Apple / ATT Sued over iphone restrictions

[TOYr32]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21230559/

I swear, their trying to get a class action lawsuit on the exclusive release on the iPhone . . . WTF?

And Their also suing over the battery that they gave a Disclaimer on . . . Hate California sometimes!!

If someone wins . . . I'm suing Microsoft and Bungie for making a Game that can only be played on Xbox 360.

[creanium]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21230559/

I swear, their trying to get a class action lawsuit on the exclusive release on the iPhone . . . WTF?

And Their also suing over the battery that they gave a Disclaimer on . . . Hate California sometimes!!

If someone wins . . . I'm suing Microsoft and Bungie for making a Game that can only be played on Xbox 360.

http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/their.html

Yes I'm a grammar nazi.

[creanium]

With that out of the way ...

What about this lawsuit has you so riled up and saying it's ridiculous? What's wrong with fair competition? When has choice ever hurt the consumer?

It's not the fact that the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T, it's the fact that Apple (and to an extent AT&T) are engaging in non-competitive practices by not allowing customers to unlock their phones by not issuing unlock codes and also tying the phone to specific sim cards.

Furthermore, Apple is actively doing what they can to block anyone from unlocking their phones. Look at the latest 1.1.1 firmware release and what it did to people with unlocked phones. Just last year, the US government came out and said a person unlocking a cell phone for their own use is perfectly legal and protected by an exemption in the DMCA.

Regarding the battery issue, when was the last time you had a cell phone where you couldn't replace the battery yourself? How would you feel if you bought a car, but the hood was welded shut so you couldn't perform your own oil changes or change your own battery when it died. It is absolutely asinine for Apple to require a customer to send in their cell phone, pay for a loner while it's being fixed, just to have the battery replaced. All because of aesthetics ...

Your Xbox/Halo 3 analogy is seriously flawed. There is nothing holding you back from buying an Xbox 360 and the Halo 3. You know, it's not like you can't get Xbox reception at your house, rendering your console useless whenever you're at home. Sony won't penalize you $200 from breaking your 2-year PS3 contract, nor will Microsoft force you to sign a new contract when you buy an Xbox. I could go on ...

[Streamline]

If someone wins . . . I'm suing Microsoft and Bungie for making a Game that can only be played on Xbox 360.
Damn you Microsoft!

[ncttrnl]

There is a simple solution to all of this...

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Last time I checked, the iPhone was well within the realm of luxury item and no where near personal necessity.

[bugzy]

iphone sucks anyway

[TOYr32]

With that out of the way ...

What about this lawsuit has you so riled up and saying it's ridiculous? What's wrong with fair competition? When has choice ever hurt the consumer?

It's not the fact that the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T, it's the fact that Apple (and to an extent AT&T) are engaging in non-competitive practices by not allowing customers to unlock their phones by not issuing unlock codes and also tying the phone to specific sim cards.

Furthermore, Apple is actively doing what they can to block anyone from unlocking their phones. Look at the latest 1.1.1 firmware release and what it did to people with unlocked phones. Just last year, the US government came out and said a person unlocking a cell phone for their own use is perfectly legal and protected by an exemption in the DMCA.

Regarding the battery issue, when was the last time you had a cell phone where you couldn't replace the battery yourself? How would you feel if you bought a car, but the hood was welded shut so you couldn't perform your own oil changes or change your own battery when it died. It is absolutely asinine for Apple to require a customer to send in their cell phone, pay for a loner while it's being fixed, just to have the battery replaced. All because of aesthetics ...

Your Xbox/Halo 3 analogy is seriously flawed. There is nothing holding you back from buying an Xbox 360 and the Halo 3. You know, it's not like you can't get Xbox reception at your house, rendering your console useless whenever you're at home. Sony won't penalize you $200 from breaking your 2-year PS3 contract, nor will Microsoft force you to sign a new contract when you buy an Xbox. I could go on ...

Point Taken . . . I just don't think it is any more fair for a company to not be allowed to make something exclusive . . .

. . . I don't think paying $200 to break a contract is unfair, as they would charge you that if you broke a 2 year contract anyways.

I don't agree with paying for a loaner . . . but the whole battery issue is a design that they made for their reasons. But they disclosed the information about the battery for cusumers to make their own decision. Your point about a car with a welded shut hood . . . I just wouldn't buy it, cause that's the choice I can make.

What does Apple getting a deal with ATT to sell their phone, how does that hurt us?

Do Verizon customers really cry about it, if anything it hurts apple by limiting cusotmer base . . . But I figure they made that up wwith a nice fat exclusive check from ATT.

