Apple and AT&T need to unlock those iphones that are out of contract. Since the users pay for the product, they should be able to use it any way they want after their contracts expire. Either that, or give those customers their money back. Perhaps AT&T and Apple can STOP SELLING those iPhones. Instead they can start leasing them. For example: GIVE the customer an iphone to use for as long as they are on AT&T. The customer, of course, needs to pay a deposit fee for the iPhone in case it gets lost or stolen. Once they no longer want to use AT&T, they can return the phone back to AT&T or Apple and get their deposit back provided the iPhone isn't abused. This is the model that DirecTV uses. Once my contract with them ends and I no longer wish to use DirecTV, I simply return the receiver to them. It's that easy.
[EDIT] If Apple, and AT&T do that, then there is no cause for a lawsuit. If the customer wishes to keep the iphone, they will need to pay for full price of the phone just like when you decide to keep the DirecTV receiver... which is useless to the user who doesn't use DirecTV anyway.
You paid, in full, to use it under the licensers terms.
EDIT: when you bought it, it was only AT&T that was "permitted" by apple, so even if that changes at a later date 'your' iPhone is still going to be locked to AT&T
EDIT II: on second thought, you could buy an iPhone from abroad and use it with t-mobile.
Also we didn't technically pay for it in full AT&T pays for a large portion of the device via the unsubsidized price which is what like 699? for my 32gb iPhone 4
Also we didn't technically pay for it in full AT&T pays for a large portion of the device via the unsubsidized price which is what like 699? for my 32gb iPhone 4
Apart from $$$, it seems as though they believe you have the right AFTER your two year contract has expired, to use have the phone UNLOCKED, to use with whatever compatible carrier you may choose.
The fact that in the US the only technically compatible (semi at best) is T-mobile, so I dont really understand ATT/Apple reticence to unlocking after the contract 2 years is up.
Apart from $$$, it seems as though they believe you have the right AFTER your two year contract has expired, to use have the phone UNLOCKED, to use with whatever compatible carrier you may choose.
The fact that in the US the only technically compatible (semi at best) is T-mobile, so I dont really understand ATT/Apple reticence to unlocking after the contract 2 years is up.
Apple contracted with Cingular because no one else would and they were able to get an exclusive contract and agree to the iPhone and the unknown Apple company site unseen, and Apple got to demand from Cingular that Apple would control what apps were available, unlike Verizon, which controlled the phone manufacturers and customers who otherwise had no say.
Verizon was my carrier for years, and dealing with them felt like a contract with the devil. I purchased some then very "smart" cell phones with all these promised capabilities, which Verizon refused to support. When my Verizon contract ended, I jumped to AT&T and Apple as soon as it was feasible.
Do I think AT&T is the ideal carrier -- absolutely not -- but far better than Verizon. Without the Apple/Cingular contract breaking the carriers' monopoly control of phone features and capabilities, the smart phone as we know it now would still be in the infantile stage in the US. We would still be waiting for some European/Japanese/Chinese/Korean company to invent what Apple in the US gave us in 2007.
Seems like a good deal for all of us. And, further, Cingular (now AT&T) has the burden of building out their overtaxed network to support the iPhone and us customers who demand such extraordinary bandwidth from the cellular network. Some commenters seem to forget that the iPhone has been referred to as the Hummer of the cell phones.
But for the experience of AT&T needing to significantly build out its network to support the iPhone, Verizon would have had no notice of the capital requirements to enhance their system. Verizon's and some clueless customers' bluff that Verizon could handle the iPhone traffic but for the exclusivity of the AT&T/Apple contract not allowing them a piece of the action strikes me as laughable.
i like many like to buy each new iphone as it comes out, because each new version is even better than the last. Why would allowing someone to unlock their old out of contract phone stop them wanting to buy a new phone?
You know what? Monopolies place massive costs on consumers so it's very interesting to see that those costs are being turned around and acting as a disincentive to activities that prevent a normal competitive landscape.
You know what? Monopolies place massive costs on consumers so it's very interesting to see that those costs are being turned around, and acting as a disincentive to preventing a normal competitive landscape.
¿Que? Are you saying that Apple and AT&T have a monopoly on the smartphone market?
i like many like to buy each new iphone as it comes out, because each new version is even better than the last. Why would allowing someone to unlock their old out of contract phone stop them wanting to buy a new phone?
Maybe they wouldn't buy a new phone if they could still use their old one (I know you and I wouldn't, you have said you like to buy the new one each year) but on another carrier.
I think you'll see an out of court settlement to keep the bigger question of why I can't buy any phone I want and use it anywhere I can.
You should be able to buy an unlocked iPhone - but would you really want to? A fully unlocked iPhone wouldn't cost $299 more like $500 or more. The Wireless service provider subsidizes the phone.
You should be able to buy an unlocked iPhone - but would you really want to? A fully unlocked iPhone wouldn't cost $299 more like $500 or more. The Wireless service provider subsidizes the phone.
a 16 gb iP4 is £499 (unsubsidized) and a quick currency conversion makes that $751.73 ;o
I bought a second hand pay-as-you-go iPHONE last year, which was only just within the (1 year) agreement. After a couple of weeks the contract finished and I paid £ 15 to the network (which was O2 in GB) to have it unlocked. Now I am using it happily on Vodafone.
You should be able to buy an unlocked iPhone - but would you really want to? A fully unlocked iPhone wouldn't cost $299 more like $500 or more. The Wireless service provider subsidizes the phone.
iPhone 4 16GB ? $599
iPhone 4 32GB ? $699
And you still get no change to your plan and still wouldn't work on any carrier but AT&T and T-Mobile USA, and only on EDGE on T-Mo. Te only benefit is for international travelers.
¿Que? Are you saying that Apple and AT&T have a monopoly on the smartphone market?
Apple don't as the phone is subject to the full competitive forces of droid, rim, nokia and the rest. It has to prove itself all the time because of that. But having a single supplier or distributor of your product clearly reduces competition.
And you still get no change to your plan and still wouldn't work on any carrier but AT&T and T-Mobile USA, and only on EDGE on T-Mo. Te only benefit is for international travelers.
Good example of my point. It's not like there are enough choices to make paying the full price worth while (for most people). If anything the consumer should be mad at Sprint/Verizon for not supporting the world standard.
Comments
[EDIT] If Apple, and AT&T do that, then there is no cause for a lawsuit. If the customer wishes to keep the iphone, they will need to pay for full price of the phone just like when you decide to keep the DirecTV receiver... which is useless to the user who doesn't use DirecTV anyway.
You paid, in full, to use it under the licensers terms.
Yes, there is currenty nothing illegal about keeping a product paid in full locked to a carrier (in the US) but many of think it should be.
A civil lawsuit is bollocks.
AGREED!
I pay for something in full, I should own it.
You paid, in full, to use it under the licensers terms.
EDIT: when you bought it, it was only AT&T that was "permitted" by apple, so even if that changes at a later date 'your' iPhone is still going to be locked to AT&T
EDIT II: on second thought, you could buy an iPhone from abroad and use it with t-mobile.
Also we didn't technically pay for it in full AT&T pays for a large portion of the device via the unsubsidized price which is what like 699? for my 32gb iPhone 4
On a more serious note, this is a free country....you can buy a product or not. There is no case here.
On a more serious note, this is a free country....you can buy a product or not. There is no case here.
Agreed.
Also we didn't technically pay for it in full AT&T pays for a large portion of the device via the unsubsidized price which is what like 699? for my 32gb iPhone 4
Apart from $$$, it seems as though they believe you have the right AFTER your two year contract has expired, to use have the phone UNLOCKED, to use with whatever compatible carrier you may choose.
The fact that in the US the only technically compatible (semi at best) is T-mobile, so I dont really understand ATT/Apple reticence to unlocking after the contract 2 years is up.
