Apple & AT&T is getting sued

[isekii]

Linky

Hopefully this will pan out and other providers will stock locking their phones.
It's such a pain in the ass trying to get phones unlocked.

Being bound by a contract is one thing, but disabling the phone so that you can't use other sims is unreasonable.

 

[Anubis]

i agree, the way cell phones are handled in this country really really sucks

honestly i should be able to buy any phone and use it on any network i want, honestly all the networks sould be the same so we dont have this issue with them being different

 

[GTaudiophile]

I hope these lawsuits succeed!

 

[Raduque]

Hooray lawsuit!

An aside: does anybody know how to filter stuff on Engadget? I'm tired of going to refresh the news and seeing 3-5 iphone updates in one day.

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: Anubis
i agree, the way cell phones are handled in this country really really sucks

honestly i should be able to buy any phone and use it on any network i want, honestly all the networks sould be the same so we dont have this issue with them being different

I dont mind the CDMA vs GSM competition b/c I think it always allows them to better the technology...
But seriously, If we're bound by 1 year or 2 year contracts, why do they need to lock the phones to a specific provider ?

They seriously need to be hit big time with this lawsuit so they stock locking phones.

 

[0roo0roo]

the locking situation in the us is just stupid.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Outside of the US, do service providers subsidize the cost of the phone like they do in the US? That's the only reason I can see why they would make folks sign 1-2 year contracts.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

We might agree with their goal from the consumer's point of view, but what have they done wrong? They have an exclusive partnership, it's as simple as that. It's your choice whether you purchase it or not, no one is forcing you to do so.

I agree that it sucks trying to unlock a phone, but it's their right to lock it, as it is your right to buy a locked phone. You are purchasing the phone knowing it's locked - if they say it isn't and lie about, then we have a different issue, but as far as I can see, the consumers are buying a product fully well knowing that it's bound to AT&T usage.

In this case, I don't think they'll win with the argument of it being monopolistic, nor do I believe they should. If a change should happen, it should be Apple responding to customer demands.

 

[thirdeye]

Good it's about time. I wouldn't buy an iPhone anyways but the shit these 2 companies have pulled with this device is ridiculous.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: isekii
I dont mind the CDMA vs GSM competition b/c I think it always allows them to better the technology...
But seriously, If we're bound by 1 year or 2 year contracts, why do they need to lock the phones to a specific provider ?

They seriously need to be hit big time with this lawsuit so they stock locking phones.

They want the phone to be exclusive to a specific provider, it's as simple as that. If you want the iPhone, you have to go with AT&T.

iPhone's competition should realize this and provide solutions, because there is a demand that needs to be filled, but it's not Apple's & AT&T's duty to make sure people can use their product with other providers.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: thirdeye
Good it's about time. I wouldn't buy an iPhone anyways but the shit these 2 companies have pulled with this device is ridiculous.

Am I missing something? Hasn't this been done before with other phones?

This isn't the first phone that attempted to be exclusive to a provider

 

[EagleKeeper]

Sprint does the same thing - lock their phones to their network.

Yes, there is a compatability problem to use a non sprint phone on Sprint network and in reverse.

But the concpet is stil the same.

You purchase something knowing the rules.

 

[IBuyUFO]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Outside of the US, do service providers subsidize the cost of the phone like they do in the US? That's the only reason I can see why they would make folks sign 1-2 year contracts.

The problem is that the iphone is not subsidized by at&t so there is no need for a 2 year agreement. The only reason the iphone is locked to one carrier (AT&T) is that Apple gets some money from the subscription. If you were to unlock your iphone and used T-Mobile, Apple would not see a penny from that. In addition, Apple has essentially locked down the iphone to 3rd party programs which does a disservice to the users. The iphone could be doing so much more but right now it's just in a crippled state. The closed system that Apple operates in with the iphone and ipods, even though they're using open source code, is just leading the company to a monopoly.
If that's not bad enough the quality control on the iphones are crap. I had two iphones with the negative black LCD problems and I just returned it and got my refund back. Someone should start a class action on the bad screens.

 

[ElFenix]

i believe the verb you are looking for is 'are.'

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: IBuyUFO

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Outside of the US, do service providers subsidize the cost of the phone like they do in the US? That's the only reason I can see why they would make folks sign 1-2 year contracts.

The problem is that the iphone is not subsidized by at&t so there is no need for a 2 year agreement. The only reason the iphone is locked to one carrier (AT&T) is that Apple gets some money from the subscription. If you were to unlock your iphone and used T-Mobile, Apple would not see a penny from that. In addition, Apple has essentially locked down the iphone to 3rd party programs which does a disservice to the users. The iphone could be doing so much more but right now it's just in a crippled state. The closed system that Apple operates in with the iphone and ipods, even though they're using open source code, is just leading the company to a monopoly.
If that's not bad enough the quality control on the iphones are crap. I had two iphones with the negative black LCD problems and I just returned it and got my refund back. Someone should start a class action on the bad screens.

I believe AT&T also paid a bundle to be the exclusive provider for the iPhone, so Apple has an obligation to AT&T to try to prevent people from unlocking it.

Not allowing you to use 3rd party programs is something even I knew before it came out, and I don't give a rat's ass about the iPhone. There is however the ability to run web-based programs.

As far as monopolies go, there is a lot of competition in the cell phone and portable media player markets.


I thought it was hilarious when they disabled unlocked iPhones with a software update (after telling people they were going to to it). :laugh: