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.
Of course you can use it however you please, but your decisions won't be without consequence, as was clearly stated by Apple.
You may choose to skydive without a parachute, but you may also be unhappy with the result.
Repeat after me... the HACKERS broke your phone... NOT Apple!!! Even the hackers have admitted that. I mean... you modified the friggin' FIRMWARE of your phone!!!!!!!!!!!!! What did you THINK would happen?! Good lord....
"So... I ripped the starter out of my car and replaced it with a toaster and now my car won't start!!!! Can I sue the car maker?!"
F(*#K!ing Idiots.
These plaintiffs should sue THEMSELVES for stupidity.
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.
This doesn't hold true for copyrighted material. The company stills own the story in your book, the movie on your DVD, the music on your CD and the software that came (or you installed) on to your hardware. You only purchased a license to use the copyrighted material as specified in the user agreement for that material. You are never transfered ownership. But if you want to alter the software or install unauthorize hacks, go right ahead. Neither Apple or ATT will stop you or sue you or come after you and break into your house to smash your iPhone. But Apple/ATT reserves the right not to support your modified software even though you purchased a license for that software. The user agreement for that license protects both you and the owner of the software.
This lawsuit really is dumb. Perhaps Apple should have unlocked phones and perhaps Apple should allow third party software, but they don't and they have every right to do that. If a company says modifying a device could result in damage if you update it after modificatio and still update you're an fool. This has nothing to do with what Apple should do but rather what these people have done to their phones. People can't say they weren't warned. The real question is how is Apple going to handle future updates? They need tread carefully.
What an absolute crock! As a shareholder of Apple, I think it's time for Apple shareholders to band together and file a lawsuit against John and Jane Does 1-10,000 (with a strong common counts clause) to recover damages caused by frivolous lawsuits that are dragging the price of Apple's stock down for no valid reason. As shareholders, we pay for this bullshit on the bottom line because litigation is expensive and hits the company's bottom line.
I really hope this was a joke, because it's greedy shareholders who gawk over the day-to-day business of companies - looking to squeek out that last fraction of a penny per share who cause these anti-consumer practices. They're more interested in the bottom line this quarter than in the long term viability of the platform/company or in customer satisfaction. The more you piss people off (anti-consumer, anti-competitive behavior tends to do that), the more likely it is you'll get sued.
A new class-action lawsuit charges Apple and AT&T with intentionally breaking the iPhones of customers who unlocked or installed third-party applications on the handsets
These guys must've stolen my idea from the day before (where's my legal fee?). As I've said in a couple of other threads, I'd say it comes down to intent. If some developer at Apple said, "hey I've got this nice dialog box in here that warns a user this update might brick their modified iPhone," and their boss says, "take that out, we want to brick modified phones" well then these folks might have a case. Next up would probably be to subpoena documents related to this. It's not Apple's responsibility to provide warranty service to your hacked devices (a for fee repair might be kind), but they also have a responsibilty to not intentionally damage them. It also does not really make sense that Apple can't have an easy way to restore the phone to its default state.
I like the one that claims iPods can play too loud and hurt your ears, but I LOVE the one that says Apple hurt my resale value by dropping the price of the iPhone.
iPhoneSimFree (which did NOT brick iPhones) has released an update which unlocks iPhones running everything up to and including 1.1.1. It also un-bricks iPhones that were bricked by other unlock solutions which patched the firmware. Nice of them to fix the mistakes of the competition.
Just in case anyone thinks people are only going after Apple and AT&T, here's some litigious lovin' for T-Mobile and their locked phones and termination fees:
Wired is reporting that the California Supreme Court has refused to review two lower court decisions involving a class-action lawsuit against T-Mobile over their policies regarding early termination and phone unlocking. The Court rejected the reviews without comment, opening the door to the lawsuit, which aims to block T-Mobile from collecting a $200 early termination fee from users. Also on the table: an order for T-Mobile to disclose the types of phone-locking technology that may be in use on customer's phones. The ramifications if the lawsuit is successful would be to allow phone users in California to unlock their phones, and might lead to further lawsuits nationwide.
Not that I think this sounds like it has any more merit than the suits against Apple, but I'd certainly be happy if somehow, one way or another, California required phones to be unlockable. With a state that big behind such a move, the whole Apple/AT&T lock-up agreement would have to fall apart I'd imagine. No way the whole state of California could be written off.
