What is Digg?173 Comments
- mandarin, on 10/17/2007, -11/+46Oh noes! 800million!
If you dont agree to the iPhone being locked to AT&T, just dont buy it. Apple will eventually open it up to other providers.
Why didnt anyone sue TMobile and Danger on the Sidekick being locked to TMobile before? - jdoe562, on 10/12/2007, -27/+58W00t! The time is nigh to end AT&T's anti-competitive behavior. Apple's too.
- peterjhill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18overrated. This lawsuit won't go anywhere. There are tons of phones from other US providers that do not let you install any old app you want to from the Internet.
If someone applies a 3rd party hack to free their iphone, they are taking a risk. They are doing something that apple did not intend them to do in a way that apple does not test their ipod firmware to support. Too bad. Apple at least warned users before the patch was released that future updates could brick a hacked phone.
If I hack my car's computer and it "bricks" my car, does that mean I can sue the car company? No, I can go out and pay for a brand new computer for my car and whatever else the hacking broke.
I'm all for iphone hacking. But I am not for stupid lawsuits. caveat emptor - volcom88, on 10/13/2007, -12/+26I like turtles.
- minoss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15No, apple is a company that only has the best interests if its shareholders at heart. The same as every successful company.
- mandarin, on 10/13/2007, -6/+20Sure is a lot of Apple fanboys digging things down here....
Just dont buy the iPhone , sooner or later Apple will open it up to other providers anyway. - Trojan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Can't people just vote with their wallets?
Plaintiff actions are so full of ***** these days. - gweedo767, on 10/13/2007, -7/+17You people knew exactly what you were getting into when you bought the device. If you don't like AT&T and no third party apps, then don't freaking buy the thing. No one held you down and forced you to buy an iPhone. This is just ridiculous and people need to learn to live with their own stupid mistakes.
- krugerlive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20does anyone else think that apple has ulterior motives to put att in a situation where they get completely screwed. Its a possibility that this has been a dream of jobs ever since the phreaking days
- someirishguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13This is totally pointless
It's clearly stated that the iphone will only work on AT&T, if you don't like their service, don't buy the damn phone! - bbqribs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Well, because it's because Apple has released this particular product. But you're right, T-Mobile/Sidekick is the same way. Or how about Verizon crippling features (like Bluetooth) on their phones, forcing you to send everything through the Verizon network. If anything is worthy of a lawsuit, it's the actions of Verizon.
But suing Apple for something ridiculous gets better press. - Morky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10How can you have a monopoly on your own product in a hyper competitive market? It's like accusing Ford of having a monopoly on the Taurus.
- alex7575, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Because ATT is the ONLY cell phone carrier in the US?
- sholt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12There are far too many plausible explications for the bricked iPhones that do not include malicious intent from Apple or AT&T.
Also, the fact that some completely untampered iPhones were "bricked," and only one method of unlock was affected by IMEI maladies works against the idea of Apple targeting unlocked phones.
IANAL, but this suit smells of sour grapes, and little else. - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yes, please do cite these laws you speak so highly of. Because if you're referring to the DMCA exemption regarding cell phones, you're wrong. That exception means that the manufacturer or provider cannot sue you for copyright infringement if you bypass the phone's encryption to unlock it for purposes of using it on another cell network. That's all. It doesn't entitle you to an unlock code. It doesn't obligate the manufacturer or the carrier to provide it or build a handset that can be unlocked. There is no violation of the law here.
- raynar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10why does modifying your iPhone and then it getting bricked a shocker? I modded my xbox and dont have xbox live anymore, and i dont expect it...
- zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Since when is it illegal to have a closed platform?
- bloominoctober, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any of these cases hold water. The people who have iPhones that have been rendered inoperable by the 1.1.1 firmware update are the people who unlocked and hacked their iPhones. If Apple writes a firmware update for THEIR product, and it just so happens to render all of the hacked units inoperable, well, then that becomes the problem of those who hacked their iPhones. Digg me down all you want, but I think it's stupid to try to get something from Apple (and/or AT&T) in return for a choice that you made. You should know that the possibility of getting a brick is one of the risks that you take when hacking your iPhone (or any electronic product for that matter). It's no one's fault but your own.
Let the down-Diggs and nasty comments begin... - BlueStarr, on 10/13/2007, -6/+12I don't care if it's legal...it's wrong in so many other ways. And no I don't want another phone or to have to crack it to use it with my another provider. I want iPhone and I want it now!
(lol) - JamesLee007, on 10/13/2007, -9/+15I'm not sure I understand the point. Just because it is the iPhone doesn't mean people should be able to do whatever they want with it, there are contracts and agreements the companies and users sign, and people should stick to it.
If you don't like AT&T, don't get an iPhone, and quit all your whining. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Well, that refers to users circumventing the protection. It doesn't say putting the protection in is itself illegal. But either way, a court still has to rule on the legality of it.
- moofer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And you agree to terms of service on the iPhone as well. AT&T as the required service is clearly spelled out in the T's and C's in the iPhone packaging.
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No one is preventing you from buying unlocked phones from neutral third parties.
- onceler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Maximizing profit != open iPhone, Maximizing profit = share of data revenue from AT&T (and probably every carrier they partner up with).
- tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Perhaps, but there's still a case to be lost before anything happens. And I'm not sure there's much of a legal issue to answer here- clearly the person suing does, but it'll have to stand up in court too.
- chicagodj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Because no one gave a ***** about that overpriced kid's toy called a sidekick.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is also likely no technical reason why Ford doesn't use Toyota (or GM, etc.) oil filters. You can buy other brands of oil filters (which is like modding your iPhone) but they would rather you didn't.
If you don't want a car that doesn't use Toyota oil filters then don't buy a Ford. If you want to make it fit then go ahead but don't complain that the Ford isn't compatible with Toyota parts.
Again, if you don't like the contract then don't buy it. Simple. There are plenty of other phones. - alex7575, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The only thing that sucks, is thatthe iPhone Dev Team's Erica Sadun has said that it doesn't really look like Apple has deliberately bricking unlocked phones, which is what this suit heavly relies on.
:/
Maybe we'll get them with the next one - McFlack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh come on! You screw with a phone that you were told was unsupprted if you screwed with it, it breaks, you get screwed by no one else but you then you blame the vendor? Cmon! gimme a break. DEAL Whiny MoFo.
- muncle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Apple must have agreed to the terms from AT&T and vice versa, after all, they did sign a contract. Drop the victim shtick.
- muncle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Whatever, you have a ***** haircut.
- mrchin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They deserve $800M worth of ***** in a bag!
- moofer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Please cite these laws.
- PenguinWrangler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A waste of taxpayer money, a waste of media time, a waste of MY time. Buy it as is, use it as is, and tough if you don't.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I get a kick out of all you people screaming "fanboy" every chance you get. I guess that's the best response of those who can't carry on a legitimate debate.
- randf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3just a phone? blasphemer!
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> Because there are current laws which basically state that people have the right to modify cell phones.
And nobody is being arrested for doing it. Now, please cite the law that says Apple can't undo that with a software update, especially a software update that is issued with a clear warning and made optional for the end user? Do you have a law that covers that because that's the crux here. Does Apple have a right to disregard unsupported hacks with their software updates? - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oooh... the "fanboy" angle. How original.
- TheTSArt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Where are the lawsuits against all these groups that have created the hacks?
If it weren't for them, none of this would be an issue. - SirZRX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The 24-page complaint details the history of the cellular industry in the US, going back to the differences between GSM and CDMA, EDGE and EVDO, the purposes of SIM cards and how phones that use them differ from phones offered by CDMA carriers, and so on.....
Finally, the lawsuit accuses Apple and AT&T of being in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Business and Professions Code, The Cartwright Act, The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Federal Trade Commission Act, The Communications Act of 1934, and The Telecommunications Act of 1996. "
If apple and AT&T wanted the iPhone to be 100% exclusive they should release the CDMA version of the iPhone, the SIM desing has its norms. All the people over 3 months of contract or more, should be able to get their phones unlocked. - locojones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"you, the consumer, own it."
Yes, you own the HARDWARE. You license, however, the software. And yes, Aple can dictate the terms of the appropriate use of said software. When you deviate from that use, Apple can choose not to service your device when you ***** it up. - hermes369, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm a self-confessed fanboy; still, intentionally locking down the phone is bs. It will be interesting to see if they can prove it. Folks arguing in favor of the lock-down need to remember that an earlier iteration of AT&T tried this crap before. Fortunately, they were stopped and we have things like, er, the internet.
- HolyChimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Except for all them damned geographers!
- Tenoq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3He deliberately did something that the company advised against, then sued when it didn't work out for him?
- Tenoq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You Americans and your damn lawsuits. You'd sue for just about anything to make a quick buck. I *really* don't think plaintiffs have a leg to stand on here - Apple haven't breached their contract by providing updates to their phone. If those updates conflict with software you've loaded or modified: how is that their fault? You all defend Microsoft releasing Vista with no drivers: saying it's up to the manufacturers to provide them. Same applies here: new software doesn't necessarily have to work with every customisation you've made, and it's not realistic to expect it to do so 100% of the time.
Time to move on. - jcronkhite, on 10/13/2007, -8/+11I really hope this lawsuit leads to a solution to locked phone sales. All phones should be open to any network of choice. If a carrier has a good service plan and isn't in the "***** you" business, then let the best carrier win through good support and customer service. This industry is a mess and it's forced the US to be way behind the times in the communications market as compared to other countries.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But this is America. Someone should have to pay you money when you're unhappy about something.
- alex7575, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5How about this, what if FORD went out and said, if you don't use 92 octane for all their vehicles your warranty is voided, AND you can only buy gas from Shell stations.
@ncc74656m
Please refrain from using "retarded" as a derrogatory term, I'm not telling you to, but asking you as a favor. My son has Down Syndrome, and although I don't hate the word, I hate to see it being used so rampantly as a insult, to the point that I can't use that word anymore to describe my son's disability.
This is what a real retard looks like:
http://loganalexanderlee.com/images.asp?Folder=966 ... - Archimboldo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2LOL!
- kidvicious1973, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What a bunch of babies. Many seem to forget that Apple and AT&T are companies that exist to make a profit. There are other phones out there. I do not remember any complaints when the RAZR 1st came out. It was an exclusive deal also. Best thing you can do as a consumer is not buy that phone go elsewhere. Remember it is all about supply in demand.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is