Ah, but do you agree to these terms of use at the time of the sales transaction? If so, what's the wording and where is it?
Are these terms of use INSIDE of the sealed package? If so, what's the wording? If inside the package, is it justified for Apple to charge a restocking fee if you choose not to agree to these terms of use?
THAT'S MY POINT! Don't sell an unactivated phone and then intentionally brick their phones if NO terms of use were agreed upon prior to or at the time of the TRANSACTION. Don't charge a restocking fee if the terms of use are inside the package and the customer chooses to not agree to them and return the product.
Those iPhones that became "bricked" were, I believe, the ones hacked to allow access to other service providers. The information that I was required to contract for a 2 year service agreement with AT&T was communicated prior to my acceptance of the device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple iPhone store
AT&T Rate Plans for iPhone
To use iPhone, you’ll need to sign up for a 2-year service agreement. Plans start at $59.99 and include Visual Voicemail and Unlimited Data — email and web — and 200 SMS text messages (you can add more text messages for a little more a month). You can browse the Internet and send emails as often as you like without being charged extra.
Additional terms of service information was linked and available.
I didn't buy from the Apple store, but the same information was communicated.
Those iPhones that became "bricked" were, I believe, the ones hacked to allow access to other service providers. The information that I was required to contract for a 2 year service agreement with AT&T was communicated prior to my acceptance of the device.
"Communicated" and "agreed upon" are two different monsters. Nowhere -- unless you can prove me wrong -- prior to the transaction of purchasing the phone does the customer agree to any terms of sale in which the buyer pledges to subsequently activate the phone only on AT&T's network. It's one thing for Apple and AT&T to say that you are expected to activate with AT&T under a 2-year agreement. It's another for you to sign an agreement that says you WILL.
When I bought my Hyundai Sonata back in 2003, they told me that I was required to come in every 30,000 to their dealership in order to keep the car under warranty. Sure, I could get it serviced anywhere else and the car would be fine. Let's say, then, that I didn't take the car into Hyundai until 55,000 miles. That doesn't give them the right to disable my car from driving again because I always got my oil changed at Jiffy Lube. That does give them the right to void the warranty, however, and I would need to pay for them to service the vehicle.
It's the SAME THING with Apple. AT&T has no part in a customer's unlocked iPhone, period...and that's taking into account whatever stupid agreement Apple has with AT&T. A customer never signs an agreement with AT&T at the time of purchase, even if they tell the customer, "thou shalt activate with us." Apple bricking iPhones is a low, pathetic act on Apple's part when they have no agreement on which to base such an act -- or at least none that I've seen so far.
If Apple sold an activated phone, which was activated under an agreement that the customer would not hack the phone or remove said phone from AT&T's cellular network under penalty of potential bricking, this would be very different. Right now Apple is acting the vandal and, at a minimum, it's really really shady whether or not it's within Apple's "rights" to do so.
"Communicated" and "agreed upon" are two different monsters. Nowhere -- unless you can prove me wrong -- prior to the transaction of purchasing the phone does the customer agree to any terms of sale in which the buyer pledges to subsequently activate the phone only on AT&T's network. It's one thing for Apple and AT&T to say that you are expected to activate with AT&T under a 2-year agreement. It's another for you to sign an agreement that says you WILL.
When I bought my Hyundai Sonata back in 2003, they told me that I was required to come in every 30,000 to their dealership in order to keep the car under warranty. Sure, I could get it serviced anywhere else and the car would be fine. Let's say, then, that I didn't take the car into Hyundai until 55,000 miles. That doesn't give them the right to disable my car from driving again because I always got my oil changed at Jiffy Lube. That does give them the right to void the warranty, however, and I would need to pay for them to service the vehicle.
It's the SAME THING with Apple. AT&T has no part in an unlocked iPhone, period. I never signed an agreement with them, even if they told me, "thou shalt activate with us." Apple bricking iPhones is a low, pathetic act on Apple's part when they have no agreement on which to base such an act -- or at least none that I've seen so far.
Do you own an iPhone?
I'm absolutely positive I was told a 2 year service contract with AT&T was a requirement.
I guess I'll fall back on your argument technique at this point.
"unless you can prove me wrong" ... you have to agree to a 2 year contract with AT&T prior to having a valid purchase agreement to own an iPhone.
