"Amen with the ruling. Apple sold its soul when they hooked up with AT&T. It's the worstdecision that Apple has ever made. "
Please people, Apple went to other carriers and they laughed at Apple. AT&T (then Cingular) had the foresight to go with apple .
As far as wanting your phone to do WHATEVER you want. Fine. Feel free to take it apart, solder the parts differently, add different frequences and there you go. Its your phone. Just do not expect Apple to help you. They sold you an iPhone model xxx, not a tv, or a dish washer, or what ever.
:-( this world is getting to be a weird place. :-)
I second the judge's ruling. All matters must be examined in open Court, after a full discovery process to reveal the terms of the exclusive agreement between Apple and ATT.
As the judge doesn't recognize jurisdiction outside the State of residence of the two plaintiffs, either new plaintiffs are added in every U.S. jurisdiction where the original iPhone was sold and the new 3G iPhone is sold, or new plaintiffs file a complaint in their State of residence.
At issue is the question of whether Apple and ATT are above the law, which I believe they are not, especially the Sherman Act which prohibits tied sales of an object, the iPhone, and a service, ATT cell phone service, and various provisions of the law preventing fraud on consumers for undisclosed terms in contracts and, more generally, the provisions of various State consumer protection laws.
Monopolies and monopolistic behaviors such as exclusivity agreements will be broken by Courts because they serve only the interests of parties to monopolistic agreements, not members of the general public, and have the effect of raising and maintaining high prices for consumers.
Competition is good for consumers because it lowers the prices and increases the quality of goods and services.
Competition is good for Apple in the long term. Should the present course of anti-competitive behaviour initiated by Steve Jobs be maintained by Courts, and backdated illegal stock options of more than a billion dollars not be challenged by Courts, Apple will go out of business within 10 years.
Android phones, Linux and Windows computers are competing for consumer and business dollars. If Steve Jobs can be deluded in believing that he is above the law and that Apple can survive with high prices to pay for unreasonable executive compensation as if Apple was Steve Jobs' personal piggy bank, it is the Courts role to challenge monopolies and enforce laws that benefit consumers in the long run through innovation and lower prices.
I guess you missed it - the first android phone is exclusive to t-moble. Try to buy one of those and move it to AT&T and you'll face the same issues you have taking an iPhone to T-Moble
Amen with the ruling. Apple sold its soul when they hooked up with AT&T. It's the worstdecision that Apple has ever made. I am a total Apple kool-aide consumer with the exception of this disaster. We ahve our house running with 4 Apple systems, this is not from a person who has an axe to grind with Apple but one who does have an axe to grind with AT&T's predatory practices. I have been the recipient of those practices and will do whatever I can to diss AT&T. Each time that I use my iphone I am reminded that Apple has sold their soul to a piece of, well, you get the idea, Steve needs to rethink this decision. A very happy consumer with Apple products, A very, very, very disgruntled Apple customer having to use AT&T to make a simple phone call. I wish I could be more negative but I would embarrass my mother.
Apple (and Steve Jobs) did not deal with ATT when the contract for the iPhone was first drawn up. Apple (and Steve Jobs) dealt with Cingular. ATT bought out Cingular after Cingular signed a contract with Apple with regards to the iPhone. Could Apple had gotten out of the deal? I don't know. But Apple had most likely already began designing the iPhone for the Edge and G3 network by this time. Rumors has it that Verizon was Apple's first choice but they refused. So if this is true, don't blame Apple for not going with Verizon. It was Verizon that didn't go with Apple.
Apple (and Steve Jobs) did not deal with ATT when the contract for the iPhone was first drawn up. Apple (and Steve Jobs) dealt with Cingular. ATT bought out Cingular after Cingular signed a contract with Apple with regards to the iPhone. Could Apple had gotten out of the deal? I don't know. But Apple had most likely already began designing the iPhone for the Edge and G3 network by this time. Rumors has it that Verizon was Apple's first choice but they refused. So if this is true, don't blame Apple for not going with Verizon. It was Verizon that didn't go with Apple.
Apple signed a contract with Cingular, but it was Cingular that bought AT&T. Then Cingular changed their name to AT&T because of the better recognition.
