AT&T pushing to keep iPhone exclusive through 2011

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    It must suck to be American, land of the free* (*to be assraped by corporations).



    But the cool part is that this is the easiest place in the world to start from nothing and build up a corporation where you can engage in government-assisted assraping! That's why most of us Americans take it up the pooper with grim resolve -- the prospect that we may be on the giving end some day!



    The most egregious industry in which we Americans are assraped is undoubtedly health care. Any of the right-wing kooks who try to scare us about "socialized medicine", "rationed care", "inefficient bureaucracies", etc. are all hoping we don't know that all of those things are happening right now. Instead of being in the hands of our democratically-elected government, it's under the control of private companies who are duty-bound to maximize profits for their shareholders and have no accountability to the patients.



    A few years ago, I had a choice of three of four companies to use as part of my benefits at work. Later, that narrowed to multiple plans from one company, Now, I have one choice from one company (which therefore, is not a choice, unless you consider "uninsured" a viable option).



    All you have to tell the right-wingers is that with our so-called free market for health care, we pay twice as much as any other industrial country but have worse results. That's just inexcusable for a country that ideally operates as a meritocracy.



    At least we still have football (what the world calls American Football)!
  • Reply 82 of 147
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post


    Apple is just being insensitive to the consumer needs. ...



    I like the iPhone, and I have been to the ATT store thinking about switching over to ATT, but their onerous terms along with reported poor coverage was a bitter pill to swallow so I backed away.



    I'm on AT&T. What "onerous terms" are you referring to?



    As for insensitive, I highly doubt it. AT&T was the carrier that agreed to Apple's demands for:

    1. wi-fi,

    2. voice over wi-fi,

    3. iTunes at-home activation,

    4. iTunes media,

    5. iTunes media over-the-air,

    6. iTunes App Store,

    7. mobile me,

    8. iTunes ringtones,

    9. unlimited data (no metered data) plan,

    10. no MMS,

    11. Apple control of TV marketing,

    12. Apple control over allowed retail outlets,

    13. no AT&T branding on iPhone (other than tiny icon), etc

    while providing no access to any of AT&T's own walled-garden stores (MediaNet, etc). Verizon, which Apple approached first, would've agreed to few, if any, of the above.



    Altho Apple primarily does things for its own profit (like any business does), in the end, it was actually more sensitive to consumer's "needs" given the relative popularity of Apple's efforts over those of any carrier. In reality, Verizon is the one that is "insensitive" as they limit everything in exchange for providing a good network.
  • Reply 83 of 147
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samthegreater View Post


    Even though AT&T is gaining many new subscribers that are paying for their monthly phone plans through the iPhone, it still seems to me that it doesn't quite make up for the amount they lost through subsidizing the iPhone 3G. And let's face it, AT&T's phone service is simply sub-par. I think that consumers will begin to realize that an iPod touch has just as many application options as an iPhone, so they are better off financially if they stick with whatever phone plan they have (many provide customers with phones that come free with the plan) and get an iPod touch instead.



    Excluding any capital investments AT&T is making to improve their 3G+ network (which they would have to do anyway though not possibly on as quick a schedule as they have to to support iPhone), AT&T is clearly profiting big-time from its relationship with Apple. iPhone alone is bringing them huge numbers of new highly satisfied customers with 2-year $70+/month contracts. Go read their quarterly releases and conference call transcripts to see how much they love/need iPhone.



    If you need further evidence from the other side, see Verizon's growing churn ratio, Verizon exit survey (highlighting iPhone as choice), and Verizon/RIM buy one, get one free promotions.
  • Reply 84 of 147
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Trolling? Who- you? Don't flatter yourself!

    Stop posting misinformation!!

    Wrong again. Where's the carrier? Pre will be at Verizon this fall. Razr is all over the place.

    You obviously don't know what you're talking about.



    Most cell/smartphones of high value are/were locked to one carrier when introduced. It's the length of the "lock" that is being discussed. iPhone's "lock" just happens to be way longer than any of the others.



    Pre will not be at Verizon this fall. Within the US, Pre is exclusive to Sprint at least through the end of 2009. If you know otherwise, provide a link please.
  • Reply 85 of 147
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post


    when AT&T is not exclusive with Apple?



    AT&T sells other smartphones. Why shouldn't Apple distribute its iPhones through other service providers?



