Re: Apple states NO CASH Sales for iPhones, plastic only
It's only illustrative of my opinion of Apple's iPhone business practices and nothing more. You know nothing of my opinions of Apple.
Both kickback and subsidy are subjective (we don't know what was used in the Apple ATT agreement though I doubt it was "subsidy"), but I maintain that kickback is more apt a characterization than subsidy because a) it was not disclosed at the onset and b) it aligns Apple's interests against the interests of its customers (at least a significant portion of) - both characteristics of a kickback.
Of course it matters. The operative word is disclosure or lack of. If Apple sold the phone for $0 instead of $1,000 but I the consumer was charged $2,000 by padded fees to the carrier, I would want to know.
In that general vein you can read the longest iPhone thread (Calling when overseas) on Apple's discussion forum and you'll see that iPhone users were for several months (until 1.1.1 update) billed in part for unwarranted roaming charges because of the iPhone's EDGE misbehavior. It took months (and a real outcry from users) for Apple to fix it, and in the meantime we the users were paying Apple along with ATT for that misbehavior.
You did say "because hackers can exploit security flaws to let people out of paying the roughly $400 they would to apple over the life of the contract."
Really? In the example you cited the market offered alternatives. In the case of the iPhone the market doesn't, as yet. Your attitude is tough luck. My attitude is Apple is exploiting a technical advantage and effectively price gouging at the expense of the consumer. I say it's up to us the consumers to pressure Apple to change its ways. Your are not onboard with that, fine.
Yes I have the same bias as the vast majority of phone users in the world who are accustomed to phones available both locked and unlocked. Travelling is broadening and I highly recommend it to my fellow Americans.
You know nothing of what I have done including the many benefits to Apple products during my career. To suggest that Apple could not be successful and wildly so by offering an unlocked phone along with a "subsidized" one is ludicrous.
You know or should no that's a non argument. Apple throughout its history has sought to sell its hardware worldwide as quickly as possible and was only kept from doing so by pace of software localization. It's only in the case of the iPhone (and not the iPod Touch), that it's doing the opposite - and the reason is precisely because of the kickback it's receiving (demanding?) from the network providers.
In any event, time and events are on the side of the unlockers not Apple. Reread this thread in 12 months for amusement or otherwise.
It's only illustrative of my opinion of Apple's iPhone business practices and nothing more. You know nothing of my opinions of Apple.
Both kickback and subsidy are subjective (we don't know what was used in the Apple ATT agreement though I doubt it was "subsidy"), but I maintain that kickback is more apt a characterization than subsidy because a) it was not disclosed at the onset and b) it aligns Apple's interests against the interests of its customers (at least a significant portion of) - both characteristics of a kickback.
Of course it matters. The operative word is disclosure or lack of. If Apple sold the phone for $0 instead of $1,000 but I the consumer was charged $2,000 by padded fees to the carrier, I would want to know.
In that general vein you can read the longest iPhone thread (Calling when overseas) on Apple's discussion forum and you'll see that iPhone users were for several months (until 1.1.1 update) billed in part for unwarranted roaming charges because of the iPhone's EDGE misbehavior. It took months (and a real outcry from users) for Apple to fix it, and in the meantime we the users were paying Apple along with ATT for that misbehavior.
You did say "because hackers can exploit security flaws to let people out of paying the roughly $400 they would to apple over the life of the contract."
Really? In the example you cited the market offered alternatives. In the case of the iPhone the market doesn't, as yet. Your attitude is tough luck. My attitude is Apple is exploiting a technical advantage and effectively price gouging at the expense of the consumer. I say it's up to us the consumers to pressure Apple to change its ways. Your are not onboard with that, fine.
Yes I have the same bias as the vast majority of phone users in the world who are accustomed to phones available both locked and unlocked. Travelling is broadening and I highly recommend it to my fellow Americans.
You know nothing of what I have done including the many benefits to Apple products during my career. To suggest that Apple could not be successful and wildly so by offering an unlocked phone along with a "subsidized" one is ludicrous.
You know or should no that's a non argument. Apple throughout its history has sought to sell its hardware worldwide as quickly as possible and was only kept from doing so by pace of software localization. It's only in the case of the iPhone (and not the iPod Touch), that it's doing the opposite - and the reason is precisely because of the kickback it's receiving (demanding?) from the network providers.
In any event, time and events are on the side of the unlockers not Apple. Reread this thread in 12 months for amusement or otherwise.