Regardless of who they first inked a deal with it was important to Apple at the time who had no experience with mobile phones. Would the iPhone had been nearly as successful if they sold it only in their Apple Stores and online store for $800 (without the profit sharing discount)? Would carriers have charged considerably more than the $45/month that was common for data packages at the time the iPhone came on the scene with its $20/month, or would they have blocked services from the iPhone from working on their network because they deemed the device from using more data than all their smartphones do to the "useable" web browser and YouTube app?
A lot of things have changed since the deal was signed and the original iPhone was launched. At least part of could be argued to have been because of the iPhone. If you don't like Cingular as AT&T then there isn't much you can do right now, outside of leaving the country or using an original, unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile's network.
I second the judge's ruling. All matters must be examined in open Court, after a full discovery process to reveal the terms of the exclusive agreement between Apple and ATT.
As the judge doesn't recognize jurisdiction outside the State of residence of the two plaintiffs, either new plaintiffs are added in every U.S. jurisdiction where the original iPhone was sold and the new 3G iPhone is sold, or new plaintiffs file a complaint in their State of residence.
At issue is the question of whether Apple and ATT are above the law, which I believe they are not, especially the Sherman Act which prohibits tied sales of an object, the iPhone, and a service, ATT cell phone service, and various provisions of the law preventing fraud on consumers for undisclosed terms in contracts and, more generally, the provisions of various State consumer protection laws.
Monopolies and monopolistic behaviors such as exclusivity agreements will be broken by Courts because they serve only the interests of parties to monopolistic agreements, not members of the general public, and have the effect of raising and maintaining high prices for consumers.
Competition is good for consumers because it lowers the prices and increases the quality of goods and services.
Competition is good for Apple in the long term. Should the present course of anti-competitive behaviour initiated by Steve Jobs be maintained by Courts, and backdated illegal stock options of more than a billion dollars not be challenged by Courts, Apple will go out of business within 10 years.
Android phones, Linux and Windows computers are competing for consumer and business dollars. If Steve Jobs can be deluded in believing that he is above the law and that Apple can survive with high prices to pay for unreasonable executive compensation as if Apple was Steve Jobs' personal piggy bank, it is the Courts role to challenge monopolies and enforce laws that benefit consumers in the long run through innovation and lower prices.
Get a clue. Neither Apple or ATT is a monopoly. (unless you're one of the clueless ones that thinks Apple has a monopoly in the "iPhone market" ). In the 18 months since the introduction of the iPhone, there are now dozens of iPhone imitators on the markets. Other cell phone markers are now introducing "iPhone killers" at lower prices than the iPhone. And most are locked, "tied" to a service (exclusive) and requires a contract.
Other cell phone makers are also now using "new" technology that was available over two years ago in their new cell phones. If it weren't for Apple's iPhone, a lot of these "new" technology would still be on paper only and in some file cabinet. But instead they're are being implemented in new cell phones to compete with Apple's iPhone. This has translated to more choices, better technolgy and lower prices. So far it looks like the consumers are benefitting in the long run?
It may be that Apple are not necessarily trying hard to win this one. The deal that Apple signed with AT&T was a nice leverage tool for the initial roll-out of the iPhone, without it the iPhones initial market would have probably been mostly to Apple die-hards, not the mainstream phone market. Now that the iPhone has gained significant traction in the market it would be better for Apple to distribute the iPhone to any telco willing to sell it.
It would also be good for Apple to have the freedom to allow any apps into the app store, rather than submitting to AT&T's restrictive demands which hamper not only the US users but international users as well. There is no restrictions (on what apps can be sold) that would help Apple as the increased market would help Apple through app store sales.
If Apple loses this they could possibly be freed to do what they like with the phone without any legal recourse from AT&T.
That would be very cool indeed, but the quoted text below I don't understand. Are the lower courts actually stating that the carriers paying $200 for the cost of the handset for the consumer, in no way grants them the right to provide a contractual obligation?
"The phone carriers urged the justices to require that their customers honor the contracts they had signed. The lower courts had declared those contracts "unconscionable.""