If (and, yes, I realize this is a big and unlikely "if") this were to happen, I think it would actually be a big win for Apple. They'd have gotten all the boost they needed out of AT&T to get themselves started in the mobile phone business, without paying the price of a 5-year exclusive with AT&T to get it.
Interesting to note that JeffDM and melgross haven't commented on lawsuit or the other recent lawsuit. I think they must be apple advisors or spies. They certainly comment on peoples suggestions of legal action - but are silent re: actual legal action.... interesting!
Interesting to note that JeffDM and melgross haven't commented on lawsuit or the other recent lawsuit. I think they must be apple advisors or spies. They certainly comment on peoples suggestions of legal action - but are silent re: actual legal action.... interesting!
I wouldn't be surprised if they actually admired someone that actually did more than just kvetch anonymously.
Doubtful - I've never noted them to be remotely supportive of someone criticizing Apple!
Ah, well, have you ever actually observed them responding to someone criticizing Apple who wasn't kvetching anonymously? Perhaps they have hidden depths unplumbed by circumstances you've witnessed.
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.
Both things you said are completely wrong. First, you meant the service provider wants to lock you down. The phone manufacture could care less. Second, you can't unlock a phone from AT&T and bring it to Verizon because they use different types of phones. It's essentially the same reason you can't put an AMD CPU in an Intel motherboard. They use different technology. You can however, take a phone from Sprint and bring it to Verizon because they both use CDMA technology. This requires you flash the phone. With GSM, what the iPhone uses, you simply do a SIM unlock and place in the new SIM. With the exception of the iPhone, you can basically take any phone from T-Mobile and bring it to AT&T and vice versa. You can even purchase an unlocked GSM phone from overseas and it will work with either company.
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!!!!
Would you still be so supportive of the major lock downs on the phone if they decided that you could only add certain movies that you purchased from iTunes? What about it they went as far as selling pictures and only allowed you to use those as wallpaper? The brands you listed all allow you to add your own ringtones; purchased or not. Also, about the word monopoly. Just because you can only think of 4 brands don't mean there aren't other manufactures. What about Panasonic, Siemens, Sanyo, LG, Helio, Blackberry, AudioVox, Kyocera, Palm-Handspring........?
I am not saying it is right for people to sue Apple for the iPhone's short comings. What I am saying is this is a highly competitive market and Apple needs to be competitive, not controlling. I love my iPhone! I wish it could do half the things my old Motorola (which wasn't even a smartphone) could do. And I'm not sure if this has changed yet, but you could not use the iPhone on a business account with AT&T. What is the purpose of the iPhone then? Is it for students to be better organized and have an iPod phone or is it a true smartphone with business capabilities?
First, you meant the service provider wants to lock you down.
The vast majority of phones purchased are locked in various ways to the carrier that sold it.
This is what I said, how is any different?
Quote:
The phone manufacture could care less.
But they do manufacture phones to the carriers specifications, which in different ways close the function of the phone to that specific carrier.
Quote:
Second, you can't unlock a phone from AT&T and bring it to Verizon because they use different types of phones.
Yes exactly, do you think is a coincidence? And what is the end result?
Quote:
With the exception of the iPhone, you can basically take any phone from T-Mobile and bring it to AT&T and vice versa.
ATT and T-Mobile both offer phones with proprietary services specific to their network. The Sidekick is much like the iPhone, it is designed to work on T-Mobil's network. You can unlock it and use it on ATT. But you will only be able to call and text, data will not function. You also loose support from T-Mobile and ATT can't support it.
Quote:
Both things you said are completely wrong.
How're you going to say I'm wrong and then basically repeat what I said? You didn't even bother to mention Verizon or Sprint.
Both things you said are completely wrong. First, you meant the service provider wants to lock you down. The phone manufacture could care less. Second, you can't unlock a phone from AT&T and bring it to Verizon because they use different types of phones. It's essentially the same reason you can't put an AMD CPU in an Intel motherboard. They use different technology. You can however, take a phone from Sprint and bring it to Verizon because they both use CDMA technology. This requires you flash the phone. With GSM, what the iPhone uses, you simply do a SIM unlock and place in the new SIM. With the exception of the iPhone, you can basically take any phone from T-Mobile and bring it to AT&T and vice versa. You can even purchase an unlocked GSM phone from overseas and it will work with either company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The vast majority of phones purchased are locked in various ways to the carrier that sold it.
This is what I said, how is any different?
