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

Apple chat about requiring an account with a major carrier to preorder a 6s

B

Broadus

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 26, 2011
1,108
649
Upstate SC
Either every Apple representative I chat with is confirming that the new 6s is available only to customers of AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, or none knows what he or she is talking about. For example, here is my chat with "Mark."


• ‪Welcome to Apple.
What can we do for you today?
Would you like to continue the chat?​

(me)
  • 
I am trying to preorder a 6s, and according to Apple specs (http://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/) there are basically two models: the 1633 for AT&T and some various regional carriers and 1688 for Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
• If I order the full-price T-Mobile, can I put my SIM card for Selectel, a Verizon MVNO, and use it with Selectel?​

(Mark)

• 
Hi there, this is Mark. I would be happy to assist with that!
 The TMobile model includes a Sim card for use with TMobile. It’s not Unlocked.
 Meaning it will only work with Verizon
​

(me)

• Are you saying that unless I have an account with Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, or AT&T, then I cannot order a 6s?​

(Mark)

• 
Right. It will only work with those carriers.
​

(me)

• So that means that Apple does not supply the 6s to customers who use MVNO carriers?
​

(Mark)

• What is a MVNO carrier?
​

(me)

• Mobile Virtual Network Operator, such as Page Plus, Straight Talk, Selectel, Consumer Cellular, etc.
 They lease space on major network towers. Selectel runs on Verizon towers.
​

(Mark)

• Right. The unlocked version of iPhone 6s/6s Plus will not be available from the Apple online store or in Apple retail stores in the US. 

I can link you to our Apple Hot News if you'd like? It has all the latest Apple announcements as soon as they're made available.​

(me)

• 
I realize you're caught in the middle and don't make policy, but this seems completely unethical, like a monopoly between Apple and four major carriers.
​

(Mark)

• I understand. You are welcome to leave suggestions and feedback online at www.apple.com/feedback​

(me)

• 
Besides, if you look at the spec sheet that I linked in the first post, it names some of these carriers.
​

(Mark)

• I can understand. For the new iPhone 6s/6s Plus you will need to choose one of the 4 major carriers and activate the phone with them.
​

(me)

• I have trouble believing that Apple wants me to replace my four-year-old 4S with an Android.​

(Mark)

• I understand.​

(End of chat)

Actually, I don't think he does understand. If this is really Apple policy, it sounds more like collusion between Apple and the four major carriers. Surely this cannot be, can it?
 
This its pretty much par for the course every year. The new model comes out in carrier-specific options, and the "unlocked" version comes out later.

That said, the dirty little secret about pre-ordering online is that you can order the T-Mobile version and pay full price, and you'll get an unlocked phone. Apple does not require you to verify any account information (or sign up on a new account) when buying the T-Mobile version. And as long as the phone isn't purchase from a T-Mobile store and not purchased on a payment/lease plan, the iPhone won't be locked.

This time around, the only disadvantage occurs if you plan on using this phone with AT&T, as it won't have Band 30 LTE enabled. But how much of a problem that will be for you is debatable, since every phone (including iPhones) before this has gotten along on AT&T just fine without Band 30.


Actually, I don't think he does understand. If this is really Apple policy, it sounds more like collusion between Apple and the four major carriers. Surely this cannot be, can it?
Click to expand...

First off, just because he doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he doesn't understand. He's paid to represent Apple and explain the policy. Even if he sides with you on it. The rep you chatted with has no power to change the rules.

Second: Collusion, by definition, requires that the agreement be illegal. For better or worse, there is nothing currently illegal about Apple choosing to sell iPhones for some specific carriers and not others. Heck, for years, the only U.S. carrier on which you could get an iPhone was AT&T, and there was nothing any other carrier or team of lawyers could do about it.

If Apple, say, got together with the carriers and made them agree to not sell certain Android models, then that would probably be collusion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cayden, aristobrat and karmamule
scaredpoet said:
First off, just because he doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he doesn't understand. He's paid to represent Apple and explain the policy. Even if he sides with you on it. The rep you chatted with has no power to change the rules.

Second: Collusion, by definition, requires that the agreement be illegal. For better or worse, there is nothing currently illegal about Apple choosing to sell iPhones for some specific carriers and not others. Heck, for years, the only U.S. carrier on which you could get an iPhone was AT&T, and there was nothing any other carrier or team of lawyers could do about it.

If Apple, say, got together with the carriers and made them agree to not sell certain Android models, then that would probably be collusion.
Click to expand...

You're right. I didn't mean they were technically colluding, but it puts a real bad taste in my mouth as though they were colluding, especially now with all the talk about fully paid phones being unlocked as opposed to the first year or whatever when the iPhone was just getting off the ground and were AT&T only. If this really is Apple's policy, MVNO customers are treated as unimportant to Apple and can just take a hike.
 
Broadus said:
You're right. I didn't mean they were technically colluding, but it puts a real bad taste in my mouth as though they were colluding, especially now with all the talk about fully paid phones being unlocked as opposed to the first year or whatever when the iPhone was just getting off the ground and were AT&T only. If this really is Apple's policy, MVNO customers are treated as unimportant to Apple and can just take a hike.
Click to expand...
You can purchase any carrier (except Sprint I believe) full price in store and it will be unlocked, or the T-Mobile version online. All you have to do is pop out the nano sim and put in one from your carrier and you are good to go. MVNO customers can get an iPhone just like everyone else, it's just a little bit more confusing.
 
Cergman said:
You can purchase any carrier (except Sprint I believe) full price in store and it will be unlocked, or the T-Mobile version online. All you have to do is pop out the nano sim and put in one from your carrier and you are good to go. MVNO customers can get an iPhone just like everyone else, it's just a little bit more confusing.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I realize that's what has occurred in the past from what people tell me. I've had Apple reps say that that was the way things were previously but this year is different. Those of you who see this every year probably hear the same reports every year, but some of us check in only every few years.

And it is telling when a rep asks what an MVNO is.
 
The Apple Rep was technically lying. The T-Mobile iPhone is "Locked" to only US Carriers, but that doesn't mean any Nano sim won't work. buy it, put your sim and voila. it works.
 
hovscorpion12 said:
The Apple Rep was technically lying. The T-Mobile iPhone is "Locked" to only US Carriers, but that doesn't mean any Nano sim won't work. buy it, put your sim and voila. it works.
Click to expand...
That's not true. I took my T-Mobile iPhone 6 to Paris last year and was able to use it on a local carrier without issue.
 
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