The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Judge To Apple/AT&T - See You In Court
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Judge okays Apple/AT&T antitrust lawsuit.
The issue here is the exclusivity contract that Apple and AT&T signed. The problem is that Apple has used it as a way to justify not giving unlock codes once the person has completed the 2-year contract, meaning you can't go and take your iPhone to another carrier. Apple tried to force the case to arbitration, but the judge smacked that down, stating that the clause as unconscionable. In Apple's favor, the judge did limit the scope to NY, CA, and WA.
If Apple loses this case, it could seriously shake up the Apple/AT&T deal, as Apple would be required to issue unlock codes immediately. In a worst (or maybe best) case scenario, the court could invalidate the ruling. This may be good for Apple, though, as several other providers may be interested in the iPhone now, and having the courts invalidate the deal may end up being a bonanza for them.
The issue here is the exclusivity contract that Apple and AT&T signed. The problem is that Apple has used it as a way to justify not giving unlock codes once the person has completed the 2-year contract, meaning you can't go and take your iPhone to another carrier. Apple tried to force the case to arbitration, but the judge smacked that down, stating that the clause as unconscionable. In Apple's favor, the judge did limit the scope to NY, CA, and WA.
If Apple loses this case, it could seriously shake up the Apple/AT&T deal, as Apple would be required to issue unlock codes immediately. In a worst (or maybe best) case scenario, the court could invalidate the ruling. This may be good for Apple, though, as several other providers may be interested in the iPhone now, and having the courts invalidate the deal may end up being a bonanza for them.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
I think Apple would take a net loss on this one, as not only would they lose the sweeteners from AT&T, they would probably have to spend a bit to R&D the phone for a different network.
I would buy an iPhone right now if I could go to Net10 and say "Let me use this!".
[Dreams of $15 per month iPhone plan.]
Though I would probably have to pay more to get the internet data stuff. Still, it would be hella cheaper than any fixed plan. God I hate plans.
Click here to see the ANIMATED version of this signature too big for the forums! :winky:
The main "sweetener" that AT&T did was to upgrade their backend so that some of the fancier features (like Visual Voice Mail) worked properly. At the time, the iPhone was both an unknown quantity and Apple was making some hefty demands of the carriers to carry it. Now, it's one of the most popular phones in the US. I have a feeling that AT&T is looking at this with apprehension.
That would be a huge boon to Apple, methinks.
Actually, in the cellphone market too much competition is sort of causing the problem. Each carrier has their own standard going against everybody else, when a common industry standard would go a long way towards opening up the market. Each carrier has a proprietary network, allowing them to lock in phones and customers.
Compare that to WiFi - you don't have to worry that a Linksys router won't work with a Netgear USB receiver or a D-Link PCI card, so long as they all support the same 802.11a/b/g industry standard. And the inability of a company to vertically integrate their WiFi product line through a proprietary standard hasn't stopped competition or progress in the WiFi market.
Well, the main issue is that there's no one standard that can work well for the US. GSM doesn't have nearly the range that CDMA has, which is why the US has a massive CDMA network. On the other hand, CDMA isn't nearly as flexible as GSM is regarding phones, mainly because there's no CDMA equivalent of the SIM card used in GSM phones. That said, Verizon's new "bring your own phone" policy is a massive leap in the right direction.
Cell phone lockout has nothing to do with proprietary standards. That's completely wrong.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
ha! yeah, I'm high and am working up to my pre-debate beer buzz, but I really do like the hardware and what this might kill off is what's stopping me from seriously considering one.
The first iPhone/2G Touch VoIP client on the App Store was just released recently.
1. Higher prices out the door. Fuck you, people who want subsidies! you might take this and use it somewhere else, we're going to punish all of you!!!
2. the only carriers the iphone can currently work on in those three states in the lawsuit? T-mobile, att prepaid, and tmobile prepaid. Big step up.
3. This is Apple. This is AT&T. if ANYONE in the u.s. can manhandle the courts, it's these two entities.
Wrong. There's no problem with subsidies, as long as you give the unlock code a) when the subsidized period ends or b) if the purchaser waives the subsidy.
The fact that Apple and AT&T are doing neither of these is the source of the problem.
I have the right to choose, don't I? Doesn't matter how many choices there are.
Yeah, it's not like they've been beaten in the courts like redheaded stepchildren before.
Oh, wait, they have.
Other countries get them, but not the US. I like my phone, I don't want to be forced to get a new one in a couple years.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar