So now you're a psychologist in addition to a legal expert?
Stressed? Hardly...Do your own research, I have no time to spoon feed you information that you feel so qualified to dispute interpret or chew on. The statistics and facts have been all over the news for months and actually since iPhone day 1.
Do some real research Doc.
You posted things about legal requirements of carriers and that "contract free" equals "unlocked". SInce I differ with my proof is a dictionary for the latter and one of the exemptions of the DMCA for the former. You state these with absolution things that counteract other laws and common sense so it up to you to prove it. If what you say is true then it should take you no more than a minute to Google the appropriate sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
You would be a fool and an idiot to not want a Verizon CDMA version if one is released in another country.
Why would you want a CDMA-based iPhone in the US that has no EV-DO and no WiFi? If you weren't paying attention, China has some issues, to put it lightly, with Wi-Fi being in the iPhone and 3G looks uncertain if they go with China's major CDMA-based carrier.
Why would you want a CDMA-based iPhone in the US that has no EV-DO and no WiFi? If you weren't paying attention, China has some issues, to put it lightly, with Wi-Fi being in the iPhone and 3G looks uncertain if they go with China's major CDMA-based carrier.
Because AT&T sucks and Verizon has superior reception perhaps?
You think, ATT is welcoming jailbreakers I don't believe that.
How do you get AT&T welcomes jailbreakers from "foreign travelers are willing to pay contract free price in US as it's cheaper for them"? This was huge with the first iPhone and AT&T made it tough to get the device through them without a contract. At Apple stores it was easier, but I think they started to only accept purchases from those with US driver licenses/ID cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
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.
It would be nice if you realized that there is more than one tree in a forest.
The Pre will be EXCLUSIVE to Sprint when it launches.
The Razr was EXCLUSIVE to, I believe, Cingular.
The T-Mobile G1 is still EXCLUSIVE to T-Mobile.
The Blackberry Storm is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
The Samsung Instinct is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
To think that exclusivity doesn't exist, hasn't existed, or is somehow an Apple-invented phenomenon that should be made illegal only within Apple's case is just asinine.
It would be nice if you realized that there is more than one tree in a forest.
The Pre will be EXCLUSIVE to Sprint when it launches.
The Razr was EXCLUSIVE to, I believe, Cingular.
The T-Mobile G1 is still EXCLUSIVE to T-Mobile.
The Blackberry Storm is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
The Samsung Instinct is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
To think that exclusivity doesn't exist, hasn't existed, or is somehow an Apple-invented phenomenon that should be made illegal only within Apple's case is just asinine.
No- you are.
We are talking about after 2 years EXCLUSIVITY!
One phone/one manufacturer/ one carrier/2 years and counting.
WHO ELSE?
WHO?????
Blackberry make more than one phone.
Sammsung makes more than one phone.
T-Mobile is T-Mobile.
Your logic is illogical.
I never mentioned anthing about legality ever- one way or the other.
Because AT&T sucks and Verizon has superior reception perhaps?
Talk about not paying attention.
Coming full circle, you will whine if a Chinese CDMA-based iPhone will require to pay extra to ship to the states via a grey market costing you more while getting you less HW features than the GSM-based version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
We are talking about after 3years EXCLUSIVITY!
In typical Teckstudian form you put a qualifier on it long after the thread is going and you'll claim that that is what you meant all along. No one has done 3 years, but no one has the business model that Apple has and no one else has had the success with a single model device on a single carrier like Apple has had. What other cell vendor is giving away extreme OS updates going past the 2nd year of the device's existence? Who, who, who? BTW, we are talking about a model of a phone. Apple is new to the game and this is Apple, so to expect them to come out with 20 slightly different models to suit everyone's needs is silly, but not as silly as thinking that Apple can just drop AT&T willy nilly or that Verizon will allow any and all fucntions of the IPhones as is.
Coming full circle, you will whine if a Chinese CDMA-based iPhone will require to pay extra to ship to the states via a grey market costing you more while getting you less HW features than the GSM-based version.
