You gotta read this about the iPhone - Page 2

Eric5273 · #11 09-30-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

What happens when the 2 years are up? A renewal wasn’t a requirement. But no warning was given that the $600 phone (now $400) can’t be used after those 2 years unless it remains on AT&T. What if I move to Europe? I have to pay AT&T a termination fee. Does this entitle me to an unlock? THis has never been a problem before, but Apple just made it one.

In case you failed to realize, every phone ever sold by Verizon carries the same exact policy. Their phones do not even use a SIM card, so they cannot be "unlocked". I don't know why everyone is suddenly on Apple's case about this.

It's simple. If you don't use AT&T, then don't get an iPhone. I use them and have used them for years, and will probably continue to use them after my 2 years are up. And if I decide not to, I will go to another carrier and get another phone.

Yes it would be nice if our cell phone industry was like the cell phone industry in Taiwan or certain parts of Europe. In those places, you buy an unlocked phone in an electronics store (just the same way you buy your regular home phone), and then subscribe to a service provider (the same way you get landline phone service), they give you a SIM card, and you put it in your phone. You are not required to sign any sort of contract (same as with landline service). You just go month-to-month.

The only thing about this system that people would complain about is that cell phones are expensive. Even the cheapest ones cost around $100-150, and the good ones are often $600-800. The cell phone companies here subsidize those prices because you are getting the phone with 2-year contract. They often subsidize those prices by $200-300 on a phone. So instead of paying $300 for your average phone, you pay $50 or so. Cheap phones are free, and even your top-of-the-line phones are only around $400 or $500.

Each system has its advantages. But you can bet that until the Justice Dept. begins to enforce anti-trust legislation against companies that both sell the phones and provide the service (a clear anti-trust violation), I would expect this system to continue. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

Sponsored Links

noncom23 · #12 09-30-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

Looks like Apple is taking one out of Microsoft's play book and realizing there is a reason MS is so successful

+1

Quicksilver · #13 09-30-2007, 07:51 PM

Thanks for the info but verizion isn't the service in question. We're talkin GSM here.

The comments you see although they look like the might have come from me is a quote from the posted article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

In case you failed to realize, every phone ever sold by Verizon carries the same exact policy. Their phones do not even use a SIM card, so they cannot be "unlocked". I don't know why everyone is suddenly on Apple's case about this.

It's simple. If you don't use AT&T, then don't get an iPhone. I use them and have used them for years, and will probably continue to use them after my 2 years are up. And if I decide not to, I will go to another carrier and get another phone.

Yes it would be nice if our cell phone industry was like the cell phone industry in Taiwan or certain parts of Europe. In those places, you buy an unlocked phone in an electronics store (just the same way you buy your regular home phone), and then subscribe to a service provider (the same way you get landline phone service), they give you a SIM card, and you put it in your phone. You are not required to sign any sort of contract (same as with landline service). You just go month-to-month.

The only thing about this system that people would complain about is that cell phones are expensive. Even the cheapest ones cost around $100-150, and the good ones are often $600-800. The cell phone companies here subsidize those prices because you are getting the phone with 2-year contract. They often subsidize those prices by $200-300 on a phone. So instead of paying $300 for your average phone, you pay $50 or so. Cheap phones are free, and even your top-of-the-line phones are only around $400 or $500.

Each system has its advantages. But you can bet that until the Justice Dept. begins to enforce anti-trust legislation against companies that both sell the phones and provide the service (a clear anti-trust violation), I would expect this system to continue. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

Eric5273 · #14 09-30-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Thanks for the info but verizion isn't the service in question. We're talkin GSM here.

The comments you see although they look like the might have come from me is a quote from the posted article.

If AT&T had made a GSM phone without a SIM card (i.e. SIM card built-in & part of the internal board), would that have made it ok then? Because that is essentially what Verizon and Sprint have done with all of their phones.

BTW, I think Apple's only mistake here was to make a statement about the unlocked phones. If they had simply kept their mouth shut and issued this "update" which bricks the unlocked phones, I don't think they could be blamed for anything. They could simply say it was a coincidence and that they cannot guarantee that hacked phones will be compatible with their updates. But instead, they had to issue a statement warning people about unlocked phones, and now it becomes obvious that they are intentionally attempting to cause problems for those people with unlocked iPhones.

Also, Apple is not the only GSM phones that are locked to Network. For years T-Mobile has been selling their "Sidekick" that is locked in the same manner. You cannot install your own software on a Sidekick nor can you use it on another network.

Quicksilver · #15 10-01-2007, 03:30 AM

Would that have made WHAT OK.

I don't understand your question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

If AT&T had made a GSM phone without a SIM card (i.e. SIM card built-in & part of the internal board), would that have made it ok then? Because that is essentially what Verizon and Sprint have done with all of their phones.

Catch 22. but i believe it was a fair warning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

BTW, I think Apple's only mistake here was to make a statement about the unlocked phones. If they had simply kept their mouth shut and issued this "update" which bricks the unlocked phones, I don't think they could be blamed for anything. They could simply say it was a coincidence and that they cannot guarantee that hacked phones will be compatible with their updates. But instead, they had to issue a statement warning people about unlocked phones, and now it becomes obvious that they are intentionally attempting to cause problems for those people with unlocked iPhones.

So what's your point? There are other GSM phones that can be used cross network after unlock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Also, Apple is not the only GSM phones that are locked to Network. For years T-Mobile has been selling their "Sidekick" that is locked in the same manner. You cannot install your own software on a Sidekick nor can you use it on another network.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Sponsored Links