What is Digg?138 Comments
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67If the iPhone doesn't work the way you want it to: Don't ***** buy it.
- davidlow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+671. By definition, AT&T and Apple cannot have a monopoly together. A monopoly is the control of a market by a single company only, and there are no laws against duopolies.
2. The iPhone does not even have a majority share of the cell phone market so, again, by definition this is not a monopoly.
3. Mobile phone carriers commonly have exclusive rights to particular phone models, and that practice, of bundling a proprietary service with a product, is found in many other industries.
4. It's not a cartel because AT&T is in a different business from Apple. - qmeister, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51I'm no fan of Apple...however, I do think the iPhone is a good product. These lawsuits are ridiculous. How about all the other carriers and their exclusive relationships with the phone manufacterers....Stupid lawyers.
- CraigJ, on 10/14/2007, -6/+35Well, I'm pissed off that I can't get a Big Mac at Burger King. I'm suing McDonald's because they have a monopoly on that special sauce.
- ryecatcher22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22iphones aren't the only cell phone in the world and at&t is not the only carrier so you lose.
shut up now. - Livewired, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18This is ridiculous.
- mysticjim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14there should be a law that if a person files a frivolous lawsuit, they and their lawyer(s) should be caned.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9A better analogy (since AT&T doesn't make the iPhone like McDonalds makes the Big Mac) would be like suing McDonalds and Burger King for not having Pepsi. Still stupid.
- danielsan1701, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14AT&T owns the infrastructure (minus public subsidies), so they can allow whoever they want on their network. Apple built the iPhone, and they can limit it how they want. You can choose not to purchase one if you don't like the setup. Maybe that would encourage Apple not to enter into an exclusive deal next time. And it's hardly as if Apple has a monopoly on smartphones. While other smartphones aren't the iPhone, there are certainly decent alternatives, with different/better features, and cheaper.
- byebry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Umm, lots of carriers have exclusive phone contracts...so what's new?
- Branchex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Wasting the courts time in unwinnable cases, just for money is wrong. The lawyers deserve the bad rap for this. Not all lawyers are bad but the ones in stupid lawsuits can be downright greedy or even evil.
- weeeezzll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8*cough* frivolous *cough*
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Or grammar.
- Solstice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What I don't get about this whole thing is that nobody is being forced to update to firmware 1.1.1. It's totally optional. The 1.0.2 firmware works exactly the same as the day these folks bought their phones - unlocks and all.
Apple probably didn't disable the phones on purpose - they just don't care that their new software isn't backwards compatible with all of the hacks written against 1.0.2. They shouldn't have to be - after all, their official stance is that the iPhone is not a development platform (with the exception of web apps). Since it's not a development platform, then they have no reason to ensure backwards compatibility with 3rd party software. - LowandSilent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This lawsuit really won't make it anywhere. Most likely it will be thrown out by the judge.
Also, in response to your "Stupid lawyers" crack, it's not the lawyers fault. Sure, some of them out there don't give a good name to the rest of the profession, but they're not the ones who are technically bringing the lawsuit. They are bringing it on behalf of their clients. I'd take a case on behalf of someone if I could negotiate to get paid even if we lost the case...easy money, especially if you know the case isn't going to get anywhere. - Livewired, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Then don't buy an iPhone.
- ryecatcher22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7no it's not illegal. If the iphone was the only cellphone in the entire world and they did that, yeah it would be. But it's not. You can buy any number of phones in the world and use them with whatever carrier you like, including at&t. You are not being forced to buy the iphone in any capacity therefore it's your CHOICE to buy it and should accept that it's locked to at&t.
Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13You are right...however, in this case the fanboys are correct.
- NCPR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6what about the chocolate? or any of the helio phones? there are other phones that are specific to a carrier you know.
- wwnexc, on 10/12/2007, -18/+24If Microsoft was getting sued, people would cheer.
Why is apple so different: lawsuits against them are bad, if their products are bad, it's only an exception, etc. - biggsjm, on 10/15/2007, -1/+7I am sick and tired of people talking out of their back-ends with little more than casual knowledge about this stuff. Saying that Apple or AT&T is doing customers wrong for this reason or that. Here's how it lays, plain and simple:
1. Apple has designed a phone. They've laid down what it can and can't do, and what they are willing (either contractually or by their own choice) to let it do. If you don't like that, or you want something that it doesn't do, then don't buy the phone.
