No!
Probably cause of me. A little bit over a month ago i walked in with all $20s. I blame ATMs! I'm only 17, what am i supposed to do?
I dunno, open a bank account?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple states NO CASH Sales for iPhones, plastic only
- Thread starter DVNIEL
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dunno, open a bank account?
I was not stating with certainty, I was stating possibilities. Correct, Apple does not link the license agreement text to AT&T (This actually surprises me, considering they state activation with AT&T as a requirement on the box.) I also am not arguing the legality of unlocking separate from the DMCA. I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea one way or the other.
I was merely stating that most people quote the DMCA exception as "see, unlocking is legal!", and pointing out that it might be legal for a phone manufacturer to prevent unlocking without even quoting the DMCA. Wether it is or not, isn't something I have knowledge of.
Use your ATM card at the Apple Store instead.No!
Probably cause of me. A little bit over a month ago i walked in with all $20s. I blame ATMs, They only give $20 bills! I'm only 17, what am I supposed to do?
Considering that $20s and $100s are the most heavily counterfeited bills, I can understand why Apple has adopted a policy on the iPhone that is not unlike that of even many restaurants (for the same reason).
Imagine if someone came in to buy $10k worth of iPhones, made off with the inventory, and then Apple discovers it was all counterfeit bills... They have absolutely no recourse if they have no record of who made the purchase.
If there's a funds issue on a credit card, that can be rectified, even insured against. Since you have to have a credit card to sign up for the AT&T rate plan, and you have to have a credit card (or at least traceable paypal account) for iTunes, I don't see how this is a problem.
If you can't manage to get a credit card with a $500 limit or bank check card, perhaps you shouldn't be spending money on a $400 phone and instead applying it to improving your credit rating with such activities as, uh, I dunno... paying your rent.
Imagine if someone came in to buy $10k worth of iPhones, made off with the inventory, and then Apple discovers it was all counterfeit bills... They have absolutely no recourse if they have no record of who made the purchase.
If there's a funds issue on a credit card, that can be rectified, even insured against. Since you have to have a credit card to sign up for the AT&T rate plan, and you have to have a credit card (or at least traceable paypal account) for iTunes, I don't see how this is a problem.
If you can't manage to get a credit card with a $500 limit or bank check card, perhaps you shouldn't be spending money on a $400 phone and instead applying it to improving your credit rating with such activities as, uh, I dunno... paying your rent.
Could someone use a combination of gift cards and a credit card? So, charge $100 on the credit card and $300 in gift cards, etc.? Is this just so Apple has some legitimate ID to trace the phone to?
Honestly, if Apple wants to treat this as a subsidized phone (which it essentially is, but only after the sale via kickbacks to Apple), they should give up on direct sales of the iPhone or do like BestBuy and have an AT&T rep in the store, full-time, and only sell activated phones.
All apple retail stores that I've come across check bills $20 and up with a pen that has ink that turns certain colors on different types of paper. So if the apple store chooses not to use the pen, they probably deserve to get ripped off, and since I don't know squat about counterfeiting money, I'll venture a guess that official treasury paper (or whatever it's called) isn't something many people are going to come across. Not to mention that if this policy was to prevent counterfeit money from being used, why would it only apply to the iphone and not other high dollar items?
As I previously stated, I think apple has put this policy in place to prevent unauthorized resellers from selling modified iphones to unknowing consumers, and in doing so will ultimately provide a better ownership experience for the end user.
This is a stretch, but...
Is is possible for Apple to trace your Credit Card to your wireless bills, and see what actual carrier your on? So, if I'm on T-Mobile and I charge my credit card for an iPhone and a two-year agreement, can Apple do something about that?
Just my opinion, but hey I have an iPod touch, and I don't have to worry about brickage with this baby.
Is is possible for Apple to trace your Credit Card to your wireless bills, and see what actual carrier your on? So, if I'm on T-Mobile and I charge my credit card for an iPhone and a two-year agreement, can Apple do something about that?
Just my opinion, but hey I have an iPod touch, and I don't have to worry about brickage with this baby.
This is a stretch, but...
Is is possible for Apple to trace your Credit Card to your wireless bills, and see what actual carrier your on? So, if I'm on T-Mobile and I charge my credit card for an iPhone and a two-year agreement, can Apple do something about that?
Just my opinion, but hey I have an iPod touch, and I don't have to worry about brickage with this baby.
Trace your credit card?? Thats breaking so many privacy laws its not even something Apple would consider. However, they could easily run imei numbers and see what pops up on the att system. Thats easy enough...when I was working at att we used to run imei's all the time to discover phone numbers if a sim card was lost etc...
The two year agreement bit only happens once you get the phone home and activate via itunes. I don't think apple is terribly worried about one or two phones per person hitting unauthorized resellers....we'll see though.
/"\/oo\/"\;4413889 said:
Actually since you mention it, one of the biggest counterfeiting schemes involved stolen treasury paper and inks that were almost indiscernible from the treasury department's inks.
The reason the design of the $100 was changed was because there was at one point a counterfeit flood resulting in 1 out of every 5 C-notes in circulation being counterfeit. What's really interesting is that, no joke, the US Secret Service's investigation led them to two purchasers of the same Intaglio presses used by the US Mint. One of the two purchases was traced to a warehouse in Iran that happened to be owned by the Iranian government. It's long been a practice of governments to attempt to destabilize other economies by flooding them with counterfeit currency. Ours does it all the time. (No I'm not a conspiracy theorist... Oswald shot JFK and Roswell was a weather balloon...).
That was the best part of your whole post! (Not that the rest was bad, mind you, but that part just made it perfect, right at the end.)
last time i LOOKED bills state "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"
seems like they are breaking the law in the US at least
That is not quite right either.
It is legal tender; it is legal to offer it and it is backed by the government for the face value. That said, unless there is a state law to the contrary, nobody is required to accept US currency under any circumstances.
The law is actually referenced several times earlier in the thread.
I think you seem to be missing the notion that a purchase of a material good is different than the payment of a debt.
You need to take the word debt in a literal sense, NOT the idea of a purchase of a good.
It's not illegal - they can do business however they want.
While frustrating for people without a credit card, most UK residents have access to at least a debit card like Visa Delta/Visa Debit, Electron, or Switch/Maestro.
O2 stated the same a while back, iirc.
I understand your problem, OP - I hate plastic too. But for those without even a bank account, there are alternatives available here and here and here and here. A few friends at uni have them to assist them with the whole 'not running up too much debt' thing. They take about 10 days to arrive and work just like Mastercard/Maestro cards. Just load them up and go. I'm tempted to ditch my cards for one
No, they can't do business however they want. Look at any piece of American paper money. Please notice "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private." Apple doesn't get to choose. They can request a credit card be used as well for any future rendered service (i.e. the phone service), but they CAN NOT demand a credit card payment only. In the U.S. they must accept cash.
Well since you obviously are stating absolutely that they cannot refuse cash for their products, I'm sure you have access to ample legal precedent that you can share with us.
For surely you didn't just make up an opinion and pass it off as binding legal precedent did you?
Please share the results of your lengthy legal research with all of us so that we can better understand the issues at hand.
Here's a link from everyone's favorite source: Wikipedia:
In fact, here is a similarly worded phrase taken directly from the U.S. Department of the Treasury:
So, really, people, here it is from the U.S. government. Businesses do not have to accept cash if they don't want to.
(Emphasis mine)
In fact, here is a similarly worded phrase taken directly from the U.S. Department of the Treasury:
So, really, people, here it is from the U.S. government. Businesses do not have to accept cash if they don't want to.
Well, there is the famous Supreme Court case which, to my reading, effectively compelled private entities to accept greenbacks in payment of existing debt from other private entities, even though the creditors had been demanding that the debt could only be repaid in gold.