"Communicated" and "agreed upon" are two different monsters. Nowhere -- unless you can prove me wrong -- prior to the transaction of purchasing the phone does the customer agree to any terms of sale in which the buyer pledges to subsequently activate the phone only on AT&T's network. It's one thing for Apple and AT&T to say that you are expected to activate with AT&T under a 2-year agreement. It's another for you to sign an agreement that says you WILL.
When I bought my Hyundai Sonata back in 2003, they told me that I was required to come in every 30,000 to their dealership in order to keep the car under warranty. Sure, I could get it serviced anywhere else and the car would be fine. Let's say, then, that I didn't take the car into Hyundai until 55,000 miles. That doesn't give them the right to disable my car from driving again because I always got my oil changed at Jiffy Lube. That does give them the right to void the warranty, however, and I would need to pay for them to service the vehicle.
It's the SAME THING with Apple. AT&T has no part in an unlocked iPhone, period. I never signed an agreement with them, even if they told me, "thou shalt activate with us." Apple bricking iPhones is a low, pathetic act on Apple's part when they have no agreement on which to base such an act -- or at least none that I've seen so far.
You definitely 'signed' the Apple software EULA when you activated the phone, whether with AT&T or not and if you worked around that, Apple would not have any responsibility to provide upgrades in the first place.
So the solution to your situation is clear - don't upgrade. Apple still has no responsibility to provide an upgrade that accounts for all of your off-the-reservation activities. Again, I support the efforts to convince Apple to change their minds, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to it.
You definitely 'signed' the Apple software EULA when you activated the phone, whether with AT&T or not and if you worked around that, Apple would not have any responsibility to provide upgrades in the first place.
Oh, definitely.
Let me be clear: If you activated your iPhone with AT&T, unlocked it and then bricked it, then that's a whole other story.
I'm talking about someone like myself that is interested in buying an iPhone, taking it home, unlocking it, and then putting my T-Mobile SIM in it. No activation with AT&T EVER.
In that case, AT&T has no part in my transaction with Apple. Because Apple and I don't sign any explicit agreement (that I know of thusfar) that I WILL activate with AT&T, then there is no agreement in which Apple has the right to purposefully brick my unlocked phone if I update.
Let me be clear: If you activated your iPhone with AT&T, unlocked it and then bricked it, then that's a whole other story.
I'm talking about someone like myself that is interested in buying an iPhone, taking it home, unlocking it, and then putting my T-Mobile SIM in it. No activation with AT&T EVER.
In that case, AT&T has no part in my transaction with Apple. Because Apple and I don't sign any explicit agreement (that I know of thusfar) that I WILL activate with AT&T, then there is no agreement in which Apple has the right to purposefully brick my unlocked phone if I update.
Did you actually read what I wrote? There a click-thru EULA with APPLE not AT&T. That's what I was referring to. There are two licenses you agree to to use the iPhone Apple and AT&T.
Did you actually read what I wrote? There a click-thru EULA with APPLE not AT&T. That's what I was referring to. There are two licenses you agree to to use the iPhone Apple and AT&T.
I did read your post but misunderstood what you were saying because, never having activated an iPhone, was unaware of two EULAs that must be agreed to.
Knowing that, three things:
1. Does the EULA still show up when you try connecting/syncing an unlocked iPhone?
2. An Apple software EULA notwithstanding, the DMCA still allows for U.S. residents to unlock their locked cellular phones. Apple seems to be actively disregarding that. Even if they aren't and the bricking was an unintentionally byproduct of 1.1.1, I believe Apple should release information on how to unlock them -- because we're allowed to do so.
3. All that notwithstanding, charging a restocking fee for a product that you are not aware of the user agreement when you can't see the user agreement until the box is opened seems shady, too. At a minimum, Apple should remove the restocking fee so a customer can plausibly reject the EULA and return the product without incurring a penalty.
I did read your post but misunderstood what you were saying because, never having activated an iPhone, was unaware of two EULAs that must be agreed to.
Knowing that, three things:
1. Does the EULA still show up when you try connecting/syncing an unlocked iPhone?
2. An Apple software EULA notwithstanding, the DMCA still allows for U.S. residents to unlock their locked cellular phones. Apple seems to be actively disregarding that. Even if they aren't and the bricking was an unintentionally byproduct of 1.1.1, I believe Apple should release information on how to unlock them -- because we're allowed to do so.
3. All that notwithstanding, charging a restocking fee for a product that you are not aware of the user agreement when you can't see the user agreement until the box is opened seems shady, too. At a minimum, Apple should remove the restocking fee so a customer can plausibly reject the EULA and return the product without incurring a penalty.
1) Don't really know but I would imagine it applies in any case (don't really want to argue this point either way)
2) The exception to the DMCA (not the DMCA itself) allows users to unlock their phones without fear of reprisal. It does nothing (unlike some European laws) to require that unlocking codes be provided or supported. This is in the US, lets not drag this into yet another US/European law difference thread - Please Apple is not disregarding this and again went out of their way to warn people away from the upgrade if they did unlock the SIM. They had no legal responsibility to do that in any case.
3) Maybe, but this is common practice on many, many software titles. The EULA is available on the Apple site as are all their software license agreements.. I believe that this URL is given on the seal you have to break to get into the item (software/hardware). Plus every add and piece of overview literature stated the AT&T connection.
My iPhone sat there looking at me. displaying a screen asking for me to connect it to a computer running iTunes and wouldn't do squat 'till I did so. In the course of turning the iPhone into something that wasn't sitting there telling me to activate it, I had to agree to an EULA.
From what I've been able to find out, you can terminate your contract with AT&T by paying a penalty. At that point you can't be sued for hooking the iPhone to another service providers network. HOWEVER ... there's nothing obligating Apple nor AT&T to provide a software solution to do so.
My iPhone sat there looking at me. displaying a screen asking for me to connect it to a computer running iTunes and wouldn't do squat 'till I did so. In the course of turning the iPhone into something that wasn't sitting there telling me to activate it, I had to agree to an EULA.
Unless you hack the phone before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss
From what I've been able to find out, you can terminate your contract with AT&T by paying a penalty. At that point you can't be sued for hooking the iPhone to another service providers network. HOWEVER ... there's nothing obligating Apple nor AT&T to provide a software solution to do so.
Okay, but how about this: What obligation does/should Apple have to support the phone if you have properly terminated your contract with AT&T and still want to use it through another carrier? You've paid your "debt" to both firms (as they've established the debt to be paid) and you're then free and clear. In that case I believe Apple should still support the phone. This question will most definitely arise on June 29, 2009 when thousands of iPhone users' contracts are up, want to move to another carrier, but also have Applecare on the phone.
(ASIDE: I just see a lot of issues that Apple/AT&T didn't seem to adequately address because they were so time-strapped to release the thing in the first place)
ASIDE: I just see a lot of issues that Apple/AT&T didn't seem to adequately address because they were so time-strapped to release the thing in the first place.
There is no ambiguity its perfectly clear. Apple has it written in all iPhone documentation and on the iPhone's box itself. You are trying to make it more complicated than it really is
A two year contract with AT&T is a requirement of the phone. There are no what ifs, or buts, or whys. Its a straight forward contract.
You are free to hack the phone if you so choose, but Apple is not obligated to support hacked phones nor bears any reasonability from damage from said hacking.
Okay, but how about this: What obligation does/should Apple have to support the phone if you have properly terminated your contract with AT&T and still want to use it through another carrier? You've paid your "debt" to both firms (as they've established the debt to be paid) and you're then free and clear. In that case I believe Apple should still support the phone. This question will most definitely arise on June 29, 2009 when thousands of iPhone users' contracts are up, want to move to another carrier, but also have Applecare on the phone.
(ASIDE: I just see a lot of issues that Apple/AT&T didn't seem to adequately address because they were so time-strapped to release the thing in the first place)
You can only legally unlock the iPhone, you can't legally hack it. I'd bet the things you'd have to do to the device just to get it to the point where you COULD change carriers would be considered illegal. Better to just activate it then cancel before 3 days - the legally allotted time you have to cancel your AT&T account.
Here's part of the Apple warranty:
Quote:
Apple does not warrant that the operation of the product will be uninterrupted or error-free. Apple is not responsible for damage arising from failure to
follow instructions relating to the product’s use.
This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (f) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (g) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; or (h) if any Apple serial number has been removed or defaced.
Look, the last thing I'm going to say here about this is that Apple really needs to shape up and quit monkeying with those who want to have some flexibility with their products.
If they're not going to sell activated phones then they need to suck it up and realize that people are going to do stuff with the product that they bought to do what's best for them, not Apple.