Apart from $$$, it seems as though they believe you have the right AFTER your two year contract has expired, to use have the phone UNLOCKED, to use with whatever compatible carrier you may choose.
The fact that in the US the only technically compatible (semi at best) is T-mobile, so I dont really understand ATT/Apple reticence to unlocking after the contract 2 years is up.
maybe because they want you to buy a new iPhone.
Verizon was my carrier for years, and dealing with them felt like a contract with the devil. I purchased some then very "smart" cell phones with all these promised capabilities, which Verizon refused to support. When my Verizon contract ended, I jumped to AT&T and Apple as soon as it was feasible.
Do I think AT&T is the ideal carrier -- absolutely not -- but far better than Verizon. Without the Apple/Cingular contract breaking the carriers' monopoly control of phone features and capabilities, the smart phone as we know it now would still be in the infantile stage in the US. We would still be waiting for some European/Japanese/Chinese/Korean company to invent what Apple in the US gave us in 2007.
Seems like a good deal for all of us. And, further, Cingular (now AT&T) has the burden of building out their overtaxed network to support the iPhone and us customers who demand such extraordinary bandwidth from the cellular network. Some commenters seem to forget that the iPhone has been referred to as the Hummer of the cell phones.
But for the experience of AT&T needing to significantly build out its network to support the iPhone, Verizon would have had no notice of the capital requirements to enhance their system. Verizon's and some clueless customers' bluff that Verizon could handle the iPhone traffic but for the exclusivity of the AT&T/Apple contract not allowing them a piece of the action strikes me as laughable.
maybe because they want you to buy a new iPhone.
i like many like to buy each new iphone as it comes out, because each new version is even better than the last. Why would allowing someone to unlock their old out of contract phone stop them wanting to buy a new phone?
You know what? Monopolies place massive costs on consumers so it's very interesting to see that those costs are being turned around, and acting as a disincentive to preventing a normal competitive landscape.
¿Que? Are you saying that Apple and AT&T have a monopoly on the smartphone market?
i like many like to buy each new iphone as it comes out, because each new version is even better than the last. Why would allowing someone to unlock their old out of contract phone stop them wanting to buy a new phone?
Maybe they wouldn't buy a new phone if they could still use their old one (I know you and I wouldn't, you have said you like to buy the new one each year) but on another carrier.
I think you'll see an out of court settlement to keep the bigger question of why I can't buy any phone I want and use it anywhere I can.
You should be able to buy an unlocked iPhone - but would you really want to? A fully unlocked iPhone wouldn't cost $299 more like $500 or more. The Wireless service provider subsidizes the phone.
You should be able to buy an unlocked iPhone - but would you really want to? A fully unlocked iPhone wouldn't cost $299 more like $500 or more. The Wireless service provider subsidizes the phone.
a 16 gb iP4 is £499 (unsubsidized) and a quick currency conversion makes that $751.73 ;o
You should be able to buy an unlocked iPhone - but would you really want to? A fully unlocked iPhone wouldn't cost $299 more like $500 or more. The Wireless service provider subsidizes the phone.
iPhone 4 16GB ? $599
iPhone 4 32GB ? $699
And you still get no change to your plan and still wouldn't work on any carrier but AT&T and T-Mobile USA, and only on EDGE on T-Mo. Te only benefit is for international travelers.
¿Que? Are you saying that Apple and AT&T have a monopoly on the smartphone market?
Apple don't as the phone is subject to the full competitive forces of droid, rim, nokia and the rest. It has to prove itself all the time because of that. But having a single supplier or distributor of your product clearly reduces competition.
iPhone 4 16GB ? $599
iPhone 4 32GB ? $699
And you still get no change to your plan and still wouldn't work on any carrier but AT&T and T-Mobile USA, and only on EDGE on T-Mo. Te only benefit is for international travelers.
Good example of my point. It's not like there are enough choices to make paying the full price worth while (for most people). If anything the consumer should be mad at Sprint/Verizon for not supporting the world standard.
Sometimes these legal cases are crazy