I think in this case the judge had decided that certain specific clauses in the contract, requiring all clients to settle their differences with AT&T through binding arbitration (thus prohibiting the clients from attempting to seek a remedy through the courts) was the "unconscionable" part. The phone carriers were trying to have the case thrown out because the clients had agreed that their only recourse was binding arbitration, and the clients therefore should honor their contract and submit to the arbitration. The court decided that the clients had statutory rights under state law which overrode the contractual binding arbitration limitation.
As is the case with most contracts, if a court finds one or two specific clauses to be invalid (or "unconscionable" in this case), only those specific clauses are taken out of effect; the remainder of the contract is deemed to remain in full force.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the court agreed (at the time) that the clients were correct in their complaint; it only confirmed that the clients had the right to express their dispute in court and let the merits of the case determine the outcome.
I'm a little lost on this. Why pick on Apple for phone/carrier exclusivity when there are plenty of other carriers doing the exact same thing? Look at the iPhone knockoffs exclusive to Verizon and T-Mobile. When Motorola came out with their first Razr, did they not do the exact same thing? Right or wrong, complain about the entire industry doing it than just one.
I remember how Apple made a rather big effort with public announcements that if your iPhone was jailbroken, or unlocked the updates could/would disable your phone. Those monkeys went ahead and rolled the dice and now come back to whine about why Apple did this, or that, or whatever. The software was hacked outside of Apple's control, and it's their fault?
I can imagine buyers of that Psystar garbage suing Apple if one of their updates renders their computer unusable.
Lawyers have just way too much time on their hands.
Seriously, we need to reform the laws to get some clarity here, it's obvious the judges presiding over these things don't understand the can they are about to open.
I must say though, as a Verizon user I'm torn by this.
There is one interesting statement that was made here, since the Judge did not dismiss the law suit and open the door to make the next step which is discovery, the other party will have access to the contract and agreement between Apple and AT&T. They may also have access to the entire business plan Apple has laid out for the iphone products which they will need to prove their claim.
If this happen, then all the questions everyone posed here about future plans of the iphone will be known. So if you were Verizon or some other competitor and you want to know what Apple and AT&T is up to, get someone to sue them and hope it holds and they will be allowed discovery.
It is just another way to gain market intelligence, or slow your competition down while you catch up. Some companies use lawsuits as part of their business strategy.
So let me get this straight, people are suing because they installed unauthorized software on their phone thereby voiding the warranty, and when Apple provides an update designed to work only on unhacked phones, the people with hacked phones are
try more like an update that Apple created without assuming every phone had been unlocked and researching the dozens of ways to do so and insuring that the update wouldn't hose a single one of them.
now if they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Apple did the research and designed the update to hose all those phones, that's different. but so far, no proof has been even alleged
Also, if you have an issue with a phone not working on another carrier after the 2 year contract is up, why don't you go suing Verizon and Sprint for their locking down phones on their respective CDMA networks..
so wait a second, if locking a phone to a network after the initial contract is illegal, how come you can't get a sidekick with verizon or sprint or even ATT. I really really want a sidekick but I can only get one 'legally' with T-Mobile. I'd have to unlock it etc to even try to use it elsewhere. I'm going to sue t-mobile for locking the sidekick to their network. if Apple and ATT can't do it, why should anyone else be allowed to.
Amen with the ruling. Apple sold its soul when they hooked up with AT&T. It's the worstdecision that Apple has ever made.
they offered the same contract to every company. only ATT was willing to give up the right to overrule Apple's design plans, which Apple insisted on since it wasn't just a phone they were creating but an ipod and a handheld computer as well. Verizon et al insisted on having control over the design, ATT said Apple could kept control.
try more like an update that Apple created without assuming every phone had been unlocked and researching the dozens of ways to do so and insuring that the update wouldn't hose a single one of them.
now if they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Apple did the research and designed the update to hose all those phones, that's different. but so far, no proof has been even alleged
All that information might be revealed, depending on how the case goes. If the case is allowed to go as far as a trial before a settlement is reached, then it would be extremely unwise for Apple/AT&T to knowingly withhold material evidence relating to the presence or absence of such alleged research during the discovery process. If they actually have something incriminating to hide, they'll probably be very interested in reaching a confidential settlement before it gets that far.
try more like an update that Apple created without assuming every phone had been unlocked and researching the dozens of ways to do so and insuring that the update wouldn't hose a single one of them.
now if they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Apple did the research and designed the update to hose all those phones, that's different. but so far, no proof has been even alleged
When Apple first issued the update they warned that it could possibly brick some unlocked phones. That is when the uproar started that Apple was purposely bricking phones.
