People starting a class action suit over the iPhone...

stifled competition? I would have thought it would help - people wanting to go Verizon could just buy a similar smartphone.

While I applaud their efforts, the approach is specious at best. They claim the locks violate the DMCA, but it actually doesn't. Users can simply make efforts to bypass subsidy locks without fear of prosecution is all.

As for monopolistic practices, the carriage of iPhones on Verizon, Sprint, C Spire and other carriers has pretty much ended that.

They'd probably have better luck going after AT&T.

tymaster50 said:

being locked to AT&T's network if you buy their version of the phone. Well America never fails to surprise me.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57536889-37/apple-sued-over-deal-locking-iphone-to-at-t-network/
if it means that much to them they could just buy the Verizon version. This will not bode well for them.

Click to expand...

Sure, since the phones are identical and operate exactly the same way on AT&T and Verizon.

Class Actions here are mainly for the lawyers. Plaintiffs might get a Starbuck's Gift card, if they are really lucky . . .

Blorzoga said:

Sure, since the phones are identical and operate exactly the same way on AT&T and Verizon.

Click to expand...

But they aren't the same. I believe that the AT&T version supports the AT&T LTE Bands, but the Verizon version supports the Verizon LTE bands, but if you try to use either VZ phone on the AT&T network, you only get 3G speeds, and the AT&T version does not work at all on the VZ network.

The only thing i would sign my name is to adding facetime over 3G. It is a bit ridiculous that they only allow it on the shared data plans that nobody is interested in.

kmichalec said:

But they aren't the same. I believe that the AT&T version supports the AT&T LTE Bands, but the Verizon version supports the Verizon LTE bands, but if you try to use either VZ phone on the AT&T network, you only get 3G speeds, and the AT&T version does not work at all on the VZ network.

Click to expand...

This is a physical limitation of the technology, chipsets, and antennas. This is not a fault of Apple though, you realize that, right?

ah, people are crazy. They will start a class action lawsuit over nothing.

So an AT&T iPhone 5 cannot be unlocked and switched over to Verizon? Is this confirmed? Thanks.

STiNG Operation said:

So an AT&T iPhone 5 cannot be unlocked and switched over to Verizon? Is this confirmed? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yes. Tried it. I have an AT&T iPhone 5, i had it unlocked, and then tried to put my co-workers Verizon LTE Chip in, expecting that it wouldn't get an LTE signal, but thinking it might pick up a slower VZ band, but then I realized that the GSM model does not have a CDMA antenna in it anymore like the 4S did, so I wasn't able to connect to anything. The phone would respring, and then just say "activation required". However, my co-worker put my AT&T chip in his VZ phone (which is also unlocked), and he was able to connect to AT&T's 3G network.

----------

Menel said:

This is a physical limitation of the technology, chipsets, and antennas. This is not a fault of Apple though, you realize that, right?

Click to expand...

I agree. There would need to be two different LTE antena's in the phone in order to pick up both LTE bands on the same phone. Apple did design it this way, but that's not anyone's "fault". Just a design decision. What I don't understand is why the VZ version can have the GSM bands in it as well as the CDMA and VZ LTE, but why doesn't the AT&T version include the same CDMA bands, as well as the GSM and AT&T LTE. That one is a bit odd to me.

For once the resale value of the Verizon iPhone will be worth more the the AT&T version!

darster said:

For once the resale value of the Verizon iPhone will be worth more the the AT&T version!

Click to expand...

Maybe, wish I could have afforded to switch to Verizon. Too many ETF's on our family plan we would have had to pay...

I'm not so sure that the value will be less because there are still a lot of high population markets that AT&T is actually better in than Verizon.

tymaster50 said:

this is up there with that lady suing mcdonald's because she spilled coffee on herself

Click to expand...

This pisses me off to no end. Everyone thinks they know about this case, when all they know about is what the media reported ... and what the media reported was basically a lie.

Regardless of what your political leanings are, you should watch the documentary "Hot Coffee". I guarantee that you'll have a different opinion on the McDonald's case. You may have a different perspective of the civil justice system altogether too.

And sorry for jumping off topic.

