can't see how far off those analogies are, there's no hope for you.
Quote:
why is there no similar outrage for the Blackberries and other devices that can't be used unlocked on the day of purchase on all carriers??? Hey!!! Hey!!!
Why would anyone have been talking about Blackberries very much at AppleInsider until Apple had a product in the same general category?
All this "whining" as you call it is suddenly in these forums not because Apple is being singled out as a particularly egregious example of problems with cell phones, cellular service, and the terms of cellular service contracts, but because now Apple is a part of all of that, and it wasn't before.
A lot of the passion generated over problems with the iPhone is probably because it's such a good phone in many ways. That makes it all the more frustrating when the iPhone comes bundled with unsavory terms or artificially imposed limitations.
Has a company ever been sued before for CLOSING security breaches?
Missing from all this is the technical details of the kind of hacking required to "unlock" and "open" the phone. Before iPhone these were called "exploits" and were supposedly a bad thing.
Whatever happened to voting as consumers by not purchasing and communicating with a company as to what you want?
Oh yeah, no money for lawyers in that.
This is no way to make iPhone into a platform.
I happen to be reading a book on the history of Commodore. A funny story is about the C64 compatibility mode of the C128. Like many machines of the time (including the Apple II), programmers got VERY creative using the hardware. And that prevented the manufacturer from ever improving the damned thing. In one case, a popular C64 cartridge would not run on a proto C128 because it was dependent on the EXACT screen font bits. Move the dot in the 'i' up a pixel, and things broke!
If you want 3rd party apps, what you want is for Apple to take its time and develop and robust, secure and forward-looking api, sdk, and OS. All reports on the internals of the 1.0 iPhone are that the internals were not ready for 3rd parties. Being OSX based, it has the POTENTIAL to be robust and secure. But 1.0 wasn't there yet. If Apple had left it open, we'd be reading about nothing but security exploits... and unlike the old Security Bitchwatch, these exploits would be real.
Software, security, platforms, robust APIs are A LOT OF WORK. An order of magnitude more than just establishing interfaces to new hardware for internal use that you can change in the future.
If you want a platform--trust me--you want it done right.
Ooops. This was an article about lawyers. A leachfest.
If Apple did exactly what they say they want, they'd be suing over the lack of security.
I am embarrased to be an American with this legal system.
Now, you know why Apple general counsel had to leave, less than a year after receiving an $18 million signing bonus.
Contrary to.......(just like Steve Jobs' 2006 illegal and backdated $646 million bonus, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet for 2006).
Apple is repeating its 1986-1990 mistake of not licensing the Mac OS.......
.....If he stays on, it's only to promote his own self interest.
It's time for Steve Jobs to go. Let him clear his name in the SEC criminal proceedings for illegally backdating stock options to benefit himself in the unprecedented amount of $646 millions to the detriment of Apple stockholders.
It's time to go. Steve Jobs has done enough damage to the company.
:
Boy you really do not know what you are talking about do you. If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs did not accept the back dated option. The SEC basically cleared him and Apple of any charges, and may I suggest you go back to Steve Ballmer and tell him you would like to buy a new Zune please. :-)
Apple stock has been going up and up and up. And analysis are now saying it could clear 200 $ by early 2008, if not earlier. Yep, Steve is bad for Apple. :-)
I don't disagree but then I just think you need to put up woth the 'don't like don't buy' response.
The problem with the argument "..you don't have to buy it" is that it totally trumps the "the big bad mega-mogul-baddies took my lunch money" argument.
People just don't want to hear stuff that blows their arguments out of the water.
I can unlock any phone manufactured from every manufacture out there and it is perfectly fine.
This isn't true at all. Every mobile phone company in the US attempts to lock you into their service and give you little freedom to take your phone to another carrier. The vast majority of phones purchased are locked in various ways to the carrier that sold it. There aren't any phones you can unlock and move from AT&T to Verizon. Or from T Mobile to Sprint.