Perhaps when we actually GET to 2 years you will find out!
At the moment you are guessing what will happen.
No need to wait 2-yrs or guess. The contract can be canceled anytime for a penalty of $175. I asked AT&T about unlocking once the contract is ended and they say: "Unfortunately, the iPhone cannot be unlocked, even if you are out of contract."
Get a clue. Neither Apple or ATT is a monopoly. (unless you're one of the clueless ones that thinks Apple has a monopoly in the "iPhone market" ). In the 18 months since the introduction of the iPhone, there are now dozens of iPhone imitators on the markets. Other cell phone markers are now introducing "iPhone killers" at lower prices than the iPhone. And most are locked, "tied" to a service (exclusive) and requires a contract.
Other cell phone makers are also now using "new" technology that was available over two years ago in their new cell phones. If it weren't for Apple's iPhone, a lot of these "new" technology would still be on paper only and in some file cabinet. But instead they're are being implemented in new cell phones to compete with Apple's iPhone. This has translated to more choices, better technolgy and lower prices. So far it looks like the consumers are benefitting in the long run?
No one has alleged that AT&T and/or Apple have a monopoly on the entire cellphone or wireless carrier markets. You might try reading the actual decision (http://www.scribd.com/full/6373862?a...lt96n373mf54d2). With regard to monopolization, plaintiffs allege "[Attempted] Monopolization of the aftermarket for iPhone applications", and "[Attempted] Monopolization of the aftermarket for iPhone voice and data services", both "in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act". Since any iPhone buyer may, and this is entirely within the terms of their contract with AT&T, terminate the contract for a penalty of $175, there is arguably an aftermarket (or at least a nascent aftermarket) for both iPhone applications and iPhone voice and data services.
Nor has the judge decided in favor of the plaintiffs! All Judge Ware has done is refuse to dismiss the suit out of hand as AT&T and Apple wanted. All parties now get their day in court.
As to unlock codes. All of the carriers (both GSM & CDMA) have fought this. See Supreme Court OKs Cellphone Unlocking Suit. "Verizon and Sprint, both CDMA carriers, have agreed to provide the software code to unlock cellphones after customers nationwide have completed their original contract". AT&T says on the record "Unfortunately, the iPhone cannot be unlocked, even if you are out of contract."
To those decrying consumer lawsuits: many of the protections we consumers enjoy and take for granted have come about as a result of consumer litigation, not because corporations acted ethically or did the right thing voluntarily. Caveat Emptor has been replaced by Implied Warranty of Fitness. Get used to it.
No need to wait 2-yrs or guess. The contract can be canceled anytime for a penalty of $175. I asked AT&T about unlocking once the contract is ended and they say: "Unfortunately, the iPhone cannot be unlocked, even if you are out of contract."
Well they say that at the moment but we still have time to go before the 2 years is over.
Well they say that at the moment but we still have time to go before the 2 years is over.
Who knows what the options will be then.
You miss the point entirely! What I quoted is AT&T's position for the record. I can provide you the entire email chain. You or I or any AT&T iPhone user can TODAY pony up the $175 penalty. What if one is moving overseas to a GSM country? Surely this has already happened. And yet AT&T's official position is you are SOL. Your faith in AT&T's rationality is touching, but misplaced.
You miss the point entirely! What I quoted is AT&T's position for the record. I can provide you the entire email chain. You or I or any AT&T iPhone user can TODAY pony up the $175 penalty. What if one is moving overseas to a GSM country? Surely this has already happened. And yet AT&T's official position is you are SOL. Your faith in AT&T's rationality is touching, but misplaced.
I'm not with AT&T so I don't care either way.