By assuming that if every other carrier was able to carry the phone that the phone would be cheaper, the service owuld be cheaper, and the penalties would be cheaper is Ludacris.

I think I have a better analogy . . .

. . . If you go a buy a pair of Oaklies . . . you can buy it from a number of stores, but the price is the same . . . yet people still buy because they are quality glasses, nice design and people choose to buy them.

. . . If you buy a Bose stereo . . . the price is always the same

Unillateral (sp?) pricing happenes, but it diesn't change the fact that consumers are paying the same price. Eliminated bargain shopping, but the consumer doesn't care cause if they want it they'll buy it.

Poeple aren't suing Verizon for a $200 contract release because they want to move to ATT to get an iphone, so I don't think the laws should work the other way either.

[audiracer2002]

I don't see why people are so upset and want to sue. There are lots of phones that are exclusive to certain networks. That is nothing new. I can't get a MotoQ phone on AT&T/Cingular. Maybe I should sue Motorola and Verizon?

Pretty much just retarded if you ask me.

[creanium]

Point Taken . . . I just don't think it is any more fair for a company to not be allowed to make something exclusive . . .

The cell phone market is one that is very different than most other markets. When it comes to cell phones, people want choice. They want to be able to use this cell phone on that network. And guess what, the law allows them to do that. The law allows me to unlock my cell phone so I can use it on any network it's compatible ...

Where Apple is getting in trouble is their not allowing unlocking. I don't care if you can only buy the phone through AT&T, the law states I'm allowed to unlock my phone and use it on any network I want and Apple is actively finding ways to keep people from unlocking the phone.

See the distinction here? It's not the fact that the phone is exclusive to AT&T, that happens all the time with all carriers. It's the fact that Apple is hindering people from doing what they're legally allowed to do and restricting their freedom to do what they want with their gadget.

. . . I don't think paying $200 to break a contract is unfair, as they would charge you that if you broke a 2 year contract anyways.

I never said it was unfair or a problem. You know full well when you sign that contract what will happen if you break early.

I don't agree with paying for a loaner . . . but the whole battery issue is a design that they made for their reasons. But they disclosed the information about the battery for cusumers to make their own decision. Your point about a car with a welded shut hood . . . I just wouldn't buy it, cause that's the choice I can make.

Yes that's the choice you can make, granted you know that the hood is welded shut from the start. You honestly believe that people are going in to Apple/AT&T stores and specifically asking "can I replace the battery myself?" It's one of those things that people never think about because every other cell phone out there allows for replaceable batteries. I'm not saying ignorance is a valid excuse, but I do feel the battery restriction is unnecessary and solely an aesthetics decision. And that doesn't even take into account if I wanted an extended battery ...

What does Apple getting a deal with ATT to sell their phone, how does that hurt us?

Do Verizon customers really cry about it, if anything it hurts apple by limiting cusotmer base . . . But I figure they made that up wwith a nice fat exclusive check from ATT.

Of course there is money being exchanged in the background. Again, it's not the fact that the iPhone is exclusive to AT&T, it's that Apple/AT&T are not allowing unlocking and in many cases, blocking it.

By assuming that if every other carrier was able to carry the phone that the phone would be cheaper, the service owuld be cheaper, and the penalties would be cheaper is Ludacris.

Who's assuming that? Where did that come from?

I think I have a better analogy . . .

. . . If you go a buy a pair of Oaklies . . . you can buy it from a number of stores, but the price is the same . . . yet people still buy because they are quality glasses, nice design and people choose to buy them.

. . . If you buy a Bose stereo . . . the price is always the same

Now imagine if Oakley was able to make it so you could only wear their sunglasses whenever you wore an A&F shirt and pants. Or your Bose stereo would only work if hooked up to a Sony TV. And there was no way to get out of that restriction even if the law said you could.

Unillateral (sp?) pricing happenes, but it diesn't change the fact that consumers are paying the same price. Eliminated bargain shopping, but the consumer doesn't care cause if they want it they'll buy it.

Poeple aren't suing Verizon for a $200 contract release because they want to move to ATT to get an iphone, so I don't think the laws should work the other way either.[/QUOTE]

You're right, they aren't, because as I said above, it's not the exclusivity that is in question here. It's the anti-competitive unlock-blocking measures that Apple is employing ...

[DTolo]

regardless, the way I see it, if you don't like the circumstances, don't buy it.

Being as an iphone is a luxury item and not a need, there really shouldn't be any regulations on it.

