What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
209 Comments
- MacParrot, on 06/18/2009, -3/+117Shrug. Apple should be allowed (as should anyone) to sell their products exclusively to whoever they want. The govt should not get involved. Consider however how much AT&T is holding Apple back over certain features of the iPhone and it's obvious that they now think of the exclusivity for AT&T to ultimately have been a bad idea. Too late for Apple now until the 5 year contract is up. Lot's of people out there that don't want to go to AT&T that might have bought iPhones and lot's of other carriers that are now willing not to screw with the iPhone (can you hear me now?) in order to get some of those sales. Never shall they meet until the contract is up.
Next time, negotiate better Apple. - jjvors, on 06/18/2009, -6/+93Let's personalize this. Should you be allowed to enter the best contract you can for your business? Or should the government be allowed to interfere between you and your customer?
This is a non-starter. The government may not interfere in private contracts. That is not one of the delegated powers of the government.
As consumers, we can pressure Apple to open up the iPhone for more carriers or pressure AT&T to improve their service. - e2superman, on 06/19/2009, -9/+41Lol. It is called free enterprise. The government is getting to used to sticking its nose into everything. Keep the F out!!
- pyrates, on 06/18/2009, -21/+45Judging by the comments on the articles page, seems there's a bunch of apple fanbois who read this article and couldn't possibly believe that was doing something wrong, so they had to disagree with it.
But my opinion is that cell phone service providers should have to compete on service, not on offering the newest exclusive cell phone that just came out. If you can't compete except through exclusive carrier agreements, then you don't know how to compete anymore.
Here's an example. T-mobile has been rated with better support then at&t. But because at&t has the exclusivity of the iphone, customers who want it don't have a choice and must put up with the bad customer support of at&t. - Simssega, on 06/19/2009, -3/+26I'll take free market for 500.
- norman619, on 06/19/2009, -2/+22Well, Apple is free to do whatever it likes with its phone. If they want to go with only one carrier that is their business. People know full well what they are getting when they buy an iPhone so I have no sympathy when they bitch and cry about being locked into ATT.
- doctechnical, on 06/19/2009, -2/+20EXACTLY. If AT&T were the only cell service provider then you've got a case on monopoly grounds. But there's no such case here, plenty of providers, plenty of cell phones.
This is simply a case of a bunch of people with a hard on for the iPhone wanting to have their cake and eat it too. As the Stones said, you can't always get what you want. It's called life, deal with it. - IKORKYI, on 06/19/2009, -2/+17telling a company they can't sign an exclusive deal with another company (and not in the name of a monopoly) is rediculous. the iphone is great, but you don't have a right to use it with any service provider. just rediculous.
- macslut, on 06/19/2009, -1/+16Us: Hello Palm? Samsung? Nokia? Blackberry? Motorola? LG? etc...
I'm pretty sure at least one of them will sell you a phone for the carrier you want. - Blashy, on 06/19/2009, -2/+14Best comment I read on this:
AT&T took a huge, multi-million dollar risk in agreeing to sell a radically different phone from an unproven manufacturer. They now get to reap the rewards of taking a risk that's panned out better than anyone originally thought. If the iPhone had been a disaster, we wouldn't be having this conversation. - Modio, on 06/19/2009, -3/+14Well said. These are my sentiments had I figured out how to put my sentiments into word form.
- drunkenoaf, on 06/19/2009, -6/+17In essence: should businesses do what's most profitable for them?
- govsucks, on 06/19/2009, -7/+17The first question that comes to my mine is "Who the ***** do you people think you are?"
You didn't create the iPhone or AT&Ts network. If you don't like it buy another product.
Arrogant collectivist bastards think they have a right to dictate anything to anyone. - PainToad, on 06/19/2009, -1/+10In Aus we have 5 carriers, that is all :P
- RyGiL, on 06/19/2009, -2/+10Oohh... and once they're done with this, maybe they'll start attacking Microsoft and Nintendo for exclusives on their consoles. I find it absurd that I have to buy a Wii to play Mario or an XBox to play Halo! <Insert more whining here>
- damian001, on 06/19/2009, -2/+10This is America. Let the businesses do what they want. I'm not subscribed to AT&T and I'd like an iPhone, but I can live with it. If Apple and AT&T want to continue their contract then let them be. Business is just business.
