Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

So Apple/ATT will require ATT service even after the 2 year contract

P

PDE

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Nov 16, 2005
2,484
18
In another thread, I mentioned that on my iphone box under footnote #1 there is the following text:

"1) Credit check required;must be 18 years or older. Service plan with At&t required for cellular network capabilities on expiration of initial new two-year agreement..."


This iphone is a replacement and the box before had the same text, but another member claims that it doesn't exist on his box. Does it on yours? mine is a week 38 unit and the one before was week 37.

So Apple is saying that this phone needs to be forever locked to ATT to function as a phone. I assume that the the rest of its functionality will continue to work without being stuck with ATT after the contract period. To me, this is really outrageous and a reason that I will never lock my phone to ATT, no matter what great updates Apple provides in the future. I was toying with the idea to do it just to not have to deal with the frustration of not being able to update and feel nervous about it all, but not after noticing this text.
 
PDE said:
In another thread, I mentioned that on my iphone box under footnote #1 there is the following text:

"1) Credit check required;must be 18 years or older. Service plan with At&t required for cellular network capabilities on expiration of initial new two-year agreement..."


This iphone is a replacement and the box before had the same text, but another member claims that it doesn't exist on his box. Does it on yours? mine is a week 38 unit and the one before was week 37.

So Apple is saying that this phone needs to be forever locked to ATT to function as a phone. I assume that the the rest of its functionality will continue to work without being stuck with ATT after the contract period. To me, this is really outrageous and a reason that I will never lock my phone to ATT, no matter what great updates Apple provides in the future. I was toying with the idea to do it just to not have to deal with the frustration of not being able to update and feel nervous about it all, but not after noticing this text.
Click to expand...
This is the same as any phone bought thru a carrier in America. The phone is locked to the carrier. After your contract is up, it is still locked. ATT is under no obligation to unlock it.

Take your issue up with your Congressman or the FCC for allowing this to happen.
 
overcast said:
It's almost as if the iPhone is everyones very first experience with a cell phone.
Click to expand...

I think the real issue is that with ALL other phones, people can just unlock them and be done with it. With the iphone, Apple will continue to fight the unlock through updates. How many motorola, nokia, SE, samsung owners who've unlocked their phone have had them bricked by the manufacturer? I bet you NONE. Apple's approach is new and unnecessarily hostile toward high-paying customers. And, to add insult to injury, they are now saying that you will always be tied to ATT, even after the contract, which means that you can never move abroad or to an area where ATT coverage is awful (many), nor can you leave ATT with the Iphone if their service deteriorates.

Awful and I can't believe people would defend this.
 
PDE said:
they are now saying that you will always be tied to ATT, even after the contract, which means that you can never move abroad or to an area where ATT coverage is awful (many), nor can you leave ATT with the Iphone if their service deteriorates.
Click to expand...

i hadn't realised this not having ever seen the box. this is huge.
 
PDE said:
I think the real issue is that with ALL other phones, people can just unlock them and be done with it. With the iphone, Apple will continue to fight the unlock through updates. How many motorola, nokia, SE, samsung owners who've unlocked their phone have had them bricked by the manufacturer? I bet you NONE. Apple's approach is new and unnecessarily hostile toward high-paying customers. And, to add insult to injury, they are now saying that you will always be tied to ATT, even after the contract, which means that you can never move abroad or to an area where ATT coverage is awful (many), nor can you leave ATT with the Iphone if their service deteriorates.

Awful and I can't believe people would defend this.
Click to expand...

Apple is being hostile by putting out outdates that are not forced onto their customers?
 
D1G1T4L said:
Apple is being hostile by putting out outdates that are not forced onto their customers?
Click to expand...

This thread is about the contract with ATT, not about the Firmware update.

Here's the text:
 

Attachments

  • DSC_2017.jpg
    DSC_2017.jpg
    75.2 KB · Views: 212
at least it's clear to me now. apple will never unlock your iphone in any circumstances even after you have fulfilled your two year airtime contract (in the US) or 18 month contract (in the UK). so it's not for those who might ever move location. ever.
 
PDE said:
This thread is about the contract with ATT, not about the Firmware update.

Here's the text:
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one who was bringing up bricked phones by a hostile company. That was you.