I'm simply stating that things could change when a large number of iPhone users start to come to the end of their 2 years. You have only stated AT&Y's current position and unless you are clairvoyant I don;t think you can say what it will actually be mid 2009. Let's wait and see...
I'm simply stating that things could change when a large number of iPhone users start to come to the end of their 2 years. You have only stated AT&Y's current position and unless you are clairvoyant I don;t think you can say what it will actually be mid 2009. Let's wait and see...
Jeez, "things could change"! You must be celebrating cliche day all year long. And you're not with AT&T so presumably don't have an iPhone. Have you even seen the AT&T CSS/TOS? And I'm telling you we don't need to wait at all.
Comments
Please people, Apple went to other carriers and they laughed at Apple. AT&T (then Cingular) had the foresight to go with apple .
As far as wanting your phone to do WHATEVER you want. Fine. Feel free to take it apart, solder the parts differently, add different frequences and there you go. Its your phone. Just do not expect Apple to help you. They sold you an iPhone model xxx, not a tv, or a dish washer, or what ever.
:-( this world is getting to be a weird place. :-)
(
Just a thought.
en
I second the judge's ruling. All matters must be examined in open Court, after a full discovery process to reveal the terms of the exclusive agreement between Apple and ATT.
As the judge doesn't recognize jurisdiction outside the State of residence of the two plaintiffs, either new plaintiffs are added in every U.S. jurisdiction where the original iPhone was sold and the new 3G iPhone is sold, or new plaintiffs file a complaint in their State of residence.
At issue is the question of whether Apple and ATT are above the law, which I believe they are not, especially the Sherman Act which prohibits tied sales of an object, the iPhone, and a service, ATT cell phone service, and various provisions of the law preventing fraud on consumers for undisclosed terms in contracts and, more generally, the provisions of various State consumer protection laws.
Monopolies and monopolistic behaviors such as exclusivity agreements will be broken by Courts because they serve only the interests of parties to monopolistic agreements, not members of the general public, and have the effect of raising and maintaining high prices for consumers.
Competition is good for consumers because it lowers the prices and increases the quality of goods and services.
Competition is good for Apple in the long term. Should the present course of anti-competitive behaviour initiated by Steve Jobs be maintained by Courts, and backdated illegal stock options of more than a billion dollars not be challenged by Courts, Apple will go out of business within 10 years.
Android phones, Linux and Windows computers are competing for consumer and business dollars. If Steve Jobs can be deluded in believing that he is above the law and that Apple can survive with high prices to pay for unreasonable executive compensation as if Apple was Steve Jobs' personal piggy bank, it is the Courts role to challenge monopolies and enforce laws that benefit consumers in the long run through innovation and lower prices.
I guess you missed it - the first android phone is exclusive to t-moble. Try to buy one of those and move it to AT&T and you'll face the same issues you have taking an iPhone to T-Moble
Amen with the ruling. Apple sold its soul when they hooked up with AT&T. It's the worstdecision that Apple has ever made. I am a total Apple kool-aide consumer with the exception of this disaster. We ahve our house running with 4 Apple systems, this is not from a person who has an axe to grind with Apple but one who does have an axe to grind with AT&T's predatory practices. I have been the recipient of those practices and will do whatever I can to diss AT&T. Each time that I use my iphone I am reminded that Apple has sold their soul to a piece of, well, you get the idea, Steve needs to rethink this decision. A very happy consumer with Apple products, A very, very, very disgruntled Apple customer having to use AT&T to make a simple phone call. I wish I could be more negative but I would embarrass my mother.
Apple (and Steve Jobs) did not deal with ATT when the contract for the iPhone was first drawn up. Apple (and Steve Jobs) dealt with Cingular. ATT bought out Cingular after Cingular signed a contract with Apple with regards to the iPhone. Could Apple had gotten out of the deal? I don't know. But Apple had most likely already began designing the iPhone for the Edge and G3 network by this time. Rumors has it that Verizon was Apple's first choice but they refused. So if this is true, don't blame Apple for not going with Verizon. It was Verizon that didn't go with Apple.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
Apple (and Steve Jobs) did not deal with ATT when the contract for the iPhone was first drawn up. Apple (and Steve Jobs) dealt with Cingular. ATT bought out Cingular after Cingular signed a contract with Apple with regards to the iPhone. Could Apple had gotten out of the deal? I don't know. But Apple had most likely already began designing the iPhone for the Edge and G3 network by this time. Rumors has it that Verizon was Apple's first choice but they refused. So if this is true, don't blame Apple for not going with Verizon. It was Verizon that didn't go with Apple.
