PDA

View Full Version : Setting the iPhone Free from AT&T


MacBytes
Mar 4, 2009, 08:04 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Setting the iPhone Free from AT&T (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090304090437)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

lftrghtparadigm
Mar 4, 2009, 08:28 AM
Let's hope they succeed.

Don't live under any illusions folks, Apple can have the same quality control over their product regardless of exclusivity. I happen to like AT&T because in my particular area the service is outstanding. 3G is pathetic at best, but as I understand thats the U.S., not at&t specifically.

This practice of exclusive partnership IS anti-competitive, and it drives prices UP. Anyone of us who pays for an iPhone each month should want exclusivity to end as fast as possible, to begin driving the monthly cost down.

I'm already sick of paying a premium to use this device. I have the best deal I can get and still, $80 per month is a LOT for a mobile device.

If I could have the same plan for around $50-60, it would be a lot more reasonable.

Mal
Mar 4, 2009, 08:37 AM
Let's hope they succeed.

Don't live under any illusions folks, Apple can have the same quality control over their product regardless of exclusivity. I happen to like AT&T because in my particular area the service is outstanding. 3G is pathetic at best, but as I understand thats the U.S., not at&t specifically.

This practice of exclusive partnership IS anti-competitive, and it drives prices UP. Anyone of us who pays for an iPhone each month should want exclusivity to end as fast as possible, to begin driving the monthly cost down.

I'm already sick of paying a premium to use this device. I have the best deal I can get and still, $80 per month is a LOT for a mobile device.

If I could have the same plan for around $50-60, it would be a lot more reasonable.

Dude, if you're sick of paying for it, GET A DIFFERENT PHONE.

I'm sick of people thinking they have the right to whatever they want at the price they want (if this continues, no one is going to want to pay for anything, because hey, they can just get the government to say it's anticompetitive to charge for things).

Do I wish that I could use an iPhone with T-Mobile, where I've had service for years? Of course. Would the lack of an exclusive agreement lead to lower priced services plans? Maybe. Does AT&T deserve to have their risk in this venture pay off, and not have the government yank their exclusivity away from them? YES! Let the guys make their money from their investment. They put a significant amount of money and time into making this work for a device they hadn't ever seen, while other companies (Verizon we know for sure) chose not to. They shouldn't now get to reap the benefits of AT&T's labor.

jW

gkarris
Mar 4, 2009, 08:43 AM
Great article...

Battles over these kinds of arrangements could be lengthy. But Apple could actually benefit from an end to exclusive carrier deals by dramatically increasing the iPhone's distribution. "They'd have sold five times more iPhones [without exclusive contracts]," estimates Trip Chowdhry, an analyst at Global Equities Research.

Exactly...

I have a great T-Mobile plan before the days of smartphones as they had just purchased VoiceStream here in the US.

I now have an unlocked 4 Gig iPhone I got for $299 and has worked great, paying only $51/month with 1000 minutes, free nights/weekend, 400 messages, and unlimited EDGE data (grandfathered the older T-Zones plan).

You can't even touch that on AT&T using the older iPhone.

Before the T-Zones hack, I was more than happy to have voice only and use it at the many WiFi hotspots. Heck, the time I have to actually check e-mail I'm somewhere with WiFi... :eek:

I do know an AT&T employee and she said that AT&T will do everything in its power to be the exclusive Apple handset provider (and that's from here on out, with any Apple phones that may come out).

Hopefully, in today's Economy, people will vote with their pocketbooks and not get into the AT&T iPhone plans that are almost $100/month (when you add all the taxes and utility fees)...

Dude, if you're sick of paying for it, GET A DIFFERENT PHONE.

I'm sick of people thinking they have the right to whatever they want at the price they want (if this continues, no one is going to want to pay for anything, because hey, they can just get the government to say it's anticompetitive to charge for things).

Do I wish that I could use an iPhone with T-Mobile, where I've had service for years? Of course. Would the lack of an exclusive agreement lead to lower priced services plans? Maybe. Does AT&T deserve to have their risk in this venture pay off, and not have the government yank their exclusivity away from them? YES! Let the guys make their money from their investment. They put a significant amount of money and time into making this work for a device they hadn't ever seen, while other companies (Verizon we know for sure) chose not to. They shouldn't now get to reap the benefits of AT&T's labor.

jW

Welcome to Capitalism - it's about CHOICE...

Apple will sell more phones if they open it up to other carriers...

Look what happend to the IBM PC when IBM opened that up... :eek:

tbishh
Mar 4, 2009, 08:47 AM
So what about all the other smart phones (or any phones at all) on devices like the sidekick for T-mobile, etc, etc? what about those? I don't see anyone complaining about them. I love how just because someone makes something innovative, people complain because of it's success and disregard the one's that aren't as successful.



I LOVE AMERICA!

everettmarshall
Mar 4, 2009, 09:42 AM
My favorite fast food hamburger is Wendy's. I like flame-broiled BK burgers, but I like Wendy's better. I like McD's fries but I like Wendy's fries just as much AND I think Wendy's has a better burger.

The problem I'm having is that I have to drive past TWO McD's and a Burger King to buy my Wendy's #2 meal. I really don't think it is fair that I cannot get a Wendy's burger at McD's or Burger King. It's time for Wendy's to make their burgers available at other burger stores.