People just don't want to hear stuff that blows their arguments out of the water.
Right, the argument is meant to center around how Apple has done them so wrong by locking the iPhone to AT&T independent of the fact that there are many many mobile phone choices other than AT&T or the iPhone.
Apple must quickly crush these lawsuits or risk further negative publicity for iPhone. I know, I know, this lawsuit is without merit, but it's bad for business.
seems to me that once you buy a product that you should have the right to use it however you see fit. The company no longer owns it once you paid your $699 when they first came out. for that kind of coin, you should be allowed to use it however you dam'n well please.
Comments
I'm sorry but I must reiterate - get a clue about monopolies!!
Most 'monopolistic behaviors' as you put it are just basic good business practices in a competitive environment AS LONG AS you are not a monopoly - which Apple and iPhone are NOT. It is only for monopolies that society chooses to curb these practices to encourage innovation, or control prices, etc. MSFT's practice with WMP and IE is no different than Apple's with Safari and QT/iTunes. It is because MSFT IS a monopoly that that practice was curbed.
There are NO monopoly issues with the iPhone.
Agreed--- the following from Wikipedia:
Monopoly power alone, without some act of wrongful exclusion or other legally cognizable anticompetitive conduct, is not prohibited. To the contrary, as the respected jurist Learned Hand noted, "[t]he successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins."[6] U.S. antitrust law thus does not attack monopoly power obtained through "superior skill, foresight and industry."[7]
The use of the word "monopoly" has for the most part here, been an abuse of the word. Ignorance is bliss but is darn hard to argue against.
Not that it rises to the level of making a lawsuit valid, nor that it obviates the fact that anyone trying to unlock an iPhone should know they're taking a risk for which Apple can't be held liable, there's a separate issue of whether any lock should be there in the first place. The lock is a deliberately anti-competitive business practice. The legal question is whether it's anti-competitive in a way that violates existing laws. It probably isn't. But I hope it is, or at least that laws are changed so such practices become illegal.
It's a business practice intended to help apple and ATT, but that doesn't make it "anti-competitive" (a term with a specific definition) or illegal.
Bundling things together, such as a phone and phone service, is legal as long as the products are related (they are) and it's not a monopoly (it's not).
Hoping it's illegal doesn't make it illegal. They're offering a product with terms, and you want to get the product and set your own terms. Sorry, it doesn't work like that, and pretending it's illegal doesn't help. If you don't like the terms, just buy a different phone.
If you don't like the terms, just buy a different phone.
I really, really wish people would stop repeating the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra as if that answers everything. It's a tiring, sadly predictable, and simpleminded way of boiling complex issues down casual toss-off aphorisms.
And if you don't like what I just said, please refrain from predictably transforming the above into a cartoonish, exaggerated parody of itself and then arguing against that straw man. Is that so much to ask for? I'd greatly appreciate it if for once someone on the internet could manage a nuanced disagreement with a nuanced position.
I really, really wish people would stop repeating the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra as if that answers everything. It's a tiring, sadly predictable, and simpleminded way of boiling complex issues down casual toss-off aphorisms.
And if you don't like what I just said, please refrain from predictably transforming the above into a cartoonish, exaggerated parody of itself and then arguing against that straw man. Is that so much to ask for? I'd greatly appreciate it if for once someone on the internet could manage a nuanced disagreement with a nuanced position.
Just couldn't resist. As they say good for the goose, good for the gander. Also, changing one cartoon into another is just too easy.
I'll stop saying don't like it don't buy it, if you'll stop dragging discussions of Apple and iPhone into discussions of 'telcom bad'. Almost all of the Apple/iPhone discussions on this issue are really about the state of wireless in the US and has NOTHING to do with Apple/iPhone. The 'don't like/don't buy' statement is the right answer to most of these discussions because there are so many choices. You want an unlocked phone, go buy it. You want to rant about locking of phones, go to another forum. Almost all of the issues here are not Apple's and can't be fixed by Apple and the iPhone.