Apple signed a contract with Cingular, but it was Cingular that bought AT&T. Then Cingular changed their name to AT&T because of the better recognition.
Regardless of who they first inked a deal with it was important to Apple at the time who had no experience with mobile phones. Would the iPhone had been nearly as successful if they sold it only in their Apple Stores and online store for $800 (without the profit sharing discount)? Would carriers have charged considerably more than the $45/month that was common for data packages at the time the iPhone came on the scene with its $20/month, or would they have blocked services from the iPhone from working on their network because they deemed the device from using more data than all their smartphones do to the "useable" web browser and YouTube app?
A lot of things have changed since the deal was signed and the original iPhone was launched. At least part of could be argued to have been because of the iPhone. If you don't like Cingular as AT&T then there isn't much you can do right now, outside of leaving the country or using an original, unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile's network.
I second the judge's ruling. All matters must be examined in open Court, after a full discovery process to reveal the terms of the exclusive agreement between Apple and ATT.
As the judge doesn't recognize jurisdiction outside the State of residence of the two plaintiffs, either new plaintiffs are added in every U.S. jurisdiction where the original iPhone was sold and the new 3G iPhone is sold, or new plaintiffs file a complaint in their State of residence.
At issue is the question of whether Apple and ATT are above the law, which I believe they are not, especially the Sherman Act which prohibits tied sales of an object, the iPhone, and a service, ATT cell phone service, and various provisions of the law preventing fraud on consumers for undisclosed terms in contracts and, more generally, the provisions of various State consumer protection laws.
Monopolies and monopolistic behaviors such as exclusivity agreements will be broken by Courts because they serve only the interests of parties to monopolistic agreements, not members of the general public, and have the effect of raising and maintaining high prices for consumers.
Competition is good for consumers because it lowers the prices and increases the quality of goods and services.
Competition is good for Apple in the long term. Should the present course of anti-competitive behaviour initiated by Steve Jobs be maintained by Courts, and backdated illegal stock options of more than a billion dollars not be challenged by Courts, Apple will go out of business within 10 years.
Android phones, Linux and Windows computers are competing for consumer and business dollars. If Steve Jobs can be deluded in believing that he is above the law and that Apple can survive with high prices to pay for unreasonable executive compensation as if Apple was Steve Jobs' personal piggy bank, it is the Courts role to challenge monopolies and enforce laws that benefit consumers in the long run through innovation and lower prices.
Get a clue. Neither Apple or ATT is a monopoly. (unless you're one of the clueless ones that thinks Apple has a monopoly in the "iPhone market"
Other cell phone makers are also now using "new" technology that was available over two years ago in their new cell phones. If it weren't for Apple's iPhone, a lot of these "new" technology would still be on paper only and in some file cabinet. But instead they're are being implemented in new cell phones to compete with Apple's iPhone. This has translated to more choices, better technolgy and lower prices. So far it looks like the consumers are benefitting in the long run?
It would also be good for Apple to have the freedom to allow any apps into the app store, rather than submitting to AT&T's restrictive demands which hamper not only the US users but international users as well. There is no restrictions (on what apps can be sold) that would help Apple as the increased market would help Apple through app store sales.
If Apple loses this they could possibly be freed to do what they like with the phone without any legal recourse from AT&T.
That would be very cool indeed, but the quoted text below I don't understand. Are the lower courts actually stating that the carriers paying $200 for the cost of the handset for the consumer, in no way grants them the right to provide a contractual obligation?
I think in this case the judge had decided that certain specific clauses in the contract, requiring all clients to settle their differences with AT&T through binding arbitration (thus prohibiting the clients from attempting to seek a remedy through the courts) was the "unconscionable" part. The phone carriers were trying to have the case thrown out because the clients had agreed that their only recourse was binding arbitration, and the clients therefore should honor their contract and submit to the arbitration. The court decided that the clients had statutory rights under state law which overrode the contractual binding arbitration limitation.