They are locked by the carrier, not the phone manufacture! The carrier purchases the phones in bulk, locks them down, installs their apps, and packages them for resale. Some manufactures might actually handle this step for the carrier for a fee. Also note these phones are locked using a code specific to their ESN number. By entering this code in the phone, it can be unlocked and used with other providers.
Quote:
But they do manufacture phones to the carriers specifications, which in different ways close the function of the phone to that specific carrier.
Yes exactly, do you think is a coincidence? And what is the end result?
Sometimes they manufacture a phone with certain specs. You cannot say that them manufacturing it for AT&T specifically just because it is GSM. The phone is built for use on GSM network by the manufacture and then on occasion the carrier will add carrier specific apps. When I had my Moto SLVR before the iPhone, it came from Asia, I called T-Mobile and they sent the T-Zone apps to my phone over the network. This placed the folder in the menu and everything. Is this one of those certain specs you are talking about?
Quote:
ATT and T-Mobile both offer phones with proprietary services specific to their network. The Sidekick is much like the iPhone, it is designed to work on T-Mobil's network. You can unlock it and use it on ATT. But you will only be able to call and text, data will not function.
Actually, nearly all features will work. Data does work. The only things that will not work are applications installed by the carrier, such as T-Zones.
Quote:
How're you going to say I'm wrong and then basically repeat what I said? You didn't even bother to mention Verizon or Sprint.
They are locked by the carrier, not the phone manufacture!
I did not say the manufacturer locked the phone. I said the manufacturer will make a phone that includes functionality specific to that carrier and not for other carriers. There are some phones that are generically sold with software update from the carrier. But many of the best selling phones with lots of functions are made specifically for the carrier.
Quote:
You cannot say that them manufacturing it for AT&T specifically just because it is GSM. The phone is built for use on GSM network by the manufacture and then on occasion the carrier will add carrier specific apps.
Come on the Sidekick may be a GSM phone but it is clearly made to specifically work with T-Mobile.
The LG 9400 is specifically designed for Verizon and V Cast.
Quote:
I had my Moto SLVR before the iPhone, it came from Asia, I called T-Mobile and they sent the T-Zone apps to my phone over the network.
That is an unlocked phone. I'm talking about phones from the carrier, which is how most people get their phones.
Quote:
Actually, nearly all features will work. Data does work. The only things that will not work are applications installed by the carrier, such as T-Zones.
I'm sure people have hacked around it but that does not change the fact that T-Mobile made the Sidekick specific to T-Mobile's network.
Please be aware that the Danger Sidekick's GPRS-data software will only work on the T-Mobile USA network. The Sidekick's voice and text messaging functions should continue to function correctly with another carriers SIM card after the phone is unlocked.
Comments
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.
Of course you can use it however you please, but your decisions won't be without consequence, as was clearly stated by Apple.
You may choose to skydive without a parachute, but you may also be unhappy with the result.
"So... I ripped the starter out of my car and replaced it with a toaster and now my car won't start!!!! Can I sue the car maker?!"
F(*#K!ing Idiots.
These plaintiffs should sue THEMSELVES for stupidity.
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.
This doesn't hold true for copyrighted material. The company stills own the story in your book, the movie on your DVD, the music on your CD and the software that came (or you installed) on to your hardware. You only purchased a license to use the copyrighted material as specified in the user agreement for that material. You are never transfered ownership. But if you want to alter the software or install unauthorize hacks, go right ahead. Neither Apple or ATT will stop you or sue you or come after you and break into your house to smash your iPhone. But Apple/ATT reserves the right not to support your modified software even though you purchased a license for that software. The user agreement for that license protects both you and the owner of the software.
What an absolute crock! As a shareholder of Apple, I think it's time for Apple shareholders to band together and file a lawsuit against John and Jane Does 1-10,000 (with a strong common counts clause) to recover damages caused by frivolous lawsuits that are dragging the price of Apple's stock down for no valid reason. As shareholders, we pay for this bullshit on the bottom line because litigation is expensive and hits the company's bottom line.
I really hope this was a joke, because it's greedy shareholders who gawk over the day-to-day business of companies - looking to squeek out that last fraction of a penny per share who cause these anti-consumer practices. They're more interested in the bottom line this quarter than in the long term viability of the platform/company or in customer satisfaction. The more you piss people off (anti-consumer, anti-competitive behavior tends to do that), the more likely it is you'll get sued.