Exclusive is not anti-competitive. Exclusive means Apple struck gold and other tech companies didn't. Apple presented their find to AT&T - and other companies too - but AT&T was the only one that said "we can help you sell your gold."

AT&T is adding subscribers, other carries are struggling. Why do you think that is the case? iPhone, duh. You can run your iPhone on another carrier if you unlock it. Go ahead.

This partnership of technology and service creates the perfect environment for a premium price and those who want it will pay it and use the service and device. If you want the iPhone and service to cost less then create something that is as desirable as the iPhone and marry the carrier that says "yes", don't go to the government and cry about life not being fair.

And please don't pursue this federal remedy. We do not need our cell carriers nationalized because Julius Genachowski feels that these companies do not know how to operate. DC has a pretty ****** record of running itself, don't ya' think?

Would all the whinny asses please go to DC...and STAY THERE? Please?

Make a better phone. I'll buy it. The End.

casik
Mar 4, 2009, 09:44 AM
the App store isn't specific to the iPhone as we all know the iPod touch uses it too. So it isn't so much a feature only of the iPhone as it is a feature that is available for the iPhone as well as other devices. Therefore it couldn't be argued that the iPhone has a monopoly of the app store when it comes to electronic devices.

Peace
Mar 4, 2009, 11:05 AM
the App store isn't specific to the iPhone as we all know the iPod touch uses it too. So it isn't so much a feature only of the iPhone as it is a feature that is available for the iPhone as well as other devices. Therefore it couldn't be argued that the iPhone has a monopoly of the app store when it comes to electronic devices.

To say it's available to other devices is a huge stretch. It's available to one other device. An Apple device.

jayducharme
Mar 4, 2009, 11:34 AM
Every phone has been tied to a specific carrier since Alexander Graham Bell. There are a lot more choices now than there were fifty years ago. The argument the consumer groups are making is akin to asking Apple to bundle any old operating system with their computers. What makes the Apple experience unique is the seamless integration of all the components, including the software. If you don't like that experience, there are plenty of other options.

There is one thing, though, that I think could be changed: tying customers to a contract for X number of years. Sure, the mobile providers want to make their money back. In that case, they shouldn't subsidize the phones. Let the consumer choose which model to buy at their own expense. That would drive competition and innovation on the part of the phone manufacturers. And mobile providers would be driven to provide a superior service to retain their customers. If you're tied to a 2-year contract, what incentive does the mobile provider have to treat you well? You're stuck with them whether you like it or not. Severing that contract would force the mobile companies to treat their customers better. And that would be a good thing.

Eric5h5
Mar 4, 2009, 03:59 PM
Look what happend to the IBM PC when IBM opened that up... :eek:

IBM never opened up their PC. Clones came about because of reverse-engineering. And IBM ended up selling off their PC business...yep, worked out great for them, didn't it? ;)

--Eric

Mal
Mar 4, 2009, 04:15 PM
Welcome to Capitalism - it's about CHOICE...

Apple will sell more phones if they open it up to other carriers...

Look what happend to the IBM PC when IBM opened that up... :eek:

Umm, actually, Capitalism isn't about choice per se, it's about non-interference. It's when the market governs itself. That means that any government interference except to enforce contracts is not capitalism. If the government tells Apple and AT&T that they can't have an exclusive agreement, which is beneficial to both (perhaps it would no longer be beneficial for Apple, but that's their call), then you're no longer dealing with capitalism and the situation is likely going to be harmful to the market overall.

jW

mkrishnan
Mar 4, 2009, 04:20 PM
I hope they succeed. The iPhone isn't anything special in principle, per se, but if it becomes the vehicle by which carrier locks become less feasible in the US, then I would love to see that.

The iPhone, of course, on the other hand, is a particularly bad test case in the sense that...

1) I doubt any court is going to force Apple to cell a CDMA vesion, meaning most of these MetroPCS skee-los are still going to be out of luck.

2) Ditto on offering T-Mobile's 3G frequency.

So if a court forced the iPhone to be unlocked, pretty much the best options would be EDGE on T-Mobile or perhaps a small fly-by-night GSM operator.

But the larger principle would be nice.

BigJakeA
Apr 7, 2009, 08:30 AM
My favorite fast food hamburger is Wendy's. I like flame-broiled BK burgers, but I like Wendy's better. I like McD's fries but I like Wendy's fries just as much AND I think Wendy's has a better burger.

The problem I'm having is that I have to drive past TWO McD's and a Burger King to buy my Wendy's #2 meal. I really don't think it is fair that I cannot get a Wendy's burger at McD's or Burger King. It's time for Wendy's to make their burgers available at other burger stores.


I am not here to argue politics, cause no one ever wins political debates in forums. I did want to point out that your analogy is flawed.

I hate Wendy's (for analogy sake), but I love Gatorade. Problem is that I have to drive past those McDonalds and BK in order to get my Gatorade. In order for me to buy that Gatorade I have to buy the #2 meal. Now I could drive all the way to Wendy's and pay for the #2 meal if I want that Gatorade bad enough or I can just forgo Gatorade and drink the much inferior Powerade. At least I can get it at my local McD's or BK.

Even my analogy is flawed, because I don't have to be held to eating at Wendy's for 2 years if I buy a Gatorade.

Now the debate is whether or not it is fair for Wendy's to be the only one to sell Gatorade or not, because if I wanted a burger I had a choice and I am heading to In N' Out. Good Day Good Sir.