- znicket, on 06/19/2009, -1/+9This is strangely funny. Why should the lawmakers care about the popularity of certain devices? If they are concerned that certain segments of the USA population cannot use certain devices since they are tied to a certain network, there are plenty other devices available to them on other networks. This is the market at work.
- cwright213, on 06/19/2009, -0/+8I agree you don't have to go with ATT. If you worry about service next time think about buying service rather than phone type.
- mstachiw, on 06/19/2009, -1/+8As long as Apple has competitors in the market along with AT&T I don't see a problem. I do think that cellphone companies themselves should be looked at for various types of price gouging such as cost of texting & data in comparison to the data needs to send voice. We should be paying $10-20 a month for unlimited 3G/texting data plan not $20 for unlimited texting.
- shaka999, on 06/19/2009, -0/+7Are you saying there aren't any laws surrounding private contracts? Didn't think so.
The flurry of law suits against Intel and Microsoft for their "private contracts" should be enough to show this isn't true. I'm not saying the government should regulate the cell phone business just yet, but saying the government doesn't regulate private contracts is pretty stupid. - inactive, on 06/19/2009, -2/+9it's totally fair. despite AT&T being horrible, it's fair
- TexMexRex, on 06/19/2009, -4/+11I don't like the exclusive agreement, so it should be illegal. Same with mullets, fat girls and, and Anderson Cooper.
- norman619, on 06/19/2009, -2/+9Exactly. Exclusivity deals are common. If they were to interfere here it would set a VERY bad precedent. It would really be the beginning of the end for capitalism.
- MentalBeaver, on 06/19/2009, -1/+7I think the bigger question is : Should a website be doing this with an image in 2009?
http://dmn.beloblog.com/mt-static/support/uploads/ ...
1523px × 1240px (scaled to 50px × 50px)
1180.09 kB (1208411 bytes) - fireashes, on 06/19/2009, -3/+9They did a contract to AT&T and they gave exclusive rights to AT&T.
They should honor their contracts.
I urge apple to open up their cell phone so that all the network can get to enjoy your product.
Also make CDMA based cell phones too. so that it can be used by the cdma carriers like sprint and verizon. - norman619, on 06/19/2009, -1/+7Well the government may not have the power to interfere with private contracts but that didn't stop them from doing that.
- staticneuron, on 06/19/2009, -1/+7Service? You mean as in reception, coverage area, and customer service?
If so, then there wouldn't be as many companies around as there is now. Logically speaking it becomes a war of technology and coverage area. Why wouldn't you go with the best, if everyone offered the same phones? - kefkaantakrist, on 06/19/2009, -6/+12I see no problem with Apple making an exclusivity deal so that only AT&T can buy the phones, but once a customer owns the phone he ought to be able to do with it whatever he wants, including taking it to another carrier.
And if you disagree with me on that, how do you feel about ripping or reselling CDs, DVDs and video games? - josephbloseph, on 06/19/2009, -0/+6I had heard something to the effect of Apple chose to go with ATT because AT&T was the only company willing to give them as much control over the activation process as they wanted. If that was the case, I'm sure Apple would probably be able to find any and all carriers to be accommodating once the exclusivity period is up.
- MacParrot, on 06/19/2009, -3/+8You should probably stop reading them...or take your meds, your choice
- cwright213, on 06/19/2009, -1/+6YES. As consumers you have a right to go with other competitors if you like. That's how the market works. Now when all of the companies raise their prices at the same time and for the same amount, we have a right to scream foul.
- Huzsar, on 06/19/2009, -0/+5But the subsidised phone is exchanged for a 2 year contract. After that ends, why shouldn't I be able to take the phone to annother carrier.
- josephbloseph, on 06/19/2009, -3/+8By the way, ridiculous has no 'e'.
- Kevin108, on 06/19/2009, -2/+6The private companies should be left the ***** alone by the government. If Apple wants to loose money by locking it's hardware down to one provider, they have the right.
- aristotle0dude, on 06/19/2009, -0/+4Are you Americans living in a dream world where the rest of the world does not exist? Apple would have never released a CDMA only phone. They had every intention of releasing at least a GSM phone if not a world phone (GSM/CDMA) but Verizon was not interested. The CDMA phone market is just way too small compared with the worldwide GSM market.
Stop whining and push Verizon to speed up their plans to roll out their interim 3G GSM and eventual LTE network if you want to see competition or petition T-Mobile to get off their arse and try to make deals with other companies so that they can support more frequencies for 3G n North America. - bigpappapunk, on 06/19/2009, -0/+4every carrier has it's own line of phones, it's always been that way.