The phone is locked. I don't know how or why you had the impression that after two years you could just go anywhere but you can't. It is locked to the carrier.
 
D1G1T4L said:
I wasn't the one who was bringing up bricked phones by a hostile company. That was you.

The phone is locked. I don't know how or why you had the impression that after two years you could just go anywhere but you can't. It is locked to the carrier.
Click to expand...

The point is that all other locked phones can be unlocked at one point or another and that this is common practice. Once a contractual agreement has been fulfilled, it would be reasonable (though I'm sure everybody here will jump on me and say that Apple has no obligation to do anything) to allow customers to use their phones as they want. Apple and ATT is pushing the customary boundaries of greed and customer abuse with this.

They must be TERRIFIED of competition to do this - otherwise both ATT and Apple would be fine with people having real free choice. It's because ATT is so lousy that they are forced to resort to these kinds of contracts to keep customers. I'm using ATT and am out of contract and will never sign another contract with them again. T-mobile is pretty bad too, but since I need a GSM phone I don't have much choice.
 
PDE said:
The point is that all other locked phones can be unlocked at one point or another and that this is common practice. Once a contractual agreement has been fulfilled, it would be reasonable (though I'm sure everybody here will jump on me and say that Apple has no obligation to do anything) to allow customers to use their phones as they want. Apple and ATT is pushing the customary boundaries of greed and customer abuse with this.

They must be TERRIFIED of competition to do this - otherwise both ATT and Apple would be fine with people having real free choice. It's because ATT is so lousy that they are forced to resort to these kinds of contracts to keep customers. I'm using ATT and am out of contract and will never sign another contract with them again. T-mobile is pretty bad too, but since I need a GSM phone I don't have much choice.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree but I do look at it this way. I have two years before I have to worry about this and by then hope to be on gen 2 so this still won't be an issue for me.

Best of luck to you
 
skubish said:
This is the same as any phone bought thru a carrier in America. The phone is locked to the carrier. After your contract is up, it is still locked. ATT is under no obligation to unlock it.

Take your issue up with your Congressman or the FCC for allowing this to happen.
Click to expand...

This is a correct statement. T-Mobile will unlock any phone they sell after the contract is over EXECPT their baby, The SideKick. They will not unlock a sidekick for any reason. So- the carrier can do what ever they want.

I personally think if you puchase a phone- they should not be allowed to lock it. It would be like GM locking the hood of of your car so only their dealerships could serice the car until it paid off.
 
PDE said:
I think the real issue is that with ALL other phones, people can just unlock them and be done with it. With the iphone, Apple will continue to fight the unlock through updates. How many motorola, nokia, SE, samsung owners who've unlocked their phone have had them bricked by the manufacturer? I bet you NONE. Apple's approach is new and unnecessarily hostile toward high-paying customers. And, to add insult to injury, they are now saying that you will always be tied to ATT, even after the contract, which means that you can never move abroad or to an area where ATT coverage is awful (many), nor can you leave ATT with the Iphone if their service deteriorates.

Awful and I can't believe people would defend this.
Click to expand...

First, what percentage of the general public would have clue what your talking about if you asked them about cell phone unlocking? My guess, less then 10%. So for 90% of the iPhone buying public, they are perfectly happy as it is.

Moto, LG, Nokia, Sammy, none of these companies has ever developed a handset that could demand so much from the carriers.

Apple changed all the rules when it comes to the mobile phone industry. DEAL WITH IT OR DONT BUY THE PHONE.

You are not entitled to anything. If you buy my product or service and want to you use it in a way that I did not design and specifically say you are not allow to, then be prepared to reap the consequences. You knew the deal before you even opened the box.
 
Rooskibar03 said:
First, what percentage of the general public would have clue what your talking about if you asked them about cell phone unlocking. My guess, less then 10%.
Click to expand...

sounds like it's very different in your country to mine. here (UK) there are unlocking places all over. the telecom regulator specifically recommends that we unlock our phones prior to going on holiday so that we can use a local sim card.
 
