Possible Class Action vs Apple

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

For the record though, how many of you would use, say, Telus for your home line, and then use Bell or Rogers for your cell phone? Lots of people have dual providers for their telecommunication needs. The whole "one-provider" is a matter of personal preference, not a right.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Who said anything about one provider? We're talking mobile phone only, and if you have an existing provider that you have a contract with, why should you have to sign up with AT&T to get a new phone?

Locking phones to providers is plain evil. There should be absolutely no reason to do so.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by CubicleGeek

I've never agreed with Apple's closed nature approach to their intellectual property. That killed them in the PC battle way back vs. IBM & IBM-compatible clones despite having a larger initial install base and it killed them with IEEE1394 (i.e Firewire) with USB now really leading the market, despite the former being a better technology IMO. They just have such a superior product and superior marketing for the "i" series product line that they can more or less do anything they want. Because despite what they do, people will keep buying their products.

Apple is, and always will be, a hardware company first. They don't seem interested in making money from software.

[Ozy_Flame]

Kermit, this is what I'm referring to:

"Well that's what I am saying. If you have a contract with verison or another GSM carrier in the states, and you purchase an iPhone from the apple store (not the AT&T) store, why can't you use the phone with your current provider?" - arsenal

Unless he's talking about having two cell phones, I take it the "current provider" is your land line. Not many people in this world have dual cell phones. But if you do, then once again - do the research if you don't want to use a different provider.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What about the Xbox example? I haven't seen anyone say something contrary to that.

OK, first off I'm not into gaming so I only have a peripheral understanding of those issues. But I'm thinking that the Xbox has a primary use off the network; whereas the iPhone's primary use is on the network.

I also don't think there are any terms and conditions with buying an Xbox (in fact when I bought an Xbox 360 for a buddy's wedding gift, they just took cash), whereas any time I've bought a cell phone I had to sign a contract. And on my Telus contract I had to agree to not reverse engineer the device; even though I paid cash for it- ie month to month price.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Kermit, this is what I'm referring to:

"Well that's what I am saying. If you have a contract with verison or another GSM carrier in the states, and you purchase an iPhone from the apple store (not the AT&T) store, why can't you use the phone with your current provider?" - arsenal

Unless he's talking about having two cell phones, I take it the "current provider" is your land line. Not many people in this world have dual cell phones. But if you do, then once again - do the research if you don't want to use a different provider.

I read that as he's talking about buying the iPhone without a contract for service with AT&T (which you can do) and wanting to use it with an existing contract for service.

For example, I have a contract with Rogers. I want an iPhone, I should be able to use the SIM card from Rogers in the iPhone, but I can't, because the iPhone is locked to only accept an AT&T SIM card.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Kermit, this is what I'm referring to:

"Well that's what I am saying. If you have a contract with verison or another GSM carrier in the states, and you purchase an iPhone from the apple store (not the AT&T) store, why can't you use the phone with your current provider?" - arsenal

Unless he's talking about having two cell phones, I take it the "current provider" is your land line. Not many people in this world have dual cell phones. But if you do, then once again - do the research if you don't want to use a different provider.

If you re-read what I said. No where did I say land line, and I thought I was pretty clear on talking about cellular contracts. I guess not.

I am talking about having a cellular contract with with a GSM provider (Rogers, Fido, Verison, Virgin, etc). Your current cell phone dies, and you want to get an iPhone. But you already have a cellular contract with above company. You can purchase an iPhone from the apple store (discounted or not), with out an AT&T contract. Why shouldn't I be able to use the phone with my current GSM cellular provider?

[Ozy_Flame]

Ok that makes more sense. I didn't understand that I was assuming a previous phone had died or I would be wanting to switch phones under an existing contract.

Still, are you actually able to have, for example, a Telus contract, and then go out and buy a phone only sold at Rogers stores and switch the SIMM card? I haven't heard of anyone doing that, perhaps the iPhone operates in the same way.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by ken0042

OK, first off I'm not into gaming so I only have a peripheral understanding of those issues. But I'm thinking that the Xbox has a primary use off the network; whereas the iPhone's primary use is on the network.

I also don't think there are any terms and conditions with buying an Xbox (in fact when I bought an Xbox 360 for a buddy's wedding gift, they just took cash), whereas any time I've bought a cell phone I had to sign a contract. And on my Telus contract I had to agree to not reverse engineer the device; even though I paid cash for it- ie month to month price.

But aren't you able to buy a phone without a contract?

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ok that makes more sense. I didn't understand that I was assuming a previous phone had died or I would be wanting to switch phones under an existing contract.

Still, are you actually able to have, for example, a Telus contract, and then go out and buy a phone only sold at Rogers stores and switch the SIMM card? I haven't heard of anyone doing that, perhaps the iPhone operates in the same way.

Telus doesn't use SIM cards. It is more like having a contract with rogers, but buying a phone outright from Fido (maybe they have phones you like better), and then switching switching in your Rogers SIM card into your Fido phone. Only to have Fido update the phone firmware, then it becomes unusable.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Only to have Fido update the phone firmware, then it becomes unusable.