If unlocking a phone is not illegal then those who hack their phones to do such a thing shouldn't be shat upon. Not checking new features with such a phone is one thing. Purposefully releasing an update that bricks the device and is irreversible (!) is pathetic.
If they're going to force people to sign a 2-year service agreement with AT&T then they need to not "double dip" by also charging full price for the hardware. If they want to charge full price for their hardware then they should sell an unlocked version.
Look, the last thing I'm going to say here about this is that Apple really needs to shape up and quit monkeying with those who want to have some flexibility with their products.
If they're not going to sell activated phones then they need to suck it up and realize that people are going to do stuff with the product that they bought to do what's best for them, not Apple.
If unlocking a phone is not illegal then those who hack their phones to do such a thing shouldn't be shat upon. Not checking new features with such a phone is one thing. Purposefully releasing an update that bricks the device and is irreversible (!) is pathetic.
If they're going to force people to sign a 2-year service agreement with AT&T then they need to not "double dip" by also charging full price for the hardware. If they want to charge full price for their hardware then they should sell an unlocked version.
Apple was upfront on the whole matter . They told people straight out about the iPhone and their partnership with ATT . You on the other hand don't get it , you are ignoring what the other posters are telling you because it's not what you wanted to hear .
Well , Apple did sucked it up , they lost revenue on people who switched the iPhone from ATT to whatever service they happen to like and not once did Apple sent letters to those people who hacked their phones to desist on what they are doing .
Prove it , I updated my locked iPhone and the first thing I saw was a big bold warning stating in effect that those who hacked their iPhones should not install the update because it might break their phones . The update is damn optional , if you hacked your phone and installed the update and whining afterwards and blaming Apple for your predicament , then that is truly very well pathetic .
Force to sign to ATT's service ? Sorry Pal , nobody is forced to buy the iPhone . If people don't want the two year contract , they don't have to sign anything . Of course , they also don't have the iPhone because it's exclusive only to ATT here in the US . It's all about personal responsibility .
Comments
Ah, but do you agree to these terms of use at the time of the sales transaction? If so, what's the wording and where is it?
Are these terms of use INSIDE of the sealed package? If so, what's the wording? If inside the package, is it justified for Apple to charge a restocking fee if you choose not to agree to these terms of use?
THAT'S MY POINT! Don't sell an unactivated phone and then intentionally brick their phones if NO terms of use were agreed upon prior to or at the time of the TRANSACTION. Don't charge a restocking fee if the terms of use are inside the package and the customer chooses to not agree to them and return the product.
Those iPhones that became "bricked" were, I believe, the ones hacked to allow access to other service providers. The information that I was required to contract for a 2 year service agreement with AT&T was communicated prior to my acceptance of the device.
AT&T Rate Plans for iPhone
To use iPhone, you’ll need to sign up for a 2-year service agreement. Plans start at $59.99 and include Visual Voicemail and Unlimited Data — email and web — and 200 SMS text messages (you can add more text messages for a little more a month). You can browse the Internet and send emails as often as you like without being charged extra.
Additional terms of service information was linked and available.
I didn't buy from the Apple store, but the same information was communicated.
Those iPhones that became "bricked" were, I believe, the ones hacked to allow access to other service providers. The information that I was required to contract for a 2 year service agreement with AT&T was communicated prior to my acceptance of the device.
"Communicated" and "agreed upon" are two different monsters. Nowhere -- unless you can prove me wrong -- prior to the transaction of purchasing the phone does the customer agree to any terms of sale in which the buyer pledges to subsequently activate the phone only on AT&T's network. It's one thing for Apple and AT&T to say that you are expected to activate with AT&T under a 2-year agreement. It's another for you to sign an agreement that says you WILL.
When I bought my Hyundai Sonata back in 2003, they told me that I was required to come in every 30,000 to their dealership in order to keep the car under warranty. Sure, I could get it serviced anywhere else and the car would be fine. Let's say, then, that I didn't take the car into Hyundai until 55,000 miles. That doesn't give them the right to disable my car from driving again because I always got my oil changed at Jiffy Lube. That does give them the right to void the warranty, however, and I would need to pay for them to service the vehicle.
It's the SAME THING with Apple. AT&T has no part in a customer's unlocked iPhone, period...and that's taking into account whatever stupid agreement Apple has with AT&T. A customer never signs an agreement with AT&T at the time of purchase, even if they tell the customer, "thou shalt activate with us." Apple bricking iPhones is a low, pathetic act on Apple's part when they have no agreement on which to base such an act -- or at least none that I've seen so far.
If Apple sold an activated phone, which was activated under an agreement that the customer would not hack the phone or remove said phone from AT&T's cellular network under penalty of potential bricking, this would be very different. Right now Apple is acting the vandal and, at a minimum, it's really really shady whether or not it's within Apple's "rights" to do so.
"Communicated" and "agreed upon" are two different monsters. Nowhere -- unless you can prove me wrong -- prior to the transaction of purchasing the phone does the customer agree to any terms of sale in which the buyer pledges to subsequently activate the phone only on AT&T's network. It's one thing for Apple and AT&T to say that you are expected to activate with AT&T under a 2-year agreement. It's another for you to sign an agreement that says you WILL.
When I bought my Hyundai Sonata back in 2003, they told me that I was required to come in every 30,000 to their dealership in order to keep the car under warranty. Sure, I could get it serviced anywhere else and the car would be fine. Let's say, then, that I didn't take the car into Hyundai until 55,000 miles. That doesn't give them the right to disable my car from driving again because I always got my oil changed at Jiffy Lube. That does give them the right to void the warranty, however, and I would need to pay for them to service the vehicle.
It's the SAME THING with Apple. AT&T has no part in an unlocked iPhone, period. I never signed an agreement with them, even if they told me, "thou shalt activate with us." Apple bricking iPhones is a low, pathetic act on Apple's part when they have no agreement on which to base such an act -- or at least none that I've seen so far.
Do you own an iPhone?
I'm absolutely positive I was told a 2 year service contract with AT&T was a requirement.
I guess I'll fall back on your argument technique at this point.
"unless you can prove me wrong" ... you have to agree to a 2 year contract with AT&T prior to having a valid purchase agreement to own an iPhone.
"unless you can prove me wrong" ... you have to agree to a 2 year contract with AT&T prior to having a valid purchase agreement to own an iPhone.
I can't prove you wrong on that point, but apparently you can't prove me wrong either. But...
If Apple took a person's money and released such a product to a customer without having a "valid purchase agreement," shame on them.
I don't own an iPhone yet, no. And I'm glad I don't because now I'd have serious reservations about doing so.
"Communicated" and "agreed upon" are two different monsters. Nowhere -- unless you can prove me wrong -- prior to the transaction of purchasing the phone does the customer agree to any terms of sale in which the buyer pledges to subsequently activate the phone only on AT&T's network. It's one thing for Apple and AT&T to say that you are expected to activate with AT&T under a 2-year agreement. It's another for you to sign an agreement that says you WILL.
When I bought my Hyundai Sonata back in 2003, they told me that I was required to come in every 30,000 to their dealership in order to keep the car under warranty. Sure, I could get it serviced anywhere else and the car would be fine. Let's say, then, that I didn't take the car into Hyundai until 55,000 miles. That doesn't give them the right to disable my car from driving again because I always got my oil changed at Jiffy Lube. That does give them the right to void the warranty, however, and I would need to pay for them to service the vehicle.
It's the SAME THING with Apple. AT&T has no part in an unlocked iPhone, period. I never signed an agreement with them, even if they told me, "thou shalt activate with us." Apple bricking iPhones is a low, pathetic act on Apple's part when they have no agreement on which to base such an act -- or at least none that I've seen so far.
You definitely 'signed' the Apple software EULA when you activated the phone, whether with AT&T or not and if you worked around that, Apple would not have any responsibility to provide upgrades in the first place.
So the solution to your situation is clear - don't upgrade. Apple still has no responsibility to provide an upgrade that accounts for all of your off-the-reservation activities. Again, I support the efforts to convince Apple to change their minds, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to it.
You definitely 'signed' the Apple software EULA when you activated the phone, whether with AT&T or not and if you worked around that, Apple would not have any responsibility to provide upgrades in the first place.
Oh, definitely.
Let me be clear: If you activated your iPhone with AT&T, unlocked it and then bricked it, then that's a whole other story.
I'm talking about someone like myself that is interested in buying an iPhone, taking it home, unlocking it, and then putting my T-Mobile SIM in it. No activation with AT&T EVER.