STiNG Operation said:

Maybe, wish I could have afforded to switch to Verizon. Too many ETF's on our family plan we would have had to pay...

I'm not so sure that the value will be less because there are still a lot of high population markets that AT&T is actually better in than Verizon.

Click to expand...

But the unlocked verizon iphone can be used just about anywhere in Europe. AT&T? Canada and a few other countries. Population of Europe that could buy a used verizon iPhone....750 million. Population of Canada...35 million.

tymaster50 said:

it doesn't take a genius to realize that coffee is hot. They'll let people sue for anything these days, McDonalds should have settled just to get her out of their face and the lady shouldn't hold a hot cup of coffee between her legs WHILE her son is driving.

Click to expand...

Her son wasn't driving. they were parked. Don't get me wrong, I was with you when I heard about this but watch HOT COFFEE like the other poster said. Any open minded person will see this case completely different when they learn the facts.

I'm tonnage sue because my phone doesn't get reception in space. Who's with me?

People literally sue over anything.

AT&T is unethical, no doubt about it. Yes, many big companies behave that way, and that's life, but that doesn't change the facts and people who want to do something about it should be applauded. I don't know if this particular violation is the best way to grab hold of AT&T. It seems more like a "we know they're guilty but we've got to find something to call them out on, even if it's minor". AT&T is clearly worried that their profit margins are eroding b/c cell phone service is a commodity along with electricity and water in this country. There's a ceiling to how much money they will ever make, and they are bumping up against it. They can't be content to make their $50 billion in profits or whatever it is because they are a publicly traded company, and their stock price won't go up if their profits never rise.

Add that to the US govern't starting to crack down on their phantom taxes that no one can understand, and hopefully one day their unbelievable markup on text messages to force you to a $20 per month plan, and AT&T is nervous.

Hopefully people will wise up to prepaid options as it's the best way to save some money for identical service. Leave AT&T in droves. It's the best class action suit.

Mac'nCheese said:

Her son wasn't driving. they were parked. Don't get me wrong, I was with you when I heard about this but watch HOT COFFEE like the other poster said. Any open minded person will see this case completely different when they learn the facts.

Click to expand...

More importantly, McDonald's was heating their coffee well beyond the drinkable temperature - to keep it hot when the customer reached their destination - even though they had hundreds of reported injuries before then. It wasn't an issue of the coffee being hot, it was undrinkable as served and even the McDonald's representative that was deposed admitted that he would not drink it at the serving temperature.

It was served at 180-190 degrees whereas most coffee is served at 140. There was evidence that reducing the serving temperature by 20 degrees would have avoided the serious burns that resulted.

tymaster50 said:

it doesn't take a genius to realize that coffee is hot. They'll let people sue for anything these days, McDonalds should have settled just to get her out of their face and the lady shouldn't hold a hot cup of coffee between her legs WHILE her son is driving.

Click to expand...

Here's what really happened: McDonald's offered free refills for coffee. Obviously it costs money to actually _give_ customers these free refills, so they had to figure out how to avoid that: By making the coffee super hot, so hot that it is absolutely undrinkable. Customers eat their burgers and chips, then they wait five more minutes until the coffee is drinkable, and by the time they have consumed the coffee, so much time is gone that they don't ask for more.

The result is that customers suffer burns. Unfortunately for McDonald's, it turned out in the court case that McDonald's had already settled cases with 700 (SEVEN HUNDRED) customers who had suffered injuries. You say that coffee is hot. Yes, spilling hot coffee over yourself hurts. Spilling McDonald's coffee however, not on naked skin but through clothing which would cool it down, caused massive third degree burns.

So McDonald's was shown to intentionally serve coffee that is too hot to be consumed immediately, in order to save money. They knew from 700 settled cases that their practice was highly dangerous, and they still continued. That's why they got convicted.

By the way, the injured lady had sued for the cost of medical treatment, nothing more. The jury then added damages. And everything happened in a parked car, not while driving.

Now consider that many people take children, including babies, to McDonalds. Can you imagine what could happen if you combine super heated coffee, babies, and a clumsy customer? Customer puts four coffees on a tray, opens them to let them cool quicker, carries them to a table and stumbles over his/her own feet, and four coffees land in a pram?