??? I wouldn't want a Chinese iPhone- I don't read Mandarin or Cantonese.
Quote:
In typical Texkstudian form you put a qualifier on it long after the thread is going and you'll claim that that is what you meant all along. No one has done 3 years, but no one has the business model that Apple has and no one else has had the success with a single model device on a single carrier like Apple has had. What other cell vendor is giving away extreme OS updates going past the 2nd year of the device's existence? Who, who, who
What are you talking about?
That's the whole title of this thread- 2011!
Can't you read/ comprehend?
You're the one twisting it around by stating "exclusive at launch"! Who's even discussing that?
btw this model is the 9500 it differs from Verizon's 9530 in that it doesn't have the CDMA2000 1x EV-DO radio.
btw, I have an iPhone from Vodafone Australia, it cost nothing to unlock it, officially I can use any SIM I want in it and do so quite regularly, I also have no problems with updates.
My reception is excellent in most areas I go with virtually no dropped calls.
The 850 band should improve things for some of you AT&T customers.
It must suck to be American, land of the free* (*to be assraped by corporations).
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.
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.
Aside from the fact that AT&T has the only network fully compatible with iPhone hardware.
This would surprise me, as Steve and company are a smart bunch of people, and to put all their iphones in one basket, doesn't any longer make any sense.
Between adding / switching carriers and adding China to the list of folks selling the iPhone ? as a stockholder - I'll be smiling all the way to the bank.
But just because I'm saying this, Steve and company will stay with AT&T
Seeing that the latest rumours point to at least 2 different iPhone models coming, I think Apple will compromise. Apple will open up the basic iPhone to any carrier with a compatible network, but AT&T will continue to be the exclusive carrier for the high-end iPhone Pro. In exchange, AT&T could offer Apple deeply discounted data plans to complement a potential Apple Netbook/Tablet.
It's probably in Apple's best interest to try to maintain as much exclusivity and control as possible even if it limits the potential market somewhat in order to avoid the iPhone becoming a commodity phone. It certainly gives Apple more negotiating power to get carriers to adopt features that Apple wants.
[QUOTE=solipsism;1403135]You posted things about legal requirements of carriers and that "contract free" equals "unlocked". SInce I differ with my proof is a dictionary for the latter and one of the exemptions of the DMCA for the former. You state these with absolution things that counteract other laws and common sense so it up to you to prove it. If what you say is true then it should take you no more than a minute to Google the appropriate sites.
Talk about confusion and loss of focus...
Ever read: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic (July/August 2008) ?
How do you get AT&T welcomes jailbreakers from "foreign travelers are willing to pay contract free price in US as it's cheaper for them"?
And then what are they gonna do with the device being locked to ATT? Isn't jailbreaking the only solution for them at the moment they leave States? Or will ATT unlock SIMs officially and legally, as we thought from the beginning?
I think his point is that phones sold in other western nations use the same radios so their is no need to use different technologies. While here in the US our carriers use difference technology to lock you into their service. In that sense Verizon is he odd man out.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Thanks- and that's the whole point- modified versions of brand name phones are continually being made for other carriers except iPhone.
You posted things about legal requirements of carriers and that "contract free" equals "unlocked". SInce I differ with my proof is a dictionary for the latter and one of the exemptions of the DMCA for the former. You state these with absolution things that counteract other laws and common sense so it up to you to prove it. If what you say is true then it should take you no more than a minute to Google the appropriate sites.
Talk about confusion and loss of focus...
Ever read: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic (July/August 2008) ?
It is probably time to just admit you are wrong. Contract free and Unlocked are not the same. The iPhone will be sold contract free but still locked to AT&T unless unlocked by outside means by the user.
It is probably time to just admit you are wrong. Contract free and Unlocked are not the same. The iPhone will be sold contract free but still locked to AT&T unless unlocked by outside means by the user.
If I thought I was wrong, I'd gladly concede, it's not that important to me to be right. We'll find out real soon.