In that case, AT&T has no part in my transaction with Apple. Because Apple and I don't sign any explicit agreement (that I know of thusfar) that I WILL activate with AT&T, then there is no agreement in which Apple has the right to purposefully brick my unlocked phone if I update.
Oh, definitely.
Let me be clear: If you activated your iPhone with AT&T, unlocked it and then bricked it, then that's a whole other story.
I'm talking about someone like myself that is interested in buying an iPhone, taking it home, unlocking it, and then putting my T-Mobile SIM in it. No activation with AT&T EVER.
In that case, AT&T has no part in my transaction with Apple. Because Apple and I don't sign any explicit agreement (that I know of thusfar) that I WILL activate with AT&T, then there is no agreement in which Apple has the right to purposefully brick my unlocked phone if I update.
Did you actually read what I wrote? There a click-thru EULA with APPLE not AT&T. That's what I was referring to. There are two licenses you agree to to use the iPhone Apple and AT&T.
Did you actually read what I wrote? There a click-thru EULA with APPLE not AT&T. That's what I was referring to. There are two licenses you agree to to use the iPhone Apple and AT&T.
I did read your post but misunderstood what you were saying because, never having activated an iPhone, was unaware of two EULAs that must be agreed to.
Knowing that, three things:
1. Does the EULA still show up when you try connecting/syncing an unlocked iPhone?
2. An Apple software EULA notwithstanding, the DMCA still allows for U.S. residents to unlock their locked cellular phones. Apple seems to be actively disregarding that. Even if they aren't and the bricking was an unintentionally byproduct of 1.1.1, I believe Apple should release information on how to unlock them -- because we're allowed to do so.
3. All that notwithstanding, charging a restocking fee for a product that you are not aware of the user agreement when you can't see the user agreement until the box is opened seems shady, too. At a minimum, Apple should remove the restocking fee so a customer can plausibly reject the EULA and return the product without incurring a penalty.
I did read your post but misunderstood what you were saying because, never having activated an iPhone, was unaware of two EULAs that must be agreed to.
Knowing that, three things:
1. Does the EULA still show up when you try connecting/syncing an unlocked iPhone?
2. An Apple software EULA notwithstanding, the DMCA still allows for U.S. residents to unlock their locked cellular phones. Apple seems to be actively disregarding that. Even if they aren't and the bricking was an unintentionally byproduct of 1.1.1, I believe Apple should release information on how to unlock them -- because we're allowed to do so.
3. All that notwithstanding, charging a restocking fee for a product that you are not aware of the user agreement when you can't see the user agreement until the box is opened seems shady, too. At a minimum, Apple should remove the restocking fee so a customer can plausibly reject the EULA and return the product without incurring a penalty.
1) Don't really know but I would imagine it applies in any case (don't really want to argue this point either way)
2) The exception to the DMCA (not the DMCA itself) allows users to unlock their phones without fear of reprisal. It does nothing (unlike some European laws) to require that unlocking codes be provided or supported. This is in the US, lets not drag this into yet another US/European law difference thread - Please
3) Maybe, but this is common practice on many, many software titles. The EULA is available on the Apple site as are all their software license agreements.. I believe that this URL is given on the seal you have to break to get into the item (software/hardware). Plus every add and piece of overview literature stated the AT&T connection.
From what I've been able to find out, you can terminate your contract with AT&T by paying a penalty. At that point you can't be sued for hooking the iPhone to another service providers network. HOWEVER ... there's nothing obligating Apple nor AT&T to provide a software solution to do so.
My iPhone sat there looking at me. displaying a screen asking for me to connect it to a computer running iTunes and wouldn't do squat 'till I did so. In the course of turning the iPhone into something that wasn't sitting there telling me to activate it, I had to agree to an EULA.
Unless you hack the phone before that.
From what I've been able to find out, you can terminate your contract with AT&T by paying a penalty. At that point you can't be sued for hooking the iPhone to another service providers network. HOWEVER ... there's nothing obligating Apple nor AT&T to provide a software solution to do so.
Okay, but how about this: What obligation does/should Apple have to support the phone if you have properly terminated your contract with AT&T and still want to use it through another carrier? You've paid your "debt" to both firms (as they've established the debt to be paid) and you're then free and clear. In that case I believe Apple should still support the phone. This question will most definitely arise on June 29, 2009 when thousands of iPhone users' contracts are up, want to move to another carrier, but also have Applecare on the phone.