PDE said:
I think the real issue is that with ALL other phones, people can just unlock them and be done with it. With the iphone, Apple will continue to fight the unlock through updates. How many motorola, nokia, SE, samsung owners who've unlocked their phone have had them bricked by the manufacturer? I bet you NONE. Apple's approach is new and unnecessarily hostile toward high-paying customers. And, to add insult to injury, they are now saying that you will always be tied to ATT, even after the contract, which means that you can never move abroad or to an area where ATT coverage is awful (many), nor can you leave ATT with the Iphone if their service deteriorates.

Awful and I can't believe people would defend this.
Click to expand...
No one is forcing ANYONE to purchase an iPhone. Terms and conditions are SPELLED OUT FOR YOU on the back of the box. Before you buy it, read it, if you don't agree, buy another phone.
 
Rooskibar03 said:
First, what percentage of the general public would have clue what your talking about if you asked them about cell phone unlocking. My guess, less then 10%. So for 90% of the iPhone buying public, they are perfectly happy as it is.

Moto, LG, Nokia, Sammy, none of these companies has ever developed a handset that could demand so much from the carriers.

Apple changed all the rules when it comes to the mobile phone industry. DEAL WITH IT OR DONT BUY THE PHONE.

You are not entitled to anything. If you buy my product or service and want to you use it in a way that I did not design and specifically say you are not allow to, then be prepared to reap the consequences.
Click to expand...


It may be the case in the U.S that nobody has a clue about unlocking, but not in Europe where people are used to unlocked phones and travel all over the place using local sims. We'll see how they respond.

Apple changed the rules for the worse. If you like that, fine. I don't and won't accept it even if it means losing functionality on my iphone or, if it gets bad, selling it. There will be other competitors in the near future which may not be as elegant, but probably better in functionality. We'll see.

The whole 'you're not entitled to anything' is boring and repetitive. We're talking about changing thinsg for the better by limiting huge corporations ability to exploit their power and limit customer choice and mobility. If you want to play by those rules, that's your choice. Many people won't.



sananda said:
sounds like it's very different in your country to mine. here (UK) there are unlocking places all over. the telecom regulator specifically recommends that we unlock our phones prior to going on holiday so that we can use a local sim card.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it's different from almost all the countries I've lived in, from countries in Asia, to the UK and Scandinavia. The U.S. is the worst in terms of limiting abuse and lock-ins, yet people don't seem to care at all and, indeed, defend it. Stockholm syndrome?
 
i think this might catch the attention of the EU. forcing a consumer to one network for the lifetime of the phone (unless you buy another phone) seems anti competitive to me. and before someone says that apple have lawyers so it must be ok, microsoft also have lawyers but didn't fare too well with the EU.
 
PDE said:
Yes, and it's different from almost all the countries I've lived in, from Asia, to the UK and Scandinavia. The U.S. is the worst in terms of limiting abuse, yet people don't seem to care at all and, indeed, defend it. Stockholm syndrome?
Click to expand...

It's a little different when you consider that in the US, that one iPhone sim is good from Cape Cod to Torrey Pines, from Key West to Puget Sound.

UK total area: 244,820 SQ KM
Italy: 301, 318 SQ KM
Germany: 357, 021 SQ KM
France: 674, 843 SQ KM

Pennsylvania: 119,283 SQ KM
New York State: 141,205 SQ KM
Colorado: 269, 837 SQ KM
Texas: 678, 051 SQ KM
California: 410, 000 SQ KM

The equivalent would be if we had to swap sims when we entered a new state.

Boy would that be fun.
 
PDE said:
I think the real issue is that with ALL other phones, people can just unlock them and be done with it. With the iphone, Apple will continue to fight the unlock through updates. How many motorola, nokia, SE, samsung owners who've unlocked their phone have had them bricked by the manufacturer? I bet you NONE. Apple's approach is new and unnecessarily hostile toward high-paying customers. And, to add insult to injury, they are now saying that you will always be tied to ATT, even after the contract, which means that you can never move abroad or to an area where ATT coverage is awful (many), nor can you leave ATT with the Iphone if their service deteriorates.

Awful and I can't believe people would defend this.
Click to expand...


Not defending Apple or AT&T here. Unless we get a law passed here in the US we are pretty much stuck with who we go with as a carrier.

From what we have been told about the contract between Apple and AT&T, right or wrong, it is in the best interests of Apple to prevent our using the iPhone on another network unlocked.

