What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
37 Comments
- inactive, on 10/05/2008, -4/+25Judge: "I'm a PC."
- xkorbin, on 10/05/2008, -5/+23So because a company signs an exclusivity agreement with another, it now becomes antitrust? If you look at the major players in the industry (in the United States), if Apple simply didn't make a CDMA model they would have a similar effect.. With the exception of T-Mobile (and smaller carriers).
The only claim they would even come remotely close to having is the "hidden fees." - kfsutops, on 10/05/2008, -4/+13I don't think that is the best way to look at it. A point that was made that I had not considered was the length of the agreement between the two.
AT&T locks me in to a two year deal. Apple has an exclusive deal for say five years. The reality is that AT&T has a five year contract with me (though not officially on paper) unless I want to switch phones and go some where else.
I understand people have choices. They can leave AT&T...but to do that you loose the ability to use an iPhone.
I think Apple should unlock the phone once your two year commitment is up. Simple as that. - schnikies79, on 10/05/2008, -0/+8I would rather all cell companies be required to give you the option unlock your phone after your contact is up.
I've had my Cingular/AT&T phones unlocked without a problem and sold them on ebay, but it's obviously not possible with the iPhone - Khast, on 10/05/2008, -3/+9Personally, I look at it this way. If I were to have purchased an iPhone outright, and didn't have the contract. Apple, and AT&T therefore would have no right to keep the phone locked...contract or not. Because I wouldn't have purchased the phone under their contract.
If I had managed to unlock the phone, for use on another service, and an important update was necessary. It would be a violation to lock the phone back to AT&T, if I own the phone without contract. - Diggnabbit, on 10/05/2008, -0/+6Well, I imagine that any "important update" probably comes with its own contract (an EULA), so you'll still be under a contract.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/05/2008, -2/+7Wow I didn't bitch about T-mobile locking the Sidekick to T-mobile
- Qumahlin, on 10/05/2008, -4/+9God bless America, where even during a financial crisis our citizens top concern is still materialism and worrying that the Jones's next door may have a better phone then them.
While I do own an iPhone and do think the deal is slimy...I knew that going in. I knew I would be locked to ATT for 2+ years, i'm not suddenly going to attempt to sue them for making a smart business decision.
Consumers in America no longer understand that nothing in this country entitles you to buy a product and for that product to work how YOU want it too. - jasarien, on 10/05/2008, -0/+5Whichever way you look at it, the iPhone isn't 2 years old yet, so any original contract will still be in place at this time. So unless you've cancelled the contract and paid the subsequent cancellation charges, you don't own the phone without the contract.
If you bought the phone, and unlocked it before agreeing to a contract (like you could before the at-home activation was taken away) then you've already violated the EULA of the iPhone and its software, which means your argument is still void.
The only way you can own an iPhone without being under contract is to cancel the contract and pay the outstanding charges (which usually amounts to paying off the remaining months, which at $40/m would equate to something in the region of $960).
If after that you unlock the phone for another provider and an update locks it back to AT&T, I imagine you'd be able to kick up a fuss about it and probably succeed in some way, shape or form.
Since you can't buy an iPhone without the attached contract, and since paying the remaining contract just to be able to use it on another network is impractical and just plain silly, I don't think your statements hold much water. - ccb621, on 10/05/2008, -0/+5Don't you watch "Boston Legal"? Even if these companies hired an all-star team of lawyers, Alan Shore and Denny Crane would still beat them.
Big tobacco...check.
Big pharm...check.
Big telecom...pending
/sarcasm - Leonffs, on 11/20/2009, -3/+7Yeah because every other cellular carrier doesn't have exclusivity contracts with other phones.
Does this mean DirecTV won't have the nfl sunday ticket exlusive anymore?
What about console exclusive video games?
This is nonsense. - jasarien, on 10/05/2008, -6/+8What a load of balls. Apple are accused of "computer trespass and fraud" by making an update that "damages modified devices"? Excuse me, but wasn't it against the contract to modify the device in the first place? And in my experience, the updates never "damaged" any device. It simply prevented re-modification, until another workaround was discovered at least.
This is pathetic. Get over yourself "Judge". The people who modified their device should be the ones accused of trespass and fraud.... - mspengler, on 10/05/2008, -4/+6This is absurd. If you don't want to use AT&T, buy a different phone. There are other carriers and other phones, there is no action beng taken that is limiting competition. Except for the crappiness of other phones.
- MisterRik, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Define 'necessary'.
- inactive, on 10/05/2008, -10/+11Owning an iPhone is not a right, it was your choice. Stop complaining.
- thedragon4453, on 10/05/2008, -1/+2damn election, I believe I mean precedent.
- Giga, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1"Since you can't buy an iPhone without the attached contract, and since paying the remaining contract just to be able to use it on another network is impractical and just plain silly, I don't think your statements hold much water."
The argument you gave to explain why the iPhone can't realistically be used without their contract on their service describes artificial limitations imposed by Apple and AT&T. If this lawsuit is successful, these (allegedly monopolistic) artificial limitations may no longer stand. - kefkaantakrist, on 10/05/2008, -2/+3santa, but now that he does own it he should be able to use it as he wants, or at the very least, use it as he wants after he completes his contractual obligations.
- sdipaola, on 10/05/2008, -4/+5why does apple not sell a unlocked version like almost every other device maker.
why does apple actively write software updates via itunes to break legitimate uses of their phones. in the case of the 1/2 million 1st gen iphones they willing sold to non-att costumers ( mostly in other countries), they have made all those phones ( 1/2 million iphones of profit for them) now phones of crinimals who must jailbreak just to use with their providers. - kefkaantakrist, on 10/05/2008, -1/+2Apple does not sell an unlocked version because that is the deal they have with AT&T and, presumably, they feel they can make more money within the constraints of the deal than without. I presume this because that is their fiduciary responsibility to stockholders (amirite?)