(ASIDE: I just see a lot of issues that Apple/AT&T didn't seem to adequately address because they were so time-strapped to release the thing in the first place)
ASIDE: I just see a lot of issues that Apple/AT&T didn't seem to adequately address because they were so time-strapped to release the thing in the first place.
There is no ambiguity its perfectly clear. Apple has it written in all iPhone documentation and on the iPhone's box itself. You are trying to make it more complicated than it really is
A two year contract with AT&T is a requirement of the phone. There are no what ifs, or buts, or whys. Its a straight forward contract.
You are free to hack the phone if you so choose, but Apple is not obligated to support hacked phones nor bears any reasonability from damage from said hacking.
Unless you hack the phone before that.
Okay, but how about this: What obligation does/should Apple have to support the phone if you have properly terminated your contract with AT&T and still want to use it through another carrier? You've paid your "debt" to both firms (as they've established the debt to be paid) and you're then free and clear. In that case I believe Apple should still support the phone. This question will most definitely arise on June 29, 2009 when thousands of iPhone users' contracts are up, want to move to another carrier, but also have Applecare on the phone.
(ASIDE: I just see a lot of issues that Apple/AT&T didn't seem to adequately address because they were so time-strapped to release the thing in the first place)
You can only legally unlock the iPhone, you can't legally hack it. I'd bet the things you'd have to do to the device just to get it to the point where you COULD change carriers would be considered illegal. Better to just activate it then cancel before 3 days - the legally allotted time you have to cancel your AT&T account.
Here's part of the Apple warranty:
Apple does not warrant that the operation of the product will be uninterrupted or error-free. Apple is not responsible for damage arising from failure to
follow instructions relating to the product’s use.
This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non-Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple; (d) to damage caused by service (including upgrades and expansions) performed by anyone who is not a representative of Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider (“AASP”); (e) to a product or part that has been modified to alter functionality or capability without the written permission of Apple; (f) to consumable parts, such as batteries, unless damage has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (g) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents and broken plastic on ports; or (h) if any Apple serial number has been removed or defaced.
http://images.apple.com/legal/warranty/iphone.pdf
If they're not going to sell activated phones then they need to suck it up and realize that people are going to do stuff with the product that they bought to do what's best for them, not Apple.
If unlocking a phone is not illegal then those who hack their phones to do such a thing shouldn't be shat upon. Not checking new features with such a phone is one thing. Purposefully releasing an update that bricks the device and is irreversible (!) is pathetic.
If they're going to force people to sign a 2-year service agreement with AT&T then they need to not "double dip" by also charging full price for the hardware. If they want to charge full price for their hardware then they should sell an unlocked version.
Look, the last thing I'm going to say here about this is that Apple really needs to shape up and quit monkeying with those who want to have some flexibility with their products.
If they're not going to sell activated phones then they need to suck it up and realize that people are going to do stuff with the product that they bought to do what's best for them, not Apple.
If unlocking a phone is not illegal then those who hack their phones to do such a thing shouldn't be shat upon. Not checking new features with such a phone is one thing. Purposefully releasing an update that bricks the device and is irreversible (!) is pathetic.
If they're going to force people to sign a 2-year service agreement with AT&T then they need to not "double dip" by also charging full price for the hardware. If they want to charge full price for their hardware then they should sell an unlocked version.
Apple was upfront on the whole matter . They told people straight out about the iPhone and their partnership with ATT . You on the other hand don't get it , you are ignoring what the other posters are telling you because it's not what you wanted to hear .
Well , Apple did sucked it up , they lost revenue on people who switched the iPhone from ATT to whatever service they happen to like and not once did Apple sent letters to those people who hacked their phones to desist on what they are doing .
Prove it , I updated my locked iPhone and the first thing I saw was a big bold warning stating in effect that those who hacked their iPhones should not install the update because it might break their phones . The update is damn optional , if you hacked your phone and installed the update and whining afterwards and blaming Apple for your predicament , then that is truly very well pathetic .
Force to sign to ATT's service ? Sorry Pal , nobody is forced to buy the iPhone . If people don't want the two year contract , they don't have to sign anything . Of course , they also don't have the iPhone because it's exclusive only to ATT here in the US . It's all about personal responsibility .