But having a single supplier or distributor of your product clearly reduces competition.
Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.
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.
I have to disagree with your statement about DirecTV. When you lease a DVR with DirecTV you pay $200.00 up front to lease/rent the equipment. It is NON-Refundable. It doesn't matter if you break your contract 6 months into a 2 yr agreement, you're not getting that $200.00 back. On top of that they charge you a $5.00 monthly rental fee that they conveniently call a mirroring fee plus $7.00 a month for DVR service (the privilege of using the DVR). If you keep that DVR for 4 to 5 years you have essentially paid more than full retail price for the equipment that you will NEVER own. It's a rip off! The only up side to this whole scheme is that they will replace it if it breaks. Beware though, if they send a technician to your house to service the unit then you are automatically forced to extend your contract by another 2 yrs to cover the cost of the service call. It's a trap any way you look at it.
I never want this to happen with cell phones. It should be illegal for any company to extort money from customers in this manner
Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.
I agree, there's often nothing illegal with diminished competition by itself. It happens everywhere really. For example, shopping centres sometimes enter into agreements to allow only one one supermarket or coffee shop to be there. What I do say is that there is cost to consumers where it occurs.
apple decided to go with the global standard, gsm. The only other compatable network is t-mobile and their 3G won't work with iPhone.
Since Customers cant force apple to make new hardware or change existing hardware they have 3 choices:
Stick with AT&T
Get apple to go T-mobile - but you don't get 3G!!!
shut up and stop winging that the US uses ancient CDMA technology.
Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.
So does that mean Verizon's phone manufactures can be sued for not making phones for other carriers? No.
Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.
T mobile Germany uses standard frequencies, in the US they have to use a different band because ATT and Verizon own the common frequencies in most of the US.
This is a stupid lawsuit and won't go very far. Companies have a legitimate right to choose the distribution method for their products. Toyota is free to sell their cars only through Toyota dealers. If I invent something new, I'm free to sell it only through Best Buy or Walmart or Billy Bob's Bait and Tackle if I wish.
Consumers do not have an absolute right to any product they wish to buy. They have a right to buy it under terms that the seller chooses to offer. Any other rule would be a disaster.
We really need 'loser pays' for lawsuits in this country.
The number one and most significant problem is the lack of an official unlock after the terms of the contract are up. Most people would not be very happy if their car stopped working after the terms of the purchase contract expired, the same applies here. Once you have paid for the device it is yours and thus controls placed on it by Apple and AT&T should expire.
In essence I'm on your side when it comes to honoring contracts. I have a problem though with silly behavior like this that tries to tie the customer to the provider after the contract has expired. What makes this really silly is that the phone is currently tied to AT&T anyway, in the US, technology wise. The number of customers AT&T would loose is tiny compared to those that they are pissing off.
For many of us the issue of a stable and sanctioned unlock revolves around the short term use of the iPhone in other countries. It isn't about using another carrier in the US at all.
In any event show me another industry where the supplier has so much control over a product after you take ownership. The contract to pay for the phone isn't the issue, what happens afterward is.
Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.
So does that mean Verizon's phone manufactures can be sued for not making phones for other carriers? No.
Thanks for agreeing with me. iPhone won't work with T-mobile 3G In the US because it uses different radio frequencies than in Germany and other countries.
The valid part of the lawsuit is their refusal to unlock the device you paid for after you have satisfied your contract terms. They can force you to sign up with ATT in order to buy a new subsidized phone, but to force you to stay on ATT after your contract is up, or have your $600+ device rendered useless is pure BS. I don't want money from Apple or ATT, I want my phones all unlocked. Of course "our" lawyers will never accept that. They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
This is exactly my fear, some silly ass check comes in the mail and I get nothing but chump change. The real need is for an unlock and that has nothing to do with another carrier in the US. It is about swapping sims when needed which can save you thousands of dollars in some cases.
At this point, Apple should unlock all iPhone 2Gs ever sold. I'd say even for the 3G (not the 3GS), too.