Apple has found the new business religion of revenue streaming. They discovered it in force with iTunes. I do see the possibility that maybe next year we will see the main stream iPod line (not the Nano or the Shuffle) go towards the touch screen. Then Apple could offer apps to those that need or desire them. Sort of like what they do with movies and games now....
 
TXCraig said:
It would be like GM locking the hood of of your car so only their dealerships could serice the car until it paid off.
Click to expand...
You may think you are being funny, but they basically used to do just exactly that. Having your car serviced anywhere else used to void your warranty (back in the '50s and '60s).
 
I think, IMHO, that the disclaimer is not about unlocking, but a disclaimer that the iPhone feature set may not function without continued use of the ATT carrier service. This is to protect them from people saying "you unlocked my iPhone but it doesn't get Visual Voicemail on Sprint, I'm suing!!" It may also be protection against allowing an unlock, who knows. I think this is a very plastic situation and no one knows what they will do, including legal at Apple, but they will still cover their butt this way by warning you two years in advance.
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
Not defending Apple or AT&T here. Unless we get a law passed here in the US we are pretty much stuck with who we go with as a carrier.

From what we have been told about the contract between Apple and AT&T, right or wrong, it is in the best interests of Apple to prevent our using the iPhone on another network unlocked.

Apple has found the new business religion of revenue streaming. They discovered it in force with iTunes. I do see the possibility that maybe next year we will see the main stream iPod line (not the Nano or the Shuffle) go towards the touch screen. Then Apple could offer apps to those that need or desire them. Sort of like what they do with movies and games now....
Click to expand...

yes, you're right. I don't know why all this makes me so upset, but it does. I'm tired of ceding my life to large corporations and the people defending these corporations rights to do whatever they want, and suggesting that I vote with my feet. There's nowhere to walk because the competitors are equally bad. It's as if there has been a race to the bottom. Apple products are unusually good in this regard and that's why I still buy them.

But this new trend is upsetting to me and I can't help feel as if things could be good BOTH for Apple and the customer and ask myself why everything must always be a win-lose situation?

I need to stop visiting this forum because of what you say: until new legislation is passed that limit carriers' ability to lock customers in, this will continue. I suppose it is just a matter of learning accept it. Or buying an unlocked phone from another company.
 
Rooskibar03 said:
First, what percentage of the general public would have clue what your talking about if you asked them about cell phone unlocking? My guess, less then 10%. So for 90% of the iPhone buying public, they are perfectly happy as it is.
Click to expand...
Judging from the number of unlocked phones on eBay (generally sold at a large premium) and the fact that Palm and others sell unlocked versions of their phones (Treo anyone?), I would say that the number is probably a little higher than that.
 
PDE said:
yes, you're right. I don't know why all this makes me so upset, but it does. I'm tired of ceding my life to large corporations and the people defending these corporations rights to do whatever they want, and suggesting that I vote with my feet. There's nowhere to walk because the competitors are equally bad. It's as if there has been a race to the bottom. Apple products are unusually good in this regard and that's why I still buy them.

But this new trend is upsetting to me and I can't help feel as if things could be good BOTH for Apple and the customer and ask myself why everything must always be a win-lose situation?

I need to stop visiting this forum because of what you say: until new legislation is passed that limit carriers' ability to lock customers in, this will continue. I suppose it is just a matter of learning accept it. Or buying an unlocked phone from another company.
Click to expand...


We are entering a brave new world where everything is up for sale - at a price. News this past week spoke of ads on runways/taxiways at some airports around the globe. We already have shopping centers here in the US that have ads on their sidewalks and on stands in the parking lots. Even our DC Metro system has "moving picture" ads in one of the tunnels from what I am told.

Apple has close to mastered the OS update "need". Microsoft stumbled in that regard. But we are talking about a cellphone that gave us a bit more, but not quite what we wanted. So the hackers stepped in (never mind the unlocking hack) and gave us what we thought was missing.

In keeping with the topic here, Apple seems to have an obligation to AT&T to keep the iPhone on only AT&T. It is in the best of both interests. If we want to be able to go to T-Mobile here in the US or be able to port our iPhones to other countries in our travels by using a simple SIM swap - then we need to get Congress to act. Fat chance on that since the corporations can "buy" their way to the laws they need and want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back