Home  ›  News  ›

Class Action Lawsuit Over iPhone Exclusivity Certified

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 20 replies

Because they have no other choices... right?

justfinethanku

Jul 10, 2010, 8:40 AM
It is a extremely well-known fact that the single most common business practice for wireless carriers in the U.S. is to subsidize a phone locked into their specific carrier.

AT&T and Apple never hid the fact that the iPhone was locked onto AT&T, They never hinted in any way that the iPhone could be used, for any reason on any other carrier and the general population knew this.

Signing a new contract with another carrier, or going pre-paid has always meant you get a new phone from that other carrier, or you buy a phone compatible with that network. Common knowledge of this fact alone disallows any mis-understandings about the iPhone's exclusivity.

Unlocked phones have always been a special breed of phones you purchase without a su...
(continues)
...
Menno

Jul 10, 2010, 9:42 AM
I agree that the case doesn't seem to mean anything, and that it should be thrown out.

But I honestly think that a good portion of this lawsuit is because of the app store. It was the first one that really pushed the concept of paid apps, so people have potentially hundreds of dollars in applications (not to mention the music and movies from itunes) locked up into their phones beyond that phone.

Still kind of pointless, because they can continue using the iphone as an ipod touch. But that's my theory one why they got their lawsuit signed.
...
Jayshmay

Jul 10, 2010, 9:57 AM
So there's no way to convert Itunes stuff to non-Itunes? Like
.mp3, .wma?
...
justfinethanku

Jul 10, 2010, 10:04 AM
I think he's talking more specifically about phone applications, not music.

Double Twist will convert your iTunes music, video and (I think) ebook library for you.
...
Menno

Jul 10, 2010, 11:50 AM
it won't convert the DRM protected stuff.

I have well over a dozen albums that are locked on my itunes and I can't put on my droid from before they went DRM free. they want over $100 to remove the DRM.. it's stupid
...
ecycled

Jul 10, 2010, 11:52 AM
There is unlocking software. I d/led some to remove the lock, it was free but I never use itunes, so I don't remember what its called.

The free version did one at a time, there was a pay version that would do buld. Wife used it a few times, so I know it must be simple to run.
...
Menno

Jul 10, 2010, 11:54 AM
I know there is unlocking software.

It's just... why should I have to resort to "breaking the law" by breaking DRM to play music I own that the company doesn't sell protected by DRM anymore?
...
Jayshmay

Jul 10, 2010, 12:13 PM
Damn! For a $100 you might as well just rebuy the albums off the amazonmp3 store, amazon is drm free, right?
...
RockTripod

Jul 10, 2010, 12:53 PM
The bigger issue here is that the device cannot be unlocked, effectively locking the customer to AT&T for the duration of their exclusivity agreement. The solution, to me, seems simple. Allow for SIM subsidy unlock. Clearly, there is a want for unlocked iPhones, considering the wealth of methods available to do so. It goes back to my major philosophical issue with the iPhone. Once someone pays for the device and it is theirs, they should be able to do as they wish with it. Apple and AT&T seem to feel otherwise.
...
justfinethanku

Jul 10, 2010, 1:15 PM
I know what you're saying, I do.

Its just that AT&T and Apple alike have made it very clear through advertising, through their employees and even in literature they provide in regards to the phone that the iPhone is "Available ONLY through AT&T"

I think this lawsuit would hold water if AT&T or Apple had not made that fact clear. But they did make it clear, they took pride in it and actually enforced the idea into everyones head.

I understand your philosophy, and I agree with it to a point. But I also think service providers should be able to leverage new customers with incentives, like the iPhone.
...
LordHuman

Jul 10, 2010, 1:49 PM
so let's get some of us together and sue Verizon. I'd like the Droid X but it's exclusive through Verizon.
When were done there let's sue T-Mobile because I want a MyTouch.
Sprint, you're next because I want your 4G network but you won't share it with my provider.

whether it's Apps or whatever, it doesn't matter. there's a reason you have to be an adult to sign a contract. it's assumed you've done your research and you know what you're getting into. but people don't want to be responsible for anything anymore. they make a decision. they sign a contract and then they file suit over something they knew going into their contract.

beyond that, as a rep for an AT&T dealer, i think people buying the new iPhone should be stuck with it once ...
(continues)
...
RockTripod

Jul 10, 2010, 4:48 PM
Here's the thing with your argument, at least in regards to the myTouch. You can unlock it. Have service with T-Mo for 60 days and then you can have your phone unlocked for free. Then just pop your AT&T SIM into it and go nuts. You won't have 3G, but it will work. Reverse it and try to bring your iPhone over to T-Mo. It has to be hacked, which is kind of absurd.

No one is arguing about having to keep the contract. What people's concern is, and one that I understand, is that if you purchased an iPhone, you are in essence stuck to AT&T for the duration of THEIR contract with Apple if you wish to continue using an iPhone. Again, I do not know why AT&T and Apple won't allow phones to be unlocked after a certain amount of time, even ...
(continues)
...
kas4386

Jul 10, 2010, 2:18 PM
See, the thing you are missing here is until you pay your bill monthly for the duration of the 2 year contract, you HAVEN'T paid for the phone so it IS NOT yours. The way you are able to get a phone like that for $200 dollars is because you agree to pay your bill for those services for the two years you signed up for. When you cancel the contract, you are pretty much screwing the phone company out of the remaining difference of the money they paid to get the phone in the first place. And we all know that most people never pay the early termination fee which comes along with cancelling the contract, so think just how much they are losing on ONE cancelled line and multiply that by the tons of people who are doing this. If you carry out your co...
(continues)
...
RockTripod

Jul 12, 2010, 3:26 PM
No one is arguing against the contract!! They simply want to be able to unlock the phone like you can with virtually any other GSM device. It is NOT fraudulent to unlock your phone and use it on another network. What if the customer is travelling overseas but doesn't want to spend a small fortune roaming with AT&T? What about those people whose contracts are over? They have paid AT&T back for whatever subsidy they received, and then some. The problem lies in Apple's unwillingness to allow the device to be unlocked at all. This effectively locks a customer to AT&T for the duration of Apple's exclusivity deal with them. If the customer has completed the contract terms with the iPhone purchase, then they should have the right to have th...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Jul 10, 2010, 8:15 PM
...because you insist on complicating the matter.

Answer me this question:

"Name one other GSM handset for which a legal SIM-unlock code can NEVER be obtained at ANY price for ANY reason."

If your response requires more then one line of text, you have failed this examination.
...
justfinethanku

Jul 12, 2010, 9:30 AM
Who cares?

Is that a good answer?

There is nothing wrong with a company using an exclusive product to leverage new customers and keep old ones. You have plenty of other devices on many other services to choose from.

Also, I like how you qualified the question by eliminating CDMA devices from the mix.

1. you didn't make any point at all.
2. The point you were trying to make is mute.

We are in the United states, a free country. More legislation equals less freedom, not the other way around.

Either get AT&T or not. stop trying to limit the freedom of others for a phone you probably wont purchase anyway.*

*thats just speculation, but it's where I'm placing my bet.
...
CellStudent

Jul 12, 2010, 3:11 PM
If you want to talk about CDMA, we can talk about CDMA.

Sprint and Verizon have already been sued for "locking" handsets out, and the result is that CDMA handsets have all been unlocked for YEARS:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/sprint-agre ... »

Then see:

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/globalText?textNa ... »

If you bought a wireless device for Postpay Service from Verizon Wireless that doesn't use a SIM card, and you want to reprogram it for use with another wireless network, the default programming code is set to "000000" or "123456."


Verizon even tells people how to unlock their CDMA phones right inside the contract, and specifies t...
(continues)
...
justfinethanku

Jul 12, 2010, 3:31 PM
Not sure why you are so incredibly pissed off about a phone that can be returned within 30 days, or just not purchased at all...

But for arguments sake my answer to your question was, and I quote;

who cares


I'm not trying to "complicate" things with my Original post btw, just pointing out the simple fact that anyone who has purchased the iPhone from AT&T here in the United states knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they were purchasing a phone that was locked into the AT&T network. There is absolutely no evidence supporting any claims otherwise.



The new Samsungs do look like good phones, but as of right now I am disappointed with ALL of their Android offerings. But we will keep giving them chance...
(continues)
...
CellStudent

Jul 12, 2010, 5:20 PM
justfinethanku said:
who cares

Several hundred thousand iPhone owners representing several million dollars of Apple revenue, I suppose.

Thanks again for failing to address any of the real, factual, reasonable points I brought up and proceeding to spout off continuous useless drivel.

If you're going to pull your head out of your @$$ long enough to call me out for trying to "narrow a useless debate" please at least show the decency of crafting a relevant reply.

YOU are the one who wanted to talk about it, remember? I'm just responding to your accusations in a reasonable manner.
...
RockTripod

Jul 12, 2010, 3:31 PM
First, its not "mute" its moot. Second, he does make a good point. Its not fair to the consumer. Your argument, while it has SOME validity, is very heavily in favor of the company, not the consumer. I just ranted a minute ago in another post, but think of those customers who are out of contract with their iPhones, or who have a very valid reason to need their phone on another carrier (international travel stands out). They are getting hosed for no reason other than these 2 companies' greed. It really is that simple.

Oh, and the Sidekick cannot be unlocked at all. However, unless whatever carrier you take it supports the Danger service, it wouldn't help anyone.
...
justfinethanku

Jul 12, 2010, 3:35 PM
yeah, it was a typo.

I hate it when I make mistakes like that in a debate, ruins the whole flow and pretty-much disqualifies everything you said (rendering all of your points "moot")

fml
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.