Exclusivity means nothing in the USA for the iPhone4, but it does outside of the USA. Any chance Apple will tell them to sue in the country they want to use it in?
Can a phone be locked to more than one carrier, but not all?
At this point, Apple should unlock all iPhone 2Gs ever sold. I'd say even for the 3G (not the 3GS), too.
Exclusivity means nothing in the USA for the iPhone4, but it does outside of the USA. Any chance Apple will tell them to sue in the country they want to use it in?
Can a phone be locked to more than one carrier, but not all?
unlock the 3G?! it was still on sale only a month ago!
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 in full. In addition, just like AT&T and Apple some judge has FORCED me to be part of this lawsuit, which I don't want. It will only drain money from the companies into the lawyers pocket. What do you think the Trial Bar doesn't want the law changed to set the bar higher for these types of law suits. They don't benefit the plaintiff(s) only the lawyers. And no, it doesn't really force Companies to change their practices, only in a very few cases if you actually look at the history. Its the trial lawyers (who happen to also be your legislators is large part) who want you to believe this bogus assertion. It benefits them as well.
Does anyone here know how to officially opt-out of this disaster.
I think the real question is why Apple chooses to not unlock phones. Only manufacturer I am aware of doing it in the US.
I think the reason is that Apple is horrified by the idea that the phone would not work perfectly e.g. no 3G with T-Mobile and they would get the flack. If they deem that the experience is subpar they won't allow it even if users want it.
On a more serious note, this is a free country....you can buy a product or not. There is no case here.
Serious note!?
Free does not mean free-for-all. Free does not mean no laws or no social/ business norms. For instance, you cannot open a shop in a public place and say 'no whites served.'
Courts, and reasonable lawsuits judged worthy of consideration by courts, are the means by which civilized free societies advance, create, and codify new laws as reflecting that society's norms.
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.
Even if you buy the iPhone in the US without a contract, it's still locked to AT&T. I don't think there's any way to buy an unlocked iPhone in the US, except via the grey market where it's been imported from another country.
I'd be willing to pay full retail for an iPhone that I could use on both US and international networks.
opt-out? You mean you don't have to opt-in to a class action lawsuit? surely most people don't give a ---- \
While this is what I thought also I was going off of this quote in the article. (might be hyperbole on the part of the lawyer - nah, couldn't be they always tell the truth
Quote:
"The court has allowed (multiple) plaintiffs to represent 20 million customers who have been forced to use AT&T for iPhone voice and data service," Rifkin reportedly said, "despite an agreement that allows them to terminate at any time and presumably switch carriers."
The number one and most significant problem is the lack of an official unlock after the terms of the contract are up. Most people would not be very happy if their car stopped working after the terms of the purchase contract expired, the same applies here. Once you have paid for the device it is yours and thus controls placed on it by Apple and AT&T should expire.
In essence I'm on your side when it comes to honoring contracts. I have a problem though with silly behavior like this that tries to tie the customer to the provider after the contract has expired. What makes this really silly is that the phone is currently tied to AT&T anyway, in the US, technology wise. The number of customers AT&T would loose is tiny compared to those that they are pissing off.
For many of us the issue of a stable and sanctioned unlock revolves around the short term use of the iPhone in other countries. It isn't about using another carrier in the US at all.
In any event show me another industry where the supplier has so much control over a product after you take ownership. The contract to pay for the phone isn't the issue, what happens afterward is.
Dave
Excellent post. Worthy of a repeat.
Btw, there are folks who might like to sell it after contract, to anyone anywhere in the used market. The current setup with Apple/ATT creates a problem for them.
Comments
But having a single supplier or distributor of your product clearly reduces competition.
Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.
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.