Relate purely to the fact that there is bound to be a legitimate huge secondary market when ATT according to it's contractual obligation to each and every ATT 2 year contract holder, has to and is obligated (by the contract) to unlock all 1st gen iPhones...
Relate to the fact that it behooves Apple to open the ATT activation bottleneck which makes it impossible to purchase iPhones as gifts without imposing ATT as a carrier.
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) ....
Based on chip orders and the "NON-DISCLOSURE" contract floating around... The two iPhones they are making... CDMA and GSM.
FYI: The current 3G iPhone is a Quad-Band phone, IE it will work on T-Mobile and Sprint. In fact I stuck my Net10 sim card in one and for a second it showed service (although that may not be related). Bash me for being Net10 but $80 a month, unlimited and no tax which 5 bar service anywhere, anytime... Can't beat it for a PHONE.
We'll see, like I've said before, iPhones available from Apple that are unlocked and available for either system this summer. Too many people that are close to this I know are all saying the same thing.
ATT contract is up, there talking but it's just that-Talk.
What's not being talked about though is the possibility of Apple, Inc. Cell-Service. Their own packaged deal. Something like Unlimited iPhone, $179/mo - Free iPhone and free iPhone upgrades every 2 years. Wanna talk about Exodus from ATT! Yeah, yeah, pipe dream. The only problem I could see with this, security at the malls. But even buying out everyone's ATT contract they would load up some 5mil subscribers in months and roll the rest up later. Do this while still offering an iPhone for other carriers at full price.
(Thanks for following up on this story 4 hours after I posted the first thread about it, AI... )
At any rate, one can only hope Apple takes a pro-consumer stance and at minimum decides to go forth with other unique phones for competing carriers. This way, they could extend the iPhone/at&t exclusive for another year, and offer newer specialized phone products that take advantage of the other networks.
FYI: The current 3G iPhone is a Quad-Band phone, IE it will work on T-Mobile and Sprint.
Quad Band means it uses different frequencies with GSM, Sprint is CDMA.
Quote:
We'll see, like I've said before, iPhones available from Apple that are unlocked and available for either system this summer. Too many people that are close to this I know are all saying the same thing.
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.
Quote:
ATT contract is up, there talking but it's just that-Talk.
The contract is up in 2010, not this year.
Quote:
What's not being talked about though is the possibility of Apple, Inc. Cell-Service. Their own packaged deal.
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.
Comments
So now you're a psychologist in addition to a legal expert?
Stressed? Hardly...Do your own research, I have no time to spoon feed you information that you feel so qualified to dispute interpret or chew on. The statistics and facts have been all over the news for months and actually since iPhone day 1.
Do some real research Doc.
You posted things about legal requirements of carriers and that "contract free" equals "unlocked". SInce I differ with my proof is a dictionary for the latter and one of the exemptions of the DMCA for the former. You state these with absolution things that counteract other laws and common sense so it up to you to prove it. If what you say is true then it should take you no more than a minute to Google the appropriate sites.
You would be a fool and an idiot to not want a Verizon CDMA version if one is released in another country.
Why would you want a CDMA-based iPhone in the US that has no EV-DO and no WiFi? If you weren't paying attention, China has some issues, to put it lightly, with Wi-Fi being in the iPhone and 3G looks uncertain if they go with China's major CDMA-based carrier.
Why would you want a CDMA-based iPhone in the US that has no EV-DO and no WiFi? If you weren't paying attention, China has some issues, to put it lightly, with Wi-Fi being in the iPhone and 3G looks uncertain if they go with China's major CDMA-based carrier.
Because AT&T sucks and Verizon has superior reception perhaps?
Talk about not paying attention.
You think, ATT is welcoming jailbreakers
How do you get AT&T welcomes jailbreakers from "foreign travelers are willing to pay contract free price in US as it's cheaper for them"? This was huge with the first iPhone and AT&T made it tough to get the device through them without a contract. At Apple stores it was easier, but I think they started to only accept purchases from those with US driver licenses/ID cards.
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.
It would be nice if you realized that there is more than one tree in a forest.
The Pre will be EXCLUSIVE to Sprint when it launches.
The Razr was EXCLUSIVE to, I believe, Cingular.
The T-Mobile G1 is still EXCLUSIVE to T-Mobile.
The Blackberry Storm is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
The Samsung Instinct is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
To think that exclusivity doesn't exist, hasn't existed, or is somehow an Apple-invented phenomenon that should be made illegal only within Apple's case is just asinine.
It would be nice if you realized that there is more than one tree in a forest.
The Pre will be EXCLUSIVE to Sprint when it launches.
The Razr was EXCLUSIVE to, I believe, Cingular.
The T-Mobile G1 is still EXCLUSIVE to T-Mobile.
The Blackberry Storm is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
The Samsung Instinct is still EXCLUSIVE to Verizon.
To think that exclusivity doesn't exist, hasn't existed, or is somehow an Apple-invented phenomenon that should be made illegal only within Apple's case is just asinine.
No- you are.
We are talking about after 2 years EXCLUSIVITY!
One phone/one manufacturer/ one carrier/2 years and counting.
WHO ELSE?
WHO?????
Blackberry make more than one phone.
Sammsung makes more than one phone.
T-Mobile is T-Mobile.
Your logic is illogical.
I never mentioned anthing about legality ever- one way or the other.
Because AT&T sucks and Verizon has superior reception perhaps?
Talk about not paying attention.
Coming full circle, you will whine if a Chinese CDMA-based iPhone will require to pay extra to ship to the states via a grey market costing you more while getting you less HW features than the GSM-based version.
We are talking about after 3years EXCLUSIVITY!
In typical Teckstudian form you put a qualifier on it long after the thread is going and you'll claim that that is what you meant all along. No one has done 3 years, but no one has the business model that Apple has and no one else has had the success with a single model device on a single carrier like Apple has had. What other cell vendor is giving away extreme OS updates going past the 2nd year of the device's existence? Who, who, who? BTW, we are talking about a model of a phone. Apple is new to the game and this is Apple, so to expect them to come out with 20 slightly different models to suit everyone's needs is silly, but not as silly as thinking that Apple can just drop AT&T willy nilly or that Verizon will allow any and all fucntions of the IPhones as is.
Coming full circle, you will whine if a Chinese CDMA-based iPhone will require to pay extra to ship to the states via a grey market costing you more while getting you less HW features than the GSM-based version.
??? I wouldn't want a Chinese iPhone- I don't read Mandarin or Cantonese.
In typical Texkstudian form you put a qualifier on it long after the thread is going and you'll claim that that is what you meant all along. No one has done 3 years, but no one has the business model that Apple has and no one else has had the success with a single model device on a single carrier like Apple has had. What other cell vendor is giving away extreme OS updates going past the 2nd year of the device's existence? Who, who, who
What are you talking about?
That's the whole title of this thread- 2011!
Can't you read/ comprehend?
You're the one twisting it around by stating "exclusive at launch"! Who's even discussing that?
1.) Ok- what other cell or smart is only available on one carrier? Link please.
http://vodafone.com.au/personal/blac...storm/faqs.htm
btw this model is the 9500 it differs from Verizon's 9530 in that it doesn't have the CDMA2000 1x EV-DO radio.
btw, I have an iPhone from Vodafone Australia, it cost nothing to unlock it, officially I can use any SIM I want in it and do so quite regularly, I also have no problems with updates.
My reception is excellent in most areas I go with virtually no dropped calls.
The 850 band should improve things for some of you AT&T customers.
It must suck to be American, land of the free* (*to be assraped by corporations).
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.
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.
Aside from the fact that AT&T has the only network fully compatible with iPhone hardware.
http://vodafone.com.au/personal/blac...storm/faqs.htm
btw this model is the 9500 it differs from Verizon's 9530 in that it doesn't have the CDMA2000 1x EV-DO radio.
It must suck to be American, land of the free* (*to be assraped by corporations).
Thanks- and that's the whole point- modified versions of brand name phones are continually being made for other carriers except iPhone.
AT&T has some very shrewd lawyers apparently.