I guess strictly speaking their fiduciary responsibility is to maximize stock value, and if they could do this while running trillion dollar deficits they would have to do that, but I think, usually, maximizing profits does more for stock value than not. Unless the reason you're taking less profits is to invest in making even bigger profits in the future.
The economy is complex. - rkzda, on 10/05/2008, -2/+2HTC diamond.
- slundal, on 10/05/2008, -1/+1This is ridiculous apple and AT&T have enough money between each other to hire every good lawyer i the country leaving only the crappy one available.
- Kira7117, on 10/15/2008, -0/+0In other news, Stones are also almost as good as iPhones:
http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=3509 - ryusen, on 10/06/2008, -0/+0correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't there need to be some kind of abusive monopoly before anti-trust charges can be filed? at that rate you might as well sue a sports league it if signs with one TV network for all of their coverage...
- Ymeg, on 10/05/2008, -2/+2http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/antitrust
- thedragon4453, on 10/05/2008, -3/+3While I don't really think that Apple or ATT is at fault, I hope they lose and this sets a president. I'd much rather pay more for a non contract phone and be able to switch carriers when needed.
and wtf digg text is jumping around so bad I cant read what I am typing. - Giga, on 10/06/2008, -0/+0@rkenshin21
Real mature. Insults and the typical "replace the s with $" drivel. Anyway, we all have the right to buy anything we want? Since when were kids given the right to buy alcohol, cigarettes and hookers?
Despite that piece of broken logic, even if we did have the right to buy anything we wanted, you had equal right to purchase a different model phone. But instead you bought one with known limitations with a legally binding contract. You do not have the right to use it how you wish because you signed a piece of paper that gives away such privileges. - robotsarefrnds, on 10/07/2008, -0/+0You can't ever unlock the sidekick even after your contract is up because it just doesn't work outside of t mobiles servers.
- chuckp123, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1This was bound to happen. Personally, I couldn't be happier to see it.
- carlosos, on 10/05/2008, -1/+1Can't you get it unlocked after the contract ended? This is the problem with the iPhone, even if the contract with AT&T ended, you still are forced to use them for 3 more years in order to use the phone. It seems to me like false advertising in the case of Apple and AT&T.
- rkenshin21, on 10/05/2008, -2/+2It is a right to own any phone dumba$$. You have the right to buy anything you want. When you buy something you should "Own it" not make it a brick if your not with AT&T or any company. UNLOCKED IPHONE! You dont see a 360 not work just because you didn't buy live. You can still play your games.
- spoonchucks, on 10/06/2008, -2/+1"The people who modified their device should be the ones accused of trespass and fraud...."
Because I paid for my iphone with the cash I took from Apple's pocketbook, right? STFU.
Next time you buy something, make sure you call the manufacturer up and ask them if you can use it the way you want to. - jo21, on 10/05/2008, -3/+2the problem its not the exclusivity deal.
but that they don't sell unlocked like 100% of the other brands phones. - sdipaola, on 10/05/2008, -6/+4why does apple not sell a unlocked version like almost every other device maker.
why does apple actively write software updates via itunes to break legitimate uses of their phones. in the case of the 1/2 million 1st gen iphones they WILLINGLY sold to non-att costumers ( mostly in other countries), they have made all those phones ( 1/2 million iphones of profit for them) now phones of criminals who must jailbreak just to use with their providers. thousands of people on 100s of forums spending thousands of hours trying to use and understand pawnage software. for what, why are they criminals for using a older phone, why must they battle the company that sold them the phone at full price.
I see only more lawsuits ahead. this is pure evil and if we let apple get away with it, other companies will soon follow. forget apple fanboyism for a second and note this is one of the major consumer rights issues ( beyond the iphone or apple) of our time. - kronix2, on 10/05/2008, -4/+2"The people who modified their device should be the ones accused of trespass and fraud...."
Why is it only Apple fanboys who believe that their beloved product SHOULDN'T be hacked, modified, customised and opened up by the community? Considering this is a device which actually prevented you from using your own mp3s as a ringtone (with the expectation that you'd pay extra for a ringtone version of the song), it looks like the hacked firmware is justified.
I have a 6G iPod Classic...I don't run around telling people not to mod the firmware to open the damn thing up, even though I'm not interested in the modded firmware. Incidentally, Apple intentionally added a new check which now prevents almost all 3rd-party iPod sync apps from working with the 6G Classic.
Am I surprised? No. Why should I be? It's in Apple's nature to stifle competition and create an ecosystem where their competitors are shut out. Blocking apps like Anapod from working with the 6G Classics only serves one purpose - to force us to use iTunes, which is probably the worst Windows app from a major developer most people will come across.
Apple are a bunch of control freaks.
* iTunes: iPod customers are now forced to use this app to update their iPods.
* iTMS and its DRM: which for all intents and purposes locks your purchases to Apple mp3 players
* iPhone+Touch: restrictive app policy, launched with feature-crippled firmware, firmware updates allegedly intentionally bricked modded devices.
* iPod: a bizarre iPod folder structure to stop us from being able to easily manage our songs through Explorer
* OSX: artificially preventing OSX from running on non-Apple hardware - LoveLikeRockets, on 10/05/2008, -6/+1Anti-Drugs
- Junior612, on 10/04/2008, -22/+1Supersoak dem hoes now watch me JU
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is