    There is no technical reason why people can't use iPhones on other networks. There is only a locking scheme that shackles iPhone users to their network exclusively.



    If AT&T rolled out a data network exclusively for iPhones, I can understand why they might deserve a long-term monopoly on selling them. But their network works with many types of phones they sell, so they really have no valid claim to hold iPhone users hostage forever.



    AT&T sells other smartphones, but doesn't give those other phones as much leeway as it gives Apple for iPhone. See my other post earlier in this thread.
  • Reply 86 of 147
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by breeze View Post


    Relate to why on earth Apple and ATT would offer a $699+ phone contract free if it did not behold the ability to be carrier choice ( ie: unlocked) ....



    Unfortunately, this is what happening. Right now you can go to an Apple store and pay $599+ to buy contract free locked to AT&T iPhone (you can only use it with AT&T). However, you can use jailbreaking to unlock it but you may have problems updating to new iPhone OS. I guess you already know that.



    The other unfortunate thing is that in the US there is no law to force carriers to unlock your phone and there is no clause in AT&T contract that says AT&T or Apple will unlock your iPhone even after your contract is up. Believe me, I've looked it up many times and couldn't find it. If you can find that law or clause in AT&T contract please let me know because I seriously want to point it out to AT&T and ask them to unlock my iPhone.



    PS. AT&T and other carriers usually would unlock your phone (not any phone and not the iPhone) after 90 days of good standing but only if you ask them.
  • Reply 87 of 147
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Most cell/smartphones of high value are/were locked to one carrier when introduced. It's the length of the "lock" that is being discussed. iPhone's "lock" just happens to be way longer than any of the others.



    Pre will not be at Verizon this fall. Within the US, Pre is exclusive to Sprint at least through the end of 2009. If you know otherwise, provide a link please.



    Where is your link proving it is exclusive until the end of 2009. Provide link please.

    I've read 6 months after launch it goes to Verizon. So count 6 months after launch which now could be summer perhaps?



    And the iPhone's lock with AT&T is not "just happening" either. These are abnormal terms. Prove to me that this is just business as usual (a 4 plus year lock) for phones as you seem to believe.
  • Reply 88 of 147
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    I'm on AT&T. What "onerous terms" are you referring to?



    As for insensitive, I highly doubt it. AT&T was the carrier that agreed to Apple's demands for:

    1. wi-fi,

    2. voice over wi-fi,

    3. iTunes at-home activation,

    4. iTunes media,

    5. iTunes media over-the-air,

    6. iTunes App Store,

    7. mobile me,

    8. iTunes ringtones,

    9. unlimited data (no metered data) plan,

    10. no MMS,

    11. Apple control of TV marketing,

    12. Apple control over allowed retail outlets,

    13. no AT&T branding on iPhone (other than tiny icon), etc

    while providing no access to any of AT&T's own walled-garden stores (MediaNet, etc). Verizon, which Apple approached first, would've agreed to few, if any, of the above.



    Altho Apple primarily does things for its own profit (like any business does), in the end, it was actually more sensitive to consumer's "needs" given the relative popularity of Apple's efforts over those of any carrier. In reality, Verizon is the one that is "insensitive" as they limit everything in exchange for providing a good network.



    So AT&T charges you and arm and a leg, then gives you a crappy network and customer service and you're OK with that?
  • Reply 89 of 147
    breezebreeze Posts: 96member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post




    The other unfortunate thing is that in the US there is no law to force carriers to unlock your phone and there is no clause in AT&T contract that says AT&T or Apple will unlock your iPhone even after your contract is up. Believe me, I've looked it up many times and couldn't find it. If you can find that law or clause in AT&T contract please let me know because I seriously want to point it out to AT&T and ask them to unlock my iPhone.



    PS. AT&T and other carriers usually would unlock your phone (not any phone and not the iPhone) after 90 days of good standing but only if you ask them.



    ATT has to supply a code to unlock customer's phones upon expiration of a contract. They cannot force you to stay on as a customer and they cannot make your phone obsolete or redundant or make you throw away your phone for failure to do so.



    I have been an ATT customer for many years. A few years back, I had to travel abroad and needed to use a local SIMM on my Nokia phone in Europe. Upon my inquiry with ATT on unlocking the phone they told me that they were required by law to provide unlock codes for all customer phones who's contracts had expired. They indeed provided then the unlocking code. This may be a federal FCC requirement or a consumer protection requirement. I inquired with a manager at ATT about this when I first got my iPhone and he verified that it is true.
  • Reply 90 of 147
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post




    The Apple/AT&T deal has nothing to do with lawyers, it has to do with loyalty
    . AT&T took a chance and agreed to carry the phone under Apple's stipulations having never actually seen it.



    That has to be the most naive post I've ever read here or anywhere.

    Do you sincerely believe Apple would want to conitinue this affair with such a crappy carrier and not buy out of this choking exclusive contract and not expand even more?
  • Reply 91 of 147
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by breeze View Post


    ATT has to supply a code to unlock customer's phones upon expiration of a contract. They cannot force you to stay on as a customer and they cannot make your phone obsolete or redundant or make you throw away your phone for failure to do so.



    I have been an ATT customer for many years. A few years back, I had to travel abroad and needed to use a local SIMM on my Nokia phone in Europe. Upon my inquiry with ATT on unlocking the phone they told me that they were required by law to provide unlock codes for all customer phones who's contracts had expired. They indeed provided then the unlocking code. This may be a federal FCC requirement or a consumer protection requirement. I inquired with a manager at ATT about this when I first got my iPhone and he verified that it is true.



    This is article about an interview with AT&T CEO back in Dec 2007. He clearly said that AT&T unlocking policy will not apply for the iPhone. Maybe you should check back with that manager again.



    http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/...r-networks-785



    PS. There is not FCC regulation that require carriers to unlock. If you don't believe me google it.
  • Reply 92 of 147
    breezebreeze Posts: 96member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    This is article about an interview with AT&T CEO back in Dec 2007. He clearly said that AT&T unlocking policy will not apply for the iPhone. Maybe you should check back with that manager again.



    http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/...r-networks-785



    Just because he said so, doesn't make it legal... ( sound familiar?)



    It's definitely worth pursuing inquiries with consumer protection agencies...



    I'd think there has to be some legal safeguards or conditions, that protect investment and property beyond the contract. ATT can control usage while under contract but not afterwards. Their protection is the lock but they are given the keys for "use" only while the contract is in force. Not after.
  • Reply 93 of 147
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    So AT&T charges you and arm and a leg, then gives you a crappy network and customer service and you're OK with that?



    Why do you say they charge me any more than Verizon or the others do for a smartphone with an unlimited data plan?



    Excluding the now extinct Sprint SERO plan, all the US carriers charge about the same (except for the completely unlimited everything highest end plan where Sprint is significantly cheaper, and which I don't need).



    By the way, for the three months I've been on AT&T cell, its network has been much better (coverage & quality), and its customer service has been just as good as T-Mobile (my former carrier). I used to have Verizon for phone service and hated their customer service. (I now have Verizon FIOS and so far have not had to contact a real person. Their automated help system is painful to work through, but it's solved my problems so I'm not complaining.)
  • Reply 94 of 147
    I pretty much stopped hoping iPhone will ever come to Verizon. I don't like AT&T so no iPhone for me. I'm about to get the Touch just to play with the interface and enjoy some of the tricks via my WiFi, that should satisfy my craving for the iPhone.



    At the same time there isn't one phone I like on Verizon. Phone selection is just terrible. Where are the great Nokia's roaming in Europe. Why is this outdated still alive and kicking? Do we need the government to outlaw older systems much like they're mandating Digital broadcasting now?
  • Reply 95 of 147
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by breeze View Post


    Just because he said so, doesn't make it legal... ( sound familiar?)



    It's definitely worth pursuing inquiries with consumer protection agencies...



    I'd think there has to be some protection that protects investment and property beyond the contract. ATT can control usage while under contract but not afterwards. Their protection is the lock but they are given the keys for "use" only while the contract is in force. Not after.



    The problem is that it is legal because there is no FCC regulation regarding this issue. This is why there is class action lawsuit against AT&T for refusing to unlock iPhones. I am with you regarding this. I think the FCC should issue a regulation forcing carriers to unlock phones once the contract is up. The reality is there is none right now and this sucks. The only thing the FCC did was regulate the early contract termination fee.
  • Reply 96 of 147
    xwiredtvaxwiredtva Posts: 389member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Quad Band means it uses different frequencies with GSM, Sprint is CDMA.







    Its not in Apple's business model to just sell unlocked phones to whomever wants to buy them. Apple is going to be fully involved in how the phone and service are sold.







    The contract is up in 2010, not this year.







    This has been talked about. Apple mentioned they thought about it but decided not to do it. Its much more efficient to be a hardware maker and leave the network to those who invest billions in networks.



    Contact re-up is this year, June in fact. Expires in 2010, the current. Yes Quad Band is GSM... Sprint IS ALSO GSM, thanks to Nextel...

    http://www.nextel.com/en/stores/intl...al_phones.html



    The can sublease the lines. The carrier then provides the service, Apple then sells the phones, contracts, whatever... There supporting the phone already, what's left?
  • Reply 97 of 147
    breezebreeze Posts: 96member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    The problem is that it is legal because there is no FCC regulation regarding this issue. This is why there is class action lawsuit against AT&T for refusing to unlock iPhones. I am with you regarding this. I think the FCC should issue a regulation forcing carriers to unlock phones once the contract is up. The reality is there is none right now and this sucks. The only thing the FCC did was regulate the early contract termination fee.



    Well then we've got our work cut out for us haven't we?



    Time to start writing and calling everyone that can do something about it.



    I still think there is legal ground to demand that an iPhone continue to function fully after "doing time" with the mandatory ATT contract. Refusing to unlock it is tantamount to ATT sabotage.



    PS: I did not know that there is a class action against ATT for refusing to unlock iPhones - after the contract expires...Could you please provide some details?
  • Reply 98 of 147
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    I'm on AT&T. What "onerous terms" are you referring to?



    As for insensitive, I highly doubt it. AT&T was the carrier that agreed to Apple's demands for:

    1. wi-fi,

    2. voice over wi-fi,

    3. iTunes at-home activation,

    4. iTunes media,

    5. iTunes media over-the-air,

    6. iTunes App Store,

    7. mobile me,

    8. iTunes ringtones,

    9. unlimited data (no metered data) plan,

    10. no MMS,

    11. Apple control of TV marketing,

    12. Apple control over allowed retail outlets,

    13. no AT&T branding on iPhone (other than tiny icon), etc

    while providing no access to any of AT&T's own walled-garden stores (MediaNet, etc). Verizon, which Apple approached first, would've agreed to few, if any, of the above.



    Altho Apple primarily does things for its own profit (like any business does), in the end, it was actually more sensitive to consumer's "needs" given the relative popularity of Apple's efforts over those of any carrier. In reality, Verizon is the one that is "insensitive" as they limit everything in exchange for providing a good network.



    ++ This is a great post!



    People on here know I have bashed the hell out of AT&T and do not own an iPhone due to the fact that it is on their network. That said, people quickly forget how much Apple was trying to change the cell model when the iPhone first came out. The fact that Apple is having to fall in line a bit and go to a subscriber model and other such things is in no way the fault of AT&T.



    Mark, you've made some great points and have a better memory than most.
  • Reply 99 of 147
    xwiredtvaxwiredtva Posts: 389member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Unfortunately, this is what happening. Right now you can go to an Apple store and pay $599+ to buy contract free locked to AT&T iPhone (you can only use it with AT&T). However, you can use jailbreaking to unlock it but you may have problems updating to new iPhone OS. I guess you already know that.



    The other unfortunate thing is that in the US there is no law to force carriers to unlock your phone and there is no clause in AT&T contract that says AT&T or Apple will unlock your iPhone even after your contract is up. Believe me, I've looked it up many times and couldn't find it. If you can find that law or clause in AT&T contract please let me know because I seriously want to point it out to AT&T and ask them to unlock my iPhone.



    PS. AT&T and other carriers usually would unlock your phone (not any phone and not the iPhone) after 90 days of good standing but only if you ask them.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
  • Reply 100 of 147
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    I've read 6 months after launch it goes to Verizon. So count 6 months after launch which now could be summer perhaps?



    If you're assuming release in spring, then well yes, technically Dec 19 is Fall.



    Quote:

    And the iPhone's lock with AT&T is not "just happening" either. These are abnormal terms. Prove to me that this is just business as usual (a 4 plus year lock) for phones as you seem to believe.



    Apple is an abnormal company.
Sign In or Register to comment.