You want to rant about locking of phones, go to another forum. Almost all of the issues here are not Apple's and can't be fixed by Apple and the iPhone.
These are discussion forums. People discuss related and tangential issues all the time -- that's what makes them interesting. It's not like we've wandered off into recipes for pancakes or Martian terraforming techniques.
The title of the thread is "Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices". You can't discuss that very well without getting into the reasons -- good or bad -- that lead someone to file a suit like that in the first place. That's going to lead to a discussion of Apple's business practices, including possibly negative opinions of practices which are nevertheless still within the law. It's going to lead to discussion of the Telco industry as a whole.
Further, I think what I'm saying is a lot more nuanced that "telcom bad". Perhaps telcom is basically good, but has just gotten in with a bad crowd.
I'm sorry but I must reiterate - get a clue about monopolies!!
Most 'monopolistic behaviors' as you put it are just basic good business practices in a competitive environment AS LONG AS you are not a monopoly - which Apple and iPhone are NOT. It is only for monopolies that society chooses to curb these practices to encourage innovation, or control prices, etc. MSFT's practice with WMP and IE is no different than Apple's with Safari and QT/iTunes. It is because MSFT IS a monopoly that that practice was curbed.
There are NO monopoly issues with the iPhone.
To say that a company (Apple) which had 0% of market could be characterized as being "monopolistic" within the market space in releasing their initial entry into the market is simply not credible. I find it odd also the number of phones which only work on one network that only Apple is essentially being sued for restricting choice. Very odd.
Exactly right. Nothing these users are doing is in violation of any law or contract. You can buy an iPhone (and it becomes YOUR PROPERTY without signing anything at all with AT&T. There is positively nothing outside the law or in violation of any legal agreements by unlocking your phone and using it with another carrier.
Apple is essentially going out of their way to force lock-in to one carrier in the US without any technical reason whatsoever. This is monopolistic. Those who buy an iPhone are not legally bound to have an AT&T account.
You are right. Just a thought though. Is the user obligated to run updates on the phone for it to continue to work. If Apple warned people that these updates might disable the phone, are not these people agreeing to the risk when the run the update?
These are discussion forums. People discuss related and tangential issues all the time -- that's what makes them interesting. It's not like we've wandered off into recipes for pancakes or Martian terraforming techniques.
The title of the thread is "Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices". You can't discuss that very well without getting into the reasons -- good or bad -- that lead someone to file a suit like that in the first place. That's going to lead to a discussion of Apple's business practices, including possibly negative opinions of practices which are nevertheless still within the law. It's going to lead to discussion of the Telco industry as a whole.
Further, I think what I'm saying is a lot more nuanced that "telcom bad". Perhaps telcom is basically good, but has just gotten in with a bad crowd.
I don't disagree but then I just think you need to put up woth the 'don't like don't buy' response.
No, no. Do not take me out of context. I have never once said I thought Apple had a legal obligation to provide unlocked phones. They don't in the US. My previous posts on other threads specifically state that Apple should be required to provide a restore tool to bring the phone back to factory (locked) settings, henceforth unbricking iPhones and allowing users the opportunity to enter into contract with AT&T... or if they so choose, hack again, with the knowledge that Apple will not support unlocked or 3rd party-ready iPhones.
The fact is, Apple has the complete firmware code. It would take a single developer under a week to write a restore applet for iTunes. There's very little monetary consequence to Apple, and it doesn't jeopardize Apple's reputation of becoming a monopolistic entity.
A win-win if you ask me.
-Clive
Ok-- I think Apple has NO obligation to unbrick a phone BUT I would agree that for 100-200 bucks that they should. It should NOT be free as the f***ers who bricked their phones did so in a thumb-nosing act. It was certainly not through righteous necessity. I think Apple's employees need to be instructed to send the phone in for repair just as would happen when the phone is out of warranty. Not fixing the phone is unacceptable. But free??? Never-- that smacks all the people who play by the rules in the face.
I understand that Apple has to please the record giants, but enough is enough. I am with Apple on basically everything except their position with the iPhone.
Then you have to accept there would not be an iPhone. Simple as that. You may want, and wish and demand but the fact is the rules are Apple's and ATT's. If you don't like them, don't buy the iPhone but I detest your supporting the breakdown of the system that got it to those of us who are grateful for it.
There is no harm in wanting unless its coming to fruition is harmful. Apple and ATT have done you NO harm... I ask you do them and me, none. I like my iPhone and do not want to see the system that got it here undermined. Thank you for butting out.
Hey-- buy a Nokia, a Moto, a Samsung, a Sony-Ericksson. Mmmm, that makes me ponder the word MONOPOLY!!!!
I really, really wish people would stop repeating the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra as if that answers everything. It's a tiring, sadly predictable, and simpleminded way of boiling complex issues down casual toss-off aphorisms.
And if you don't like what I just said, please refrain from predictably transforming the above into a cartoonish, exaggerated parody of itself and then arguing against that straw man. Is that so much to ask for? I'd greatly appreciate it if for once someone on the internet could manage a nuanced disagreement with a nuanced position.
Well, you certainly haven't. You posit the idea that no one should make a certain statement, thus making it impossible to respond to that statement. Talk about a check mate!!
Indeed, the don't buy it if you don't like it position is absolutely valid. We are NOT talking about a lifesaving ONE OFF medication here. Apple is a minority entrant into a vast market. It cannot by any definition be seen as a monopoly.
What we have, in these discussions, is a group of people acting very immaturely, not cognizant of the market that Apple decided to get into- a hostile one, by the way- and in their ignorance and selfishness, are touting their wants and needs as more important than the health of this fledgling venture.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for someone on another carrier who would like the iPhone but can't have it. Or, who would like to add 3rd party apps but can't. Or, who wants to resell it at a profit overseas. Or, whatever... The fact is, the rules of engagement are straightforward. And whatever position you are in, is what it is. Tough luck if you have Verizon and can't have an iPhone. Don't worry as it will happen one day.
Would I like a Bentley for 10,000 bucks?? You bet. Why can't I put a Ferrari engine in my VW?
Whine, whine, let me slash my wrists!!!
PS-- why is there no similar outrage for the Blackberries and other devices that can't be used unlocked on the day of purchase on all carriers??? Hey!!! Hey!!!
The people who would take most advantage (possibly many, many times each) would be
unsuccessful hackers. What exactly do you think they would buy from the Apple store
on their tenth visit to have a botched hack reversed? Is good PR in the hacker community
more valuable than the bad PR created in the Apple shareholder community that would
be created by incurring this type of ongoing, open-ended expense (those Apple store
employees get paid, remember)? Also, while the Apple employee is unbricking the iphone
of a failed hacker, he/she is not helping a new customer or an existing customer who
has not done anything to void their warranty.
Actually, Apple will be recording the unique IDs of the phones that are getting reset. After, say, the second time, the Apple Store employee ought to half-jokingly say something like, "Let's not do this again!' and get more prickly with further resets (maybe cutting them off after more than a few.)
Would I like a Bentley for 10,000 bucks?? You bet. Why can't I put a Ferrari engine in my VW?
If you can't see how far off those analogies are, there's no hope for you.
why is there no similar outrage for the Blackberries and other devices that can't be used unlocked on the day of purchase on all carriers??? Hey!!! Hey!!!
Why would anyone have been talking about Blackberries very much at AppleInsider until Apple had a product in the same general category?
All this "whining" as you call it is suddenly in these forums not because Apple is being singled out as a particularly egregious example of problems with cell phones, cellular service, and the terms of cellular service contracts, but because now Apple is a part of all of that, and it wasn't before.
A lot of the passion generated over problems with the iPhone is probably because it's such a good phone in many ways. That makes it all the more frustrating when the iPhone comes bundled with unsavory terms or artificially imposed limitations.
Missing from all this is the technical details of the kind of hacking required to "unlock" and "open" the phone. Before iPhone these were called "exploits" and were supposedly a bad thing.
Whatever happened to voting as consumers by not purchasing and communicating with a company as to what you want?
Oh yeah, no money for lawyers in that.
This is no way to make iPhone into a platform.
I happen to be reading a book on the history of Commodore. A funny story is about the C64 compatibility mode of the C128. Like many machines of the time (including the Apple II), programmers got VERY creative using the hardware. And that prevented the manufacturer from ever improving the damned thing. In one case, a popular C64 cartridge would not run on a proto C128 because it was dependent on the EXACT screen font bits. Move the dot in the 'i' up a pixel, and things broke!
If you want 3rd party apps, what you want is for Apple to take its time and develop and robust, secure and forward-looking api, sdk, and OS. All reports on the internals of the 1.0 iPhone are that the internals were not ready for 3rd parties. Being OSX based, it has the POTENTIAL to be robust and secure. But 1.0 wasn't there yet. If Apple had left it open, we'd be reading about nothing but security exploits... and unlike the old Security Bitchwatch, these exploits would be real.
Software, security, platforms, robust APIs are A LOT OF WORK. An order of magnitude more than just establishing interfaces to new hardware for internal use that you can change in the future.
If you want a platform--trust me--you want it done right.
Ooops. This was an article about lawyers. A leachfest.
If Apple did exactly what they say they want, they'd be suing over the lack of security.
I am embarrased to be an American with this legal system.
I told you so. And I did it to warn investors.
Now, you know why Apple general counsel had to leave, less than a year after receiving an $18 million signing bonus.
Contrary to.......(just like Steve Jobs' 2006 illegal and backdated $646 million bonus, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet for 2006).
Apple is repeating its 1986-1990 mistake of not licensing the Mac OS.......
.....If he stays on, it's only to promote his own self interest.
It's time for Steve Jobs to go. Let him clear his name in the SEC criminal proceedings for illegally backdating stock options to benefit himself in the unprecedented amount of $646 millions to the detriment of Apple stockholders.
It's time to go. Steve Jobs has done enough damage to the company.
:
Boy you really do not know what you are talking about do you. If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs did not accept the back dated option. The SEC basically cleared him and Apple of any charges, and may I suggest you go back to Steve Ballmer and tell him you would like to buy a new Zune please. :-)
Apple stock has been going up and up and up. And analysis are now saying it could clear 200 $ by early 2008, if not earlier. Yep, Steve is bad for Apple. :-)
E.N. still laughing at that one. LOL
I don't disagree but then I just think you need to put up woth the 'don't like don't buy' response.
The problem with the argument "..you don't have to buy it" is that it totally trumps the "the big bad mega-mogul-baddies took my lunch money" argument.
People just don't want to hear stuff that blows their arguments out of the water.
I can unlock any phone manufactured from every manufacture out there and it is perfectly fine.
This isn't true at all. Every mobile phone company in the US attempts to lock you into their service and give you little freedom to take your phone to another carrier. The vast majority of phones purchased are locked in various ways to the carrier that sold it. There aren't any phones you can unlock and move from AT&T to Verizon. Or from T Mobile to Sprint.
People just don't want to hear stuff that blows their arguments out of the water.
Right, the argument is meant to center around how Apple has done them so wrong by locking the iPhone to AT&T independent of the fact that there are many many mobile phone choices other than AT&T or the iPhone.
Apple must quickly crush these lawsuits or risk further negative publicity for iPhone. I know, I know, this lawsuit is without merit, but it's bad for business.
seems to me that once you buy a product that you should have the right to use it however you see fit. The company no longer owns it once you paid your $699 when they first came out. for that kind of coin, you should be allowed to use it however you dam'n well please.