I don't hear any of you complaining about the Sidekick and T-Mobile. - streak, on 06/18/2009, -17/+21yes
- shig, on 06/19/2009, -0/+4McDonald's has a monopoly (exclusive distribution rights) on BigMacs;
Should government "level the playing field" by making BigMacs available to every burger purveyor?
Narrow definitions of any market reveals that every producer of every good is a monopolist.
Broad definitions of any market reveals that every producer of every good is in a state of perfect competition. - trevor98, on 06/19/2009, -1/+5The real answer is yes and if consumers don't like it then they are responsible to act appropriately and go elsewhere. If consumers hate AT&T enough to not buy the iPhone then Apple will go elsewhere. Apparently, AT&T isn't disliked enough as compared to its peers.
- govsucks, on 06/19/2009, -3/+7"The government may not interfere in private contracts."
AIG bonus anyone? The precedent has been set now jjvors. Look for interference in the free market to increase not decrease. - cwright213, on 06/19/2009, -0/+4true.
- AGONYTUESDAY, on 06/19/2009, -2/+6yes. AT&T is just one more reason not to get an iphone.
- balthisar, on 06/19/2009, -1/+5You can buy an unsubsidized iPhone. It simply costs more.
- travisMarc, on 06/19/2009, -1/+5Well, technically they have every right to. They can pretty much get into anything since it is basically all interstate commerce these days.
Gotta love precedent set by NY/NJ ferry operators many many many years ago. - robdiggity, on 06/19/2009, -0/+4They're not, really. It is in their interests to fill the news cycle with silly pointless stories chock full of buzz and popular cutural references so as to serve as a bright shiny distraction from various facts that they do not want to have focus.
- okmike87, on 06/19/2009, -0/+3Most Americans have NO idea what "regulating interstate commerce" means. It only granted the federal government to make commerce "regular" among the states, to maintain a free trade zone between the states, NOT to regulate the actually private businesses.
Just because the government ignores their constitutional limits in the past doesn't suddenly make it ok for them to do it over and over.
Tar and feather them all. - okmike87, on 06/19/2009, -0/+3Lawsuits concerning private contracts between the PRIVATE businesses or/or individuals has nothing to do with the government jackholes telling me I cannot create a product and then enter into a contract with an exclusive partner to sell my product.
No one is forced to buy the iPhone. If you don't like the way it is offered to you, go with another product or get off your hump, build your own mobile device and service the exact way you want it. If some of you commie pinkos actually did that then the government stepped in and told you how you had to sell YOUR product that your blood sweat and tears went into, you might see things different.
Quit crying for the government to force businesses to cater to how YOU think they should sell their products/services.
Some of you people make Thomas Jefferson cry. - notadiggtard, on 06/19/2009, -2/+5It's none of the ***** government's business!
- Moralogic, on 06/19/2009, -2/+5Um, logically speaking people buy into BS all the time, and even without exclusive deals. Some idiots will still go with the inferior company because of how they perceive that company compared to it's competitors, which could have absolutely nothing to do with what they have to offer. (IE: Sponsors for athletes, sporting events, concerts, TV shows, and so on.)
There are people who buy Nike shoes, I can't get a Nike to last even a year, while Avia shoes I have gotten to last 5 years. I know other people who can't get a pair of Nike shoes to last more than a year, but they still buy only Nike because of the image, and they are almost in their 30s. You have kids that always want the cutting edge technology or what is cool, and they could care less who the service is through or if it is worth the money.
Only a logical person sticks with the best company, the problem is that the majority of the people are not logical at all, and even the minority that are logical, are not logical all of the time. Hell, I have AT&T even, the only reason why is because my plan is better than anything anyone even AT&T can offer. When I get a new phone though, which I need, AT&T will jack up the rates, and I will go somewhere else. My parents though, who have the exact same contract, will stick with AT&T just because it is easiest.
There are always other factors beyond what is logical, and there is a point where people quit caring to keep up to day on who is the best to go with. Then companies like Apple rape you with price, even when they are the best to go with, making you wonder why you went with them in the first place. - okmike87, on 06/19/2009, -0/+3Bingo jjvors, the government has ZERO Constitutional authority to interfere in private contracts.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 213 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 