2. the 'new' AT&T is actually Southwestern Bell which became SBC after purchasing Pac Bell, Ameritech, SNET, AT&T, Bell South (and because of a joint-venture with bell south) Cingular (which had purchased AT&T wireless). From what I have heard, the name AT&T was chosen because it was more recognizable nationally than SBC . . . so to say its "MaBell" or some type of Big Brother company shows your ignorance
3. AT&T has to protect its interests. In this case its trying to gain subscribers. Allowing Apple to unlock the phone, or allowing its users to do so would make AT&T's agreement with Apple (and their revenue sharing agreement) pointless hence the firmware updates. Beyond that, there is nothing more that anyone can say unless they are a Legal Expert in field of anti-trust litigation or can tell me what the Hirschman-Herfindahl index is. - stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8And in case anyone tries to argue that this has nothing to do with the monopoly issue, you're wrong. A provider is under NO obligation to provide you with a means to unlock your phone. If you do unlock it, they cannot legally make you re-lock it and that's where the issue here comes in: Apple isn't MAKING it re-locked or bricked. The user is warned beforehand that the update will brick an unlocked phone yet they choose to update anyway.
These idiots don't understand that once you unlock the phone, you've given up all rights and expectations to future software updates that are provided to paying customers on the chosen network who haven't broken the EULA. The heart of this "monopoly" case is based on crybaby little bitches who want to unlock their phones AND get official software updates and they don't understand why they can't have both. - Tenoq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They haven't broken any laws though. You can't judge against someone just because you don't like it. It needs to be against the law.
- kirstpo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's only been 4 months since the iphone came out. Why does the court even allow a case like this to proceed?
- Ipfreeley, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7Suit accuses apple, at&t of monopoly; I was gonna call B.S. Parker brothers has cornered the market on Monopoly. But nevermind.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No, it's standard practice for that sort of thing in most countries.
In the UK, you can only get the XDA series of phones on o2, the SPV series is only on Orange, and there are a large number of similar deals. - tdous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Bah, whine whine. Let me know when you are forced to get an iPhone and are hence forced to sign a contract.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Caned or canned? Although I suppose either is appropriate.
- Sonic84, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4lawsuit lotto?
- stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6They aren't stopping you from unlocking the phone. They're providing software/firmware updates that do no harm to phones that obeyed the eula, yet brick phones that used unlockers that write to the same locations on hard disc that the update writes to.
They aren't stopping anyone from unlocking their phone, they're just stopping unlocked phones from updating... which is something MOST hackers learned long ago: if you crack a firmware, you can't update until the new code is cracked. Neither Apple nor AT&T are at fault here, the only blame lies with stupid iPhone owners who want to unlock their phone AND update. - Speed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"How about all the other carriers and their exclusive relationships with the phone manufacterers"
Well, in the defence of the lawyers and such, Motorola and other companies don't purposely "brick" (I know it's not a real brick) unlocked phones. In fact, many of the providers will unlock the phones for you. - lilzaphod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i agree with you except for point #2. It's clear you have no sense of history or any understanding of the anti-trust suits against AT&T in the 80s. The new AT&T is the rebirth of the OLD AT&T.
- mstoneburner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love it when people make up imaginary laws to support their lame arguments.
- Branden, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Uh...that's a little different. Microsoft isn't actually blocking them from working, they are just separate languages.
- johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the difference is that Microsoft was sued for monopolistic behavior with their operating system. computers are seen as necessities, at least to some people, in today's world. MS has 95%+ of the market and was using their majority position to keep other companies out of the software game. the specific point was media players, web browsers etc were so mashed into the OS that a consumer could not really throw them away in favor of a 3rd party product. MS claimed that the integration is what made them so functional. that's why it went on in court forever. well, that's part of the reason. the best thing for MS is to have Apple seen as a usable alternative, and that was an argument in the case.
AT&T has less than half of the cell phone business in the US overall, the iPhone has sold a little more than 1 million units. There are tons of other cellphones that are far more successful. Bell was broken up way back when because they were THE phone company, and telephones were seen as vital utilities. they were seen as overstepping the bounds of their agreement with the government. some monopolies were allowed for sanity.... that's why you do not have 6 or 7 different companies natural gas pipes running down your street, and wires for 10 cable companies. even if you can change your local phone company, they last mile of line is run by one that the county selected.