However, my opinion, which I have stated before, is in general agreement with yours in this situation, but for different reasons: The seller's offer to sell by itself doesn't constitute a binding agreement - the purchaser has to make an offer to purchase, ie. offer up a means of payment, and the seller has to accept to that offer, before the contract becomes binding on either party. So, if the purchaser offers to pay in cash, the seller can refuse the offer.
As long as no service has yet been rendered, and no product has yet changed ownership, there is no debt, and therefore no requirement to accept any particular mode of payment over any other.
Check your state law. Some states require businesses accept US currency or personal checks or both. Also a Visa check card, which is not a credit card, will suffice. I don't exactly have time to research this for you, but there's no federal law *allowing* this per se, it's just not covered by any federal statute. Google yourself crazy. There is a Supreme decision requiring businesses to accept payment for "existing debt" -- once it's rung up, you could call it "existing debt" -- with US currency when they were demanding gold. But that doesn't really apply here, as the decision didn't cover other forms of payment, just gold -- probably because our currency originated on the gold standard and I guess ostensibly is still on it, so this decision was merely reaffirming US currency as "good as gold" -- which of course it's not anymore.
Likewise it is bloody stupid not to take a check, since a check can be tracked as easily as a credit card. They didn't mention they would take checks, but I'd check, pardon the pun.
I'm in Texas and I know, for example, even though just about every lease will state no cash payments, landlords by law *must* accept US currency for rent payments. So the lease is garbage -- hell, that clause may invalidate the whole lease* -- because a contract can't take away a right granted you in law. But I'm trying to confirm a general US currency policy for all businesses.
*Which now that I recall is why they put this little tidbit in their building policy documents, not in the lease.
Anyway, check your state law, which, by the way will be a pain. I was on hold so long I hung up and since we already have iPhones *and* credit cards, it matters only academically to me, and enough for me to burn more time on it.
Apple is trying to stop gray-market resellers from creating a short supply of iPhones over Christmas and gouging customers for the product. That's perfectly reasonable. However, refusing cash is stupid, discriminatory and not customer-service oriented in the least. Some people just refuse to use credit cards on principal and with some card issuers charging people with *good* credit about 28% APR, who can blame them? They are other ways to if not eliminate this, seriously limit it. For starters, this won't help so much. Plenty of people can get 20 credit cards with $900+ limits in their own names, probably another 10 - 20 in their spouse's names, and the hook up friends on the deal, too.
Here is an idea ... those who are jumping up and down saying this is illegal. Go higher a lawyer to go after Apple and you will quickly learn that things don't work they way you think they do.
Apple has every right to only accept credit card, just like the subway only accepts cash, or that store down the street only accepts Amex.
Lets also not forget that if you want to activate an iPhone (Unless you are interested in paying 4 times the price on prepaid) you will need to get a credit check done. Next thing people will start crying that it is illegal to use SSN towards credit checks ... while it might be, nothing has stopped it and it will go on.
If you don't have the credit, then chances are you shouldn't be purchasing an expensive phone. (Yes, I know there are odd cases, like mine where I have been trying to restore my credit for years due to an ex ... however, I paid my $750 deposit). If you are under 18, you can't activate the phone anyway. If you don't have a checking account with a debit card, its time to join the rest of us in the present. Pretty much every bank can issue them. If you can't get a checking account for whatever reason, then again you shouldn't be purchasing an expensive phone.
Apple has every right to only accept credit card, just like the subway only accepts cash, or that store down the street only accepts Amex.
Lets also not forget that if you want to activate an iPhone (Unless you are interested in paying 4 times the price on prepaid) you will need to get a credit check done. Next thing people will start crying that it is illegal to use SSN towards credit checks ... while it might be, nothing has stopped it and it will go on.
If you don't have the credit, then chances are you shouldn't be purchasing an expensive phone. (Yes, I know there are odd cases, like mine where I have been trying to restore my credit for years due to an ex ... however, I paid my $750 deposit). If you are under 18, you can't activate the phone anyway. If you don't have a checking account with a debit card, its time to join the rest of us in the present. Pretty much every bank can issue them. If you can't get a checking account for whatever reason, then again you shouldn't be purchasing an expensive phone.
I disagree with your opinion.
As you recall for the first several months that the iphone was either announced or available at $600 that price point was explained by many (if not by Apple they never corrected it) as because the phone was not subsidized and it was extraordinary that Apple had set its own terms with a network provider, etc.
It eventually came out that Apple was getting a piece of ATT's revenue - which to me is a kickback and not a subsidy, particularly as it was not disclosed at the onset. Remember that in the case of almost any other phone, the full price is public along with the discounted (i.e. subsidized) price if you sign up for the service contract.
When Apple cut the price by $200, its official justification was because technology gets cheaper with time and volume, which only the gullible believed could be the case within 69 days. Others calculated that Apple would make more money via the ATT kickback from increased subscribers than it would lose per unit price reduction and that indeed appears to be the case.
The vast vast majority of people unlocking the iPhone are not doing it to avoid paying the ATT subsidy as you suggest. They are unlocking their phones because they either live overseas or live in areas with no ATT coverage in the US. Unlocking to date is not a do-it-yourself operation for most people and so an extensive cottage industry has emerged to serve that demand.
I paid $600 of my iPhone on iDay and would gladly pay an additional $200+ to Apple to have a phone I can use worldwide.
Apple's business model of limiting where and how the iPhone is to be used is egregious and is largely if not solely based on the *kickback* they are getting (extorting?) from the network providers. While Apple as any business may do whatever it can get away with, it's the responsibility of us its customers to force it to change in areas where the laws are behind the times and not protecting the consumer (I never imagined I would find France more advanced than the US for asserting the right of mobile phone users to have unlocked phones).
It is an insult in this day and age for a company to say I make a great and cool product, but sorry you can't have it in China, Italy, or Latvia, etc. That business model should be subverted and not accepted until Apple mends its ways.
You can define it anyway you like, or use whatever disparaging term you prefer.
The bottom line is that Apple struck an exclusive deal with AT&T in the USA whereby Apple receives a portion of the monthly AT&T fees from iPhone users.
Whether you wish to recognize it as such or not, that does effectively subsidize the price just as offering a crap phone for free does. The company recoups costs over time because the customer is paying monthly fees to the carrier.
That you label it a kick back is illustrative of your opinion towards Apple, but has nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
That's neither here nor there. Apple's goal is to sell iPhones to make money. If they can do that by charging $1000 a unit or $0, it makes no difference. They have revenue goals they wish to hit and will adjust their prices accordingly just as any company will do with a product in a dynamic market.
I'm not suggesting what the intent of unlockers is.
I was characterizing the impact of their actions, which is to effectively avoid paying it regardless of their intentions.
I'm sure you would, as would others. That's not the service that Apple and AT&T are currently providing.
I was glad to pay extra money to get MLB extra innings on my cable service a few years ago.
They didn't offer it.
So what did I do? I didn't stake out cable TV message boards or try to hack my service, I switched to Directv and have never been happier. This was not just new content either, but rather a whole laundry list of new hardware as well.
There's nothing stopping people from doing the same thing for their phone service.
You have a certain bias in terms of what you think you are entitled to.
The concept that you fail to grasp is that you are not required to use Apple's products nor are you required to use AT&T's service. As such it is far more egregious for those who have not put their careers and creativity on the line to create something to demand what a company should or should not do based on their particular lifestyles.
We're not talking about a defibrillator not working in Vermont but working in New Mexico. We're talking about a consumer product that is almost a complete luxury.
If you consider it an insult, you are far too thin skinned.
It's not a requirement to make sure everyone in the world has access to your product.
If it were, you'd instantly see a massive drop in the type of investment and entrepreneurialism that has made Apple the success that it is.
Put the egoism aside. If you think it's so easy to make products that the world covets and make a buck and keep your company and share holders happy, have at it.