Between adding / switching carriers and adding China to the list of folks selling the iPhone ? as a stockholder - I'll be smiling all the way to the bank.
But just because I'm saying this, Steve and company will stay with AT&T
Skip
It's probably in Apple's best interest to try to maintain as much exclusivity and control as possible even if it limits the potential market somewhat in order to avoid the iPhone becoming a commodity phone. It certainly gives Apple more negotiating power to get carriers to adopt features that Apple wants.
Talk about confusion and loss of focus...
Ever read: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic (July/August 2008) ?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
How do you get AT&T welcomes jailbreakers from "foreign travelers are willing to pay contract free price in US as it's cheaper for them"?
And then what are they gonna do with the device being locked to ATT? Isn't jailbreaking the only solution for them at the moment they leave States? Or will ATT unlock SIMs officially and legally, as we thought from the beginning?
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.
Thanks- and that's the whole point- modified versions of brand name phones are continually being made for other carriers except iPhone.
AT&T has some very shrewd lawyers apparently.
You posted things about legal requirements of carriers and that "contract free" equals "unlocked". SInce I differ with my proof is a dictionary for the latter and one of the exemptions of the DMCA for the former. You state these with absolution things that counteract other laws and common sense so it up to you to prove it. If what you say is true then it should take you no more than a minute to Google the appropriate sites.
Talk about confusion and loss of focus...
Ever read: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic (July/August 2008) ?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
It is probably time to just admit you are wrong. Contract free and Unlocked are not the same. The iPhone will be sold contract free but still locked to AT&T unless unlocked by outside means by the user.
It is probably time to just admit you are wrong. Contract free and Unlocked are not the same. The iPhone will be sold contract free but still locked to AT&T unless unlocked by outside means by the user.
If I thought I was wrong, I'd gladly concede, it's not that important to me to be right. We'll find out real soon.
Relate purely to the fact that there is bound to be a legitimate huge secondary market when ATT according to it's contractual obligation to each and every ATT 2 year contract holder, has to and is obligated (by the contract) to unlock all 1st gen iPhones...
Relate to the fact that it behooves Apple to open the ATT activation bottleneck which makes it impossible to purchase iPhones as gifts without imposing ATT as a carrier.
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) ....
FYI: The current 3G iPhone is a Quad-Band phone, IE it will work on T-Mobile and Sprint. In fact I stuck my Net10 sim card in one and for a second it showed service (although that may not be related). Bash me for being Net10 but $80 a month, unlimited and no tax which 5 bar service anywhere, anytime... Can't beat it for a PHONE.
We'll see, like I've said before, iPhones available from Apple that are unlocked and available for either system this summer. Too many people that are close to this I know are all saying the same thing.
ATT contract is up, there talking but it's just that-Talk.
What's not being talked about though is the possibility of Apple, Inc. Cell-Service. Their own packaged deal. Something like Unlimited iPhone, $179/mo - Free iPhone and free iPhone upgrades every 2 years. Wanna talk about Exodus from ATT! Yeah, yeah, pipe dream. The only problem I could see with this, security at the malls. But even buying out everyone's ATT contract they would load up some 5mil subscribers in months and roll the rest up later. Do this while still offering an iPhone for other carriers at full price.
Market-Cornered.
At any rate, one can only hope Apple takes a pro-consumer stance and at minimum decides to go forth with other unique phones for competing carriers. This way, they could extend the iPhone/at&t exclusive for another year, and offer newer specialized phone products that take advantage of the other networks.
FYI: The current 3G iPhone is a Quad-Band phone, IE it will work on T-Mobile and Sprint.
Quad Band means it uses different frequencies with GSM, Sprint is CDMA.
We'll see, like I've said before, iPhones available from Apple that are unlocked and available for either system this summer. Too many people that are close to this I know are all saying the same thing.
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.
ATT contract is up, there talking but it's just that-Talk.
The contract is up in 2010, not this year.
What's not being talked about though is the possibility of Apple, Inc. Cell-Service. Their own packaged deal.
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.