People have claimed Apple is a monopoly with the iPod/iTunes, but when it comes down to it the iPod is a music player, not a telephone company. portable CD players still outsell digital music players something like 5:1. any argument that iTMS is exclusive and pseudo-monopolistic is being destroyed by Amazon's DRM-free music store..... and that's a win for consumers. see how it's better for the market to keep Apple in check. if the government intervened they would just force Apple to make the iPod play songs from the Zune store or something. that would help nobody. - rderveloy, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3"1. By definition, AT&T and Apple cannot have a monopoly together. A monopoly is the control of a market by a single company only, and there are no laws against duopolies."
By definition, I think the word you're looking for is trust, not duopoly:
"S: (n) trust, corporate trust, ... (a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service) 'they set up the trust in the hope of gaining a monopoly' "
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=trust
I agree the lawsuit is frivolous, but Apple does have a monopoly on their hardware. However, since they face stiff competition from other companies, it's not a big issue. - ranthony, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3http://ranthonysteele.blogspot.com/2007/10/suit-ac ...
The article on Digg points to the wrong link. Corrected link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jKpIDfMUicR6efT ...
Intentionally breaking third party applications for their phone hardware is what is going to get Apple in trouble, in the end. It's what got Microsoft in trouble, intentionally 'breaking' Netscape's ability run on updated Windows products (something that was reversed in later releases) so that Internet Exploder, urm, Explorer, would run unchallenged on Windows systems. This was SOP at Microsoft for many years.
Yes Microsoft dominates the software market currently, but I wonder how much longer this will be true; and how is Apple ever going to gain customer loyalty when they alienate whole sections of their userbase by purposefully breaking their customers phones with software updates?
First you pay 200 dollars too much for the thing, and now it doesn't work at all. Thanks Apple. Stick with Palm or LG or Nokia next time, lusers. - KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The product itself does not carry a contract, service and support does. If you want to unlock your iphone go ahead, it is not illegal to do so. If you want to install third party apps, feel free, it is not illegal to do so either. However, if you do either of the two you need to realize that updates from Apple ARE service and support. By "hacking" your iphone you effectively have voided your warranty, which means you are no longer eligible for service and support, such as Apple updates. If an Apple update "bricks" your iphone it is nobody's fault but your own. If you want the updates, don't hack the phone. If you want a hacked iphone, don't run Apple updates.
- Bamborzled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
- antoniuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How is this a monopoly? You do not need to buy an iPhone, you do not need to be a mindless consumer and that means they can do whatever they want. The iPhone is not a commodity, utility, or quality of life service so this is yet another pointless lawsuit by people who need sex.
- mtxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not about apple being right or not ,but rather its that both lawsuits are crap. If your going to sue them sue them for something they did.
- CheeseheadDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Apple does have a monopoly on their hardware"
I don't understand this comment. Does that also mean Dell has a monopoly on their hardware? Sony has a monopoly on their hardware? Motorola has a monopoly on their hardware? - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Way to stay on topic dumbass.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why doesn't anyone seem to understand this one fact....MONOPOLIES ARE NOT ILLEGAL.
Abusing the position they have, to stifle the competition, etc. (known as "anti-competitive" practices) and retain their market dominance is what is illegal. - moracity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple is not forcing you to buy an iPhone. You knew in advance that the iPhone was designed for at&t only. End of story. If Apple bought up all the other phone makers and stopped selling all of those phones, then released the iPhone, which works only on at&t....well, THAT is anti-competitive.
- evanconklin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some countries do have laws similar to the one you've mentioned. Coincidentally, those countries happen to have some of the least personal freedoms. Coincidence? I think not.
The legal system we have does allow for frivolous lawsuits to be filed, but at the same time it gives US citizens a means to keep their individual freedoms from being violated. - toetagger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're mistaken... but it SHOULD be that way... like the rest of the world.
- Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But waaaah, I really want one anyways! I just can't pirate a phone :(
That's the real problem here. - yabos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So don't sign the contract if you don't like it. It's not like the iPhone is the only phone in the world.
- roberto_deneero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nobody is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, iPod, iMac, or anything else. Apple nor AT&T has any position over the public to leave them with no other option in their mobile phone, music, or computing options. This suit is a joke.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 138 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