Actually it would be say Nokia or Motorola

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But aren't you able to buy a phone without a contract?

Not 100%.

To clarify, my phone was $300 with no "contract"; as in I could have cancelled service the following day if I wanted. As opposed to paying $99 for a 2 year term.

But there was still a contract to sign- not for length of term but still for terms of service. (ie- no hacking, no using it for crank calls, etc.)

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Not 100%.

Well.. in reality.. Yes. You can buy a phone 100% no strings attached. Just not from Rogers/Fido/Telus/etc.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Well.. in reality.. Yes. You can buy a phone 100% no strings attached. Just not from Rogers/Fido/Telus/etc.

I wasn't sure. I bought my Razr off of Ebay and it was brand new completely unlocked. But Ebay isn't a typical retailer. Anyways, what I was getting at is that Apple doesn't give you the choice with the iPhone, where as other companies do.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm sure Apple has its reasoning for only allowing AT&T as its service provider, otherwise they would be closing off a larger market segment that would otherwise buy the phone. And knowing Apple who has made some smart business decisions in the last few years, I'm sure there's a good business reason for it. Again, I'm sure the AT&T Policy is expressly written on the box of the phone, in the sales receipts of the purchase, or in the service contract. The real crime would be not letting their customers know this was the case.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I wasn't sure. I bought my Razr off of Ebay and it was brand new completely unlocked. But Ebay isn't a typical retailer. Anyways, what I was getting at is that Apple doesn't give you the choice with the iPhone, where as other companies do.

Now the question becomes, does Apple have the right to lock you into a contract with AT&T? I guess we will have to wait and see wiether or not the firmware update was in fact to fix a few security items, and it just happens to brick unlocked phones. Or if they piggy backed in a patch that would target and brick un-locked iPhones.

[Titan]

Where is it stated that you have a "right" to an iphone? You buy it on Apple's terms or you don't buy it. As in any commercial transaction if the parties don't agree on the terms you don't do the deal. Just because you don't like the terms you can't pretend you will abide by them and then hack the phone after the fact to evade the terms of the contract. I have not reviewed the terms of sale but I can almost guarantee that they include a term that you will not hack the phone. If you do, you are in breach. Should apple brick your phone? If they are, no. But they were betting that people would not sue them for breaking their terms as the purchaser breached the contract first. Equity requires clean hands.

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

I got a simple solution to this.

Don't buy an iphone.

Best advice in this whole thread.

Save yourself the $500 cell phone. Wow.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm sure Apple has its reasoning for only allowing AT&T as its service provider, otherwise they would be closing off a larger market segment that would otherwise buy the phone. And knowing Apple who has made some smart business decisions in the last few years, I'm sure there's a good business reason for it. Again, I'm sure the AT&T Policy is expressly written on the box of the phone, in the sales receipts of the purchase, or in the service contract. The real crime would be not letting their customers know this was the case.

They wrote it on the box (if they did) just because the consumer failed to read the box, that is not apple or ATTs fault.

I am certain Apple had a marketing reason to go with one provider. Probably cash, but also look at all the free advertising they have received from this decision.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Titan

They wrote it on the box (if they did) just because the consumer failed to read the box, that is not apple or ATTs fault.

I am certain Apple had a marketing reason to go with one provider. Probably cash, but also look at all the free advertising they have received from this decision.

That question is actually in the courts in the US right now.

Can you apply conditions on a product after the "Right of First Sale" has been concluded? Do those rights apply to subsequent purchasers? If I went out and bought an iPhone of someone, would I be bound by the same restrictions? What if I never knew of restrictions because the previous owner threw the box out? How far can those "shrink wrap" licenses go?

Personally, I don't think any company should be able to tell me what to do with a product after I purchase it. They shouldn't be able to apply future conditions on it. In the case of phones, even here in Canada they don't put any conditions on the phone, they just force you to purchase a contract when you get a phone. Hell, you can use the phone as a butt plug for as much as Telus or Rogers cares, as long as you fulfill the agreements of the contract.

And as for warrantees, if I do something stupid to my phone and break it the phone company isn't required to fix it. But if I haven't done anything wrong with the phone, if everything I have done is perfectly legal and then the phone company does something to ruin my phone, then I think the phone company is responsible for repairing the damage they created.

If you flash the BIOS as supplied by the motherboard manufacturer and is hoses your system, yes the Motherboard manufacturer is going to help you fix it. If you screw up your bios flashing a custom bios, then you have no one to blame but yourself. But flashing with the correct bios and that causes you to fubar your system, that is the motherboard manufacturers oblication to make right.

In this case, I don't think Apple should be obligated to unlock the phone, but repairing to a previous or current firmware level seems reasonable to me. Apple should not be allowed to make a make a phone non-functional simply because they don't agree with how the customer is using it.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What about the Xbox example? I haven't seen anyone say something contrary to that.

Or the PSP. You can brick it by messing around with the firmware. I don't think Sony would be willing to cover your bricked PSP. Simple solution though. Just take it back to Walmart and tell them the thing busted, and exchange for a new one.