As is the case with most contracts, if a court finds one or two specific clauses to be invalid (or "unconscionable" in this case), only those specific clauses are taken out of effect; the remainder of the contract is deemed to remain in full force.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the court agreed (at the time) that the clients were correct in their complaint; it only confirmed that the clients had the right to express their dispute in court and let the merits of the case determine the outcome.
I'm a little lost on this. Why pick on Apple for phone/carrier exclusivity when there are plenty of other carriers doing the exact same thing? Look at the iPhone knockoffs exclusive to Verizon and T-Mobile. When Motorola came out with their first Razr, did they not do the exact same thing? Right or wrong, complain about the entire industry doing it than just one.
I remember how Apple made a rather big effort with public announcements that if your iPhone was jailbroken, or unlocked the updates could/would disable your phone. Those monkeys went ahead and rolled the dice and now come back to whine about why Apple did this, or that, or whatever. The software was hacked outside of Apple's control, and it's their fault?
I can imagine buyers of that Psystar garbage suing Apple if one of their updates renders their computer unusable.
Lawyers have just way too much time on their hands.
Seriously, we need to reform the laws to get some clarity here, it's obvious the judges presiding over these things don't understand the can they are about to open.
I must say though, as a Verizon user I'm torn by this.
If this happen, then all the questions everyone posed here about future plans of the iphone will be known. So if you were Verizon or some other competitor and you want to know what Apple and AT&T is up to, get someone to sue them and hope it holds and they will be allowed discovery.
It is just another way to gain market intelligence, or slow your competition down while you catch up. Some companies use lawsuits as part of their business strategy.
So let me get this straight, people are suing because they installed unauthorized software on their phone thereby voiding the warranty, and when Apple provides an update designed to work only on unhacked phones, the people with hacked phones are
try more like an update that Apple created without assuming every phone had been unlocked and researching the dozens of ways to do so and insuring that the update wouldn't hose a single one of them.
now if they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Apple did the research and designed the update to hose all those phones, that's different. but so far, no proof has been even alleged
Also, if you have an issue with a phone not working on another carrier after the 2 year contract is up, why don't you go suing Verizon and Sprint for their locking down phones on their respective CDMA networks..
so wait a second, if locking a phone to a network after the initial contract is illegal, how come you can't get a sidekick with verizon or sprint or even ATT. I really really want a sidekick but I can only get one 'legally' with T-Mobile. I'd have to unlock it etc to even try to use it elsewhere. I'm going to sue t-mobile for locking the sidekick to their network. if Apple and ATT can't do it, why should anyone else be allowed to.
Amen with the ruling. Apple sold its soul when they hooked up with AT&T. It's the worstdecision that Apple has ever made.
they offered the same contract to every company. only ATT was willing to give up the right to overrule Apple's design plans, which Apple insisted on since it wasn't just a phone they were creating but an ipod and a handheld computer as well. Verizon et al insisted on having control over the design, ATT said Apple could kept control.
so actually Apple make the right choice.
try more like an update that Apple created without assuming every phone had been unlocked and researching the dozens of ways to do so and insuring that the update wouldn't hose a single one of them.
now if they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Apple did the research and designed the update to hose all those phones, that's different. but so far, no proof has been even alleged
All that information might be revealed, depending on how the case goes. If the case is allowed to go as far as a trial before a settlement is reached, then it would be extremely unwise for Apple/AT&T to knowingly withhold material evidence relating to the presence or absence of such alleged research during the discovery process. If they actually have something incriminating to hide, they'll probably be very interested in reaching a confidential settlement before it gets that far.
try more like an update that Apple created without assuming every phone had been unlocked and researching the dozens of ways to do so and insuring that the update wouldn't hose a single one of them.
now if they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Apple did the research and designed the update to hose all those phones, that's different. but so far, no proof has been even alleged
When Apple first issued the update they warned that it could possibly brick some unlocked phones. That is when the uproar started that Apple was purposely bricking phones.