A new class-action lawsuit charges Apple and AT&T with intentionally breaking the iPhones of customers who unlocked or installed third-party applications on the handsets
These guys must've stolen my idea from the day before (where's my legal fee?). As I've said in a couple of other threads, I'd say it comes down to intent. If some developer at Apple said, "hey I've got this nice dialog box in here that warns a user this update might brick their modified iPhone," and their boss says, "take that out, we want to brick modified phones" well then these folks might have a case. Next up would probably be to subpoena documents related to this. It's not Apple's responsibility to provide warranty service to your hacked devices (a for fee repair might be kind), but they also have a responsibilty to not intentionally damage them. It also does not really make sense that Apple can't have an easy way to restore the phone to its default state.
How many lawsuits have been filed against AT&T and Apple lately? There must be at least 10 class action lawsuits for the iPhone!
10? That's nothing!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...le&btnG=Search
I like the one that claims iPods can play too loud and hurt your ears, but I LOVE the one that says Apple hurt my resale value by dropping the price of the iPhone.
http://www.iphonesimfree.com/cgi-bin...e.pl?page=home
From Slashdot::
Wired is reporting that the California Supreme Court has refused to review two lower court decisions involving a class-action lawsuit against T-Mobile over their policies regarding early termination and phone unlocking. The Court rejected the reviews without comment, opening the door to the lawsuit, which aims to block T-Mobile from collecting a $200 early termination fee from users. Also on the table: an order for T-Mobile to disclose the types of phone-locking technology that may be in use on customer's phones. The ramifications if the lawsuit is successful would be to allow phone users in California to unlock their phones, and might lead to further lawsuits nationwide.
Not that I think this sounds like it has any more merit than the suits against Apple, but I'd certainly be happy if somehow, one way or another, California required phones to be unlockable. With a state that big behind such a move, the whole Apple/AT&T lock-up agreement would have to fall apart I'd imagine. No way the whole state of California could be written off.
If (and, yes, I realize this is a big and unlikely "if") this were to happen, I think it would actually be a big win for Apple. They'd have gotten all the boost they needed out of AT&T to get themselves started in the mobile phone business, without paying the price of a 5-year exclusive with AT&T to get it.
Interesting to note that JeffDM and melgross haven't commented on lawsuit or the other recent lawsuit. I think they must be apple advisors or spies. They certainly comment on peoples suggestions of legal action - but are silent re: actual legal action.... interesting!
I wouldn't be surprised if they actually admired someone that actually did more than just kvetch anonymously.
I wouldn't be surprised if they actually admired someone that actually did more than just kvetch anonymously.
Doubtful - I've never noted them to be remotely supportive of someone criticizing Apple!
Doubtful - I've never noted them to be remotely supportive of someone criticizing Apple!
Ah, well, have you ever actually observed them responding to someone criticizing Apple who wasn't kvetching anonymously? Perhaps they have hidden depths unplumbed by circumstances you've witnessed.
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.
Both things you said are completely wrong. First, you meant the service provider wants to lock you down. The phone manufacture could care less. Second, you can't unlock a phone from AT&T and bring it to Verizon because they use different types of phones. It's essentially the same reason you can't put an AMD CPU in an Intel motherboard. They use different technology. You can however, take a phone from Sprint and bring it to Verizon because they both use CDMA technology. This requires you flash the phone. With GSM, what the iPhone uses, you simply do a SIM unlock and place in the new SIM. With the exception of the iPhone, you can basically take any phone from T-Mobile and bring it to AT&T and vice versa. You can even purchase an unlocked GSM phone from overseas and it will work with either company.
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!!!!
Would you still be so supportive of the major lock downs on the phone if they decided that you could only add certain movies that you purchased from iTunes? What about it they went as far as selling pictures and only allowed you to use those as wallpaper? The brands you listed all allow you to add your own ringtones; purchased or not. Also, about the word monopoly. Just because you can only think of 4 brands don't mean there aren't other manufactures. What about Panasonic, Siemens, Sanyo, LG, Helio, Blackberry, AudioVox, Kyocera, Palm-Handspring........?
I am not saying it is right for people to sue Apple for the iPhone's short comings. What I am saying is this is a highly competitive market and Apple needs to be competitive, not controlling. I love my iPhone! I wish it could do half the things my old Motorola (which wasn't even a smartphone) could do. And I'm not sure if this has changed yet, but you could not use the iPhone on a business account with AT&T. What is the purpose of the iPhone then? Is it for students to be better organized and have an iPod phone or is it a true smartphone with business capabilities?
First, you meant the service provider wants to lock you down.
The vast majority of phones purchased are locked in various ways to the carrier that sold it.
This is what I said, how is any different?
The phone manufacture could care less.
But they do manufacture phones to the carriers specifications, which in different ways close the function of the phone to that specific carrier.
Second, you can't unlock a phone from AT&T and bring it to Verizon because they use different types of phones.
Yes exactly, do you think is a coincidence? And what is the end result?
With the exception of the iPhone, you can basically take any phone from T-Mobile and bring it to AT&T and vice versa.
ATT and T-Mobile both offer phones with proprietary services specific to their network. The Sidekick is much like the iPhone, it is designed to work on T-Mobil's network. You can unlock it and use it on ATT. But you will only be able to call and text, data will not function. You also loose support from T-Mobile and ATT can't support it.
Both things you said are completely wrong.
How're you going to say I'm wrong and then basically repeat what I said? You didn't even bother to mention Verizon or Sprint.
Both things you said are completely wrong. First, you meant the service provider wants to lock you down. The phone manufacture could care less. Second, you can't unlock a phone from AT&T and bring it to Verizon because they use different types of phones. It's essentially the same reason you can't put an AMD CPU in an Intel motherboard. They use different technology. You can however, take a phone from Sprint and bring it to Verizon because they both use CDMA technology. This requires you flash the phone. With GSM, what the iPhone uses, you simply do a SIM unlock and place in the new SIM. With the exception of the iPhone, you can basically take any phone from T-Mobile and bring it to AT&T and vice versa. You can even purchase an unlocked GSM phone from overseas and it will work with either company.
The vast majority of phones purchased are locked in various ways to the carrier that sold it.
This is what I said, how is any different?
They are locked by the carrier, not the phone manufacture! The carrier purchases the phones in bulk, locks them down, installs their apps, and packages them for resale. Some manufactures might actually handle this step for the carrier for a fee. Also note these phones are locked using a code specific to their ESN number. By entering this code in the phone, it can be unlocked and used with other providers.
But they do manufacture phones to the carriers specifications, which in different ways close the function of the phone to that specific carrier.
Yes exactly, do you think is a coincidence? And what is the end result?
Sometimes they manufacture a phone with certain specs. You cannot say that them manufacturing it for AT&T specifically just because it is GSM. The phone is built for use on GSM network by the manufacture and then on occasion the carrier will add carrier specific apps. When I had my Moto SLVR before the iPhone, it came from Asia, I called T-Mobile and they sent the T-Zone apps to my phone over the network. This placed the folder in the menu and everything. Is this one of those certain specs you are talking about?
ATT and T-Mobile both offer phones with proprietary services specific to their network. The Sidekick is much like the iPhone, it is designed to work on T-Mobil's network. You can unlock it and use it on ATT. But you will only be able to call and text, data will not function.
Actually, nearly all features will work. Data does work. The only things that will not work are applications installed by the carrier, such as T-Zones.
How're you going to say I'm wrong and then basically repeat what I said? You didn't even bother to mention Verizon or Sprint.
Read it again, I put it in bold for you!!!
They are locked by the carrier, not the phone manufacture!
I did not say the manufacturer locked the phone. I said the manufacturer will make a phone that includes functionality specific to that carrier and not for other carriers. There are some phones that are generically sold with software update from the carrier. But many of the best selling phones with lots of functions are made specifically for the carrier.
You cannot say that them manufacturing it for AT&T specifically just because it is GSM. The phone is built for use on GSM network by the manufacture and then on occasion the carrier will add carrier specific apps.
Come on the Sidekick may be a GSM phone but it is clearly made to specifically work with T-Mobile.
The LG 9400 is specifically designed for Verizon and V Cast.
I had my Moto SLVR before the iPhone, it came from Asia, I called T-Mobile and they sent the T-Zone apps to my phone over the network.
That is an unlocked phone. I'm talking about phones from the carrier, which is how most people get their phones.
Actually, nearly all features will work. Data does work. The only things that will not work are applications installed by the carrier, such as T-Zones.
I'm sure people have hacked around it but that does not change the fact that T-Mobile made the Sidekick specific to T-Mobile's network.
Please be aware that the Danger Sidekick's GPRS-data software will only work on the T-Mobile USA network. The Sidekick's voice and text messaging functions should continue to function correctly with another carriers SIM card after the phone is unlocked.
Thank You,
Sim Unlock Department
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Read it again, I put it in bold for you!!!
You still disregard Sprint and Verizon.