I have to disagree with your statement about DirecTV. When you lease a DVR with DirecTV you pay $200.00 up front to lease/rent the equipment. It is NON-Refundable. It doesn't matter if you break your contract 6 months into a 2 yr agreement, you're not getting that $200.00 back. On top of that they charge you a $5.00 monthly rental fee that they conveniently call a mirroring fee plus $7.00 a month for DVR service (the privilege of using the DVR). If you keep that DVR for 4 to 5 years you have essentially paid more than full retail price for the equipment that you will NEVER own. It's a rip off! The only up side to this whole scheme is that they will replace it if it breaks. Beware though, if they send a technician to your house to service the unit then you are automatically forced to extend your contract by another 2 yrs to cover the cost of the service call. It's a trap any way you look at it.
I never want this to happen with cell phones. It should be illegal for any company to extort money from customers in this manner
Okay, you altered your post. Good. Anytime you limit your distribution you limit your ability to compete with those who distribute to a wider audience. Therw is nothing illegal about that.
I agree, there's often nothing illegal with diminished competition by itself. It happens everywhere really. For example, shopping centres sometimes enter into agreements to allow only one one supermarket or coffee shop to be there. What I do say is that there is cost to consumers where it occurs.
Thankfully we don't have this problem in UK.
*likes*
as far as I'm aware: in the US there is:
AT&T - GSM - global standard
T-mobile - GSM
verizon - CDMA
Sprint - CDMA
virgin mobile - CDMA
apple decided to go with the global standard, gsm. The only other compatable network is t-mobile and their 3G won't work with iPhone.
Since Customers cant force apple to make new hardware or change existing hardware they have 3 choices:
Stick with AT&T
Get apple to go T-mobile - but you don't get 3G!!!
shut up and stop winging that the US uses ancient CDMA technology.
Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.
So does that mean Verizon's phone manufactures can be sued for not making phones for other carriers? No.
Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.
T mobile Germany uses standard frequencies, in the US they have to use a different band because ATT and Verizon own the common frequencies in most of the US.
This is a stupid lawsuit and won't go very far. Companies have a legitimate right to choose the distribution method for their products. Toyota is free to sell their cars only through Toyota dealers. If I invent something new, I'm free to sell it only through Best Buy or Walmart or Billy Bob's Bait and Tackle if I wish.
Consumers do not have an absolute right to any product they wish to buy. They have a right to buy it under terms that the seller chooses to offer. Any other rule would be a disaster.
We really need 'loser pays' for lawsuits in this country.
The number one and most significant problem is the lack of an official unlock after the terms of the contract are up. Most people would not be very happy if their car stopped working after the terms of the purchase contract expired, the same applies here. Once you have paid for the device it is yours and thus controls placed on it by Apple and AT&T should expire.
In essence I'm on your side when it comes to honoring contracts. I have a problem though with silly behavior like this that tries to tie the customer to the provider after the contract has expired. What makes this really silly is that the phone is currently tied to AT&T anyway, in the US, technology wise. The number of customers AT&T would loose is tiny compared to those that they are pissing off.
For many of us the issue of a stable and sanctioned unlock revolves around the short term use of the iPhone in other countries. It isn't about using another carrier in the US at all.
In any event show me another industry where the supplier has so much control over a product after you take ownership. The contract to pay for the phone isn't the issue, what happens afterward is.
Dave
Agree 100%. If Apple chooses not to make a CDMA phone--is that Apple's fault? I agree that people should be allowed to have their phones unlocked after they have completed their 2-yr committment. Like you said--the other issue might be trying to get it working on T-Mobile's network. Don't see why it can't since T-Mobile Germany sells the iphone.
So does that mean Verizon's phone manufactures can be sued for not making phones for other carriers? No.
Thanks for agreeing with me. iPhone won't work with T-mobile 3G In the US because it uses different radio frequencies than in Germany and other countries.
The valid part of the lawsuit is their refusal to unlock the device you paid for after you have satisfied your contract terms. They can force you to sign up with ATT in order to buy a new subsidized phone, but to force you to stay on ATT after your contract is up, or have your $600+ device rendered useless is pure BS. I don't want money from Apple or ATT, I want my phones all unlocked. Of course "our" lawyers will never accept that. They will go for a cash settlement so they can steal 60% of it and then send me a $3 coupon.
This is exactly my fear, some silly ass check comes in the mail and I get nothing but chump change. The real need is for an unlock and that has nothing to do with another carrier in the US. It is about swapping sims when needed which can save you thousands of dollars in some cases.
Dave
Exclusivity means nothing in the USA for the iPhone4, but it does outside of the USA. Any chance Apple will tell them to sue in the country they want to use it in?
Can a phone be locked to more than one carrier, but not all?
At this point, Apple should unlock all iPhone 2Gs ever sold. I'd say even for the 3G (not the 3GS), too.
Exclusivity means nothing in the USA for the iPhone4, but it does outside of the USA. Any chance Apple will tell them to sue in the country they want to use it in?
Can a phone be locked to more than one carrier, but not all?
unlock the 3G?! it was still on sale only a month ago!
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 in full. In addition, just like AT&T and Apple some judge has FORCED me to be part of this lawsuit, which I don't want. It will only drain money from the companies into the lawyers pocket. What do you think the Trial Bar doesn't want the law changed to set the bar higher for these types of law suits. They don't benefit the plaintiff(s) only the lawyers. And no, it doesn't really force Companies to change their practices, only in a very few cases if you actually look at the history. Its the trial lawyers (who happen to also be your legislators is large part) who want you to believe this bogus assertion. It benefits them as well.
Does anyone here know how to officially opt-out of this disaster.
I think the real question is why Apple chooses to not unlock phones. Only manufacturer I am aware of doing it in the US.
I think the reason is that Apple is horrified by the idea that the phone would not work perfectly e.g. no 3G with T-Mobile and they would get the flack. If they deem that the experience is subpar they won't allow it even if users want it.
Does anyone here know how to officially opt-out of this disaster.
opt-out? You mean you don't have to opt-in to a class action lawsuit? surely most people don't give a ----
Wow.
On a more serious note, this is a free country....you can buy a product or not. There is no case here.
Serious note!?
Free does not mean free-for-all. Free does not mean no laws or no social/ business norms. For instance, you cannot open a shop in a public place and say 'no whites served.'
Courts, and reasonable lawsuits judged worthy of consideration by courts, are the means by which civilized free societies advance, create, and codify new laws as reflecting that society's norms.
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.
Even if you buy the iPhone in the US without a contract, it's still locked to AT&T. I don't think there's any way to buy an unlocked iPhone in the US, except via the grey market where it's been imported from another country.
I'd be willing to pay full retail for an iPhone that I could use on both US and international networks.
opt-out? You mean you don't have to opt-in to a class action lawsuit? surely most people don't give a ----
While this is what I thought also I was going off of this quote in the article. (might be hyperbole on the part of the lawyer - nah, couldn't be they always tell the truth
"The court has allowed (multiple) plaintiffs to represent 20 million customers who have been forced to use AT&T for iPhone voice and data service," Rifkin reportedly said, "despite an agreement that allows them to terminate at any time and presumably switch carriers."
The number one and most significant problem is the lack of an official unlock after the terms of the contract are up. Most people would not be very happy if their car stopped working after the terms of the purchase contract expired, the same applies here. Once you have paid for the device it is yours and thus controls placed on it by Apple and AT&T should expire.
In essence I'm on your side when it comes to honoring contracts. I have a problem though with silly behavior like this that tries to tie the customer to the provider after the contract has expired. What makes this really silly is that the phone is currently tied to AT&T anyway, in the US, technology wise. The number of customers AT&T would loose is tiny compared to those that they are pissing off.
For many of us the issue of a stable and sanctioned unlock revolves around the short term use of the iPhone in other countries. It isn't about using another carrier in the US at all.
In any event show me another industry where the supplier has so much control over a product after you take ownership. The contract to pay for the phone isn't the issue, what happens afterward is.
Dave
Excellent post. Worthy of a repeat.
Btw, there are folks who might like to sell it after contract, to anyone anywhere in the used market. The current setup with Apple/ATT creates a problem for them.