Perhaps when we actually GET to 2 years you will find out!
At the moment you are guessing what will happen.
No need to wait 2-yrs or guess. The contract can be canceled anytime for a penalty of $175. I asked AT&T about unlocking once the contract is ended and they say: "Unfortunately, the iPhone cannot be unlocked, even if you are out of contract."
Get a clue. Neither Apple or ATT is a monopoly. (unless you're one of the clueless ones that thinks Apple has a monopoly in the "iPhone market"
Other cell phone makers are also now using "new" technology that was available over two years ago in their new cell phones. If it weren't for Apple's iPhone, a lot of these "new" technology would still be on paper only and in some file cabinet. But instead they're are being implemented in new cell phones to compete with Apple's iPhone. This has translated to more choices, better technolgy and lower prices. So far it looks like the consumers are benefitting in the long run?
No one has alleged that AT&T and/or Apple have a monopoly on the entire cellphone or wireless carrier markets. You might try reading the actual decision (http://www.scribd.com/full/6373862?a...lt96n373mf54d2). With regard to monopolization, plaintiffs allege "[Attempted] Monopolization of the aftermarket for iPhone applications", and "[Attempted] Monopolization of the aftermarket for iPhone voice and data services", both "in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act". Since any iPhone buyer may, and this is entirely within the terms of their contract with AT&T, terminate the contract for a penalty of $175, there is arguably an aftermarket (or at least a nascent aftermarket) for both iPhone applications and iPhone voice and data services.
Nor has the judge decided in favor of the plaintiffs! All Judge Ware has done is refuse to dismiss the suit out of hand as AT&T and Apple wanted. All parties now get their day in court.
As to unlock codes. All of the carriers (both GSM & CDMA) have fought this. See Supreme Court OKs Cellphone Unlocking Suit. "Verizon and Sprint, both CDMA carriers, have agreed to provide the software code to unlock cellphones after customers nationwide have completed their original contract". AT&T says on the record "Unfortunately, the iPhone cannot be unlocked, even if you are out of contract."
To those decrying consumer lawsuits: many of the protections we consumers enjoy and take for granted have come about as a result of consumer litigation, not because corporations acted ethically or did the right thing voluntarily. Caveat Emptor has been replaced by Implied Warranty of Fitness. Get used to it.
No need to wait 2-yrs or guess. The contract can be canceled anytime for a penalty of $175. I asked AT&T about unlocking once the contract is ended and they say: "Unfortunately, the iPhone cannot be unlocked, even if you are out of contract."
Well they say that at the moment but we still have time to go before the 2 years is over.
Who knows what the options will be then.
Well they say that at the moment but we still have time to go before the 2 years is over.
Who knows what the options will be then.
You miss the point entirely! What I quoted is AT&T's position for the record. I can provide you the entire email chain. You or I or any AT&T iPhone user can TODAY pony up the $175 penalty. What if one is moving overseas to a GSM country? Surely this has already happened. And yet AT&T's official position is you are SOL. Your faith in AT&T's rationality is touching, but misplaced.
You miss the point entirely! What I quoted is AT&T's position for the record. I can provide you the entire email chain. You or I or any AT&T iPhone user can TODAY pony up the $175 penalty. What if one is moving overseas to a GSM country? Surely this has already happened. And yet AT&T's official position is you are SOL. Your faith in AT&T's rationality is touching, but misplaced.
I'm not with AT&T so I don't care either way.
I'm simply stating that things could change when a large number of iPhone users start to come to the end of their 2 years. You have only stated AT&Y's current position and unless you are clairvoyant I don;t think you can say what it will actually be mid 2009. Let's wait and see...
I'm not with AT&T so I don't care either way.
I'm simply stating that things could change when a large number of iPhone users start to come to the end of their 2 years. You have only stated AT&Y's current position and unless you are clairvoyant I don;t think you can say what it will actually be mid 2009. Let's wait and see...
Jeez, "things could change"! You must be celebrating cliche day all year long. And you're not with AT&T so presumably don't have an iPhone. Have you even seen the AT&T CSS/TOS? And I'm telling you we don't need to wait at all.