[lostntainted]

The cell phone market is one that is very different than most other markets. When it comes to cell phones, people want choice. They want to be able to use this cell phone on that network. And guess what, the law allows them to do that. The law allows me to unlock my cell phone so I can use it on any network it's compatible ...

.

so let me get this straight, cause i think the lawsuit is BS myself.... for years Macs only allowed the use of certain OS but not windows (okay maybe they did but just pretend cause i know at some point they didn't) would it be right to sue them because you couldn't use windows on them? honestly... i see it is as, okay you want a cell phone on a different network but you can't unlock it? then change networks... they have lots of badass stuff overseas that they don't offer here and we're just SOL... i dunno.. in all honesty i think it's someone trying to squeeze out some nice unearned cash from a company.. :tdown:

[creanium]

so let me get this straight, cause i think the lawsuit is BS myself.... for years Macs only allowed the use of certain OS but not windows (okay maybe they did but just pretend cause i know at some point they didn't) would it be right to sue them because you couldn't use windows on them? honestly... i see it is as, okay you want a cell phone on a different network but you can't unlock it? then change networks... they have lots of badass stuff overseas that they don't offer here and we're just SOL... i dunno.. in all honesty i think it's someone trying to squeeze out some nice unearned cash from a company.. :tdown:

It's not that Macs only "allowed" Mac OS to be installed on their machines, it's that Microsoft only built Windows for x86 architectures. Macs used Motorola processors, then later IBM/Motorola PowerPC processors and those architectures prevented Macs from running DOS/Windows natively. You needed an emulator running from within Mac OS in order to run Windows (at a very reduced speed compared to natively).

There was a period of time in the mid-90's that you could get a DOS Card for the Mac that was essentially a mini-Pentium motherboard that allowed you to run DOS and Windows on a Mac. It never really took off.

But just under 2 years ago, Apple switched to Intel-based architectures and that opened the door to allowing Windows to run natively on Macs. In fact, Apple even provides the software to make it happen (you just have to provide the Windows).

To apply a similar analogy to the iPhone, it would be like suing Verizon for not running a network compatible with the iPhone (Verizon's network is CDMA and the iPhone only works on GSM).

So, if you're going to sue someone, sue Microsoft for not making a version of Windows compatible with the old Mac hardware. That would be more like suing Apple for not making a CDMA iPhone.

Yes they're asking for over a billion dollars in damages, which is obscene and absolutely excessive. But at the same time it was filed solely to put pressure on Apple to allow unlocking and not actively work to blocking people from unlocking the phone. Once Apple allows unlocking, the lawsuit loses all merit and Apple won't have to pay out a dime. It's better in the end for the consumer, so what's the problem?

[creanium]

There is a simple solution to all of this...

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Last time I checked, the iPhone was well within the realm of luxury item and no where near personal necessity.

In the end, yes that's what it boils down to. The iPhone is merely a toy that no one really needs.

But what's wrong with a little extra pressure on the manufacturer to give the consumer even more choice?

[ncttrnl]

In the end, yes that's what it boils down to. The iPhone is merely a toy that no one really needs.

But what's wrong with a little extra pressure on the manufacturer to give the consumer even more choice?

Pressure can be applied by not purchasing.

Class action suits like this are the latest form of buyers remorse.

Edit:

I should add, I'm all for class action suits. One of my groomsmen is a lawyer specializing in class action. He works cases where people actually need help though.

[creanium]

Pressure can be applied by not purchasing.

While true, I don't think enough people can be organized to boycott the iPhone to put the kind of pressure on Apple that this lawsuit would be able to provide.

Class action suits like this are the latest form of buyers remorse.

Heh, yeah. Just look back to 2004 with the Verizon v710 Bluetooth debacle.

[jwill'sMK4]

I don't see why people are so upset and want to sue. There are lots of phones that are exclusive to certain networks. That is nothing new. I can't get a MotoQ phone on AT&T/Cingular. Maybe I should sue Motorola and Verizon?

Pretty much just retarded if you ask me.


haha if the case is ruled against apple/att u should u'll prolly win since ur lawyer can cite that case and claim thats its the same situation

[lostntainted]

Pressure can be applied by not purchasing.

Class action suits like this are the latest form of buyers remorse.

Edit:

I should add, I'm all for class action suits. One of my groomsmen is a lawyer specializing in class action. He works cases where people actually need help though.


or pressure can be done by this:

http://www.teleclick.ca/2007/05/verizon-wireless-to-unveil-iphone-competition-by-summers-end/

(i can't get to the link from work but it should be the phone that is going to be just like the iPhone but for verizon)

:tup: