By the same argument, everyone using an iPhone is stealing probably around $1000 from Verizon, and another few hundred dollars from Nokia.
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.
AT&T Taking Action Against iPhone Unlocks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By the same argument, everyone using an iPhone is stealing probably around $1000 from Verizon, and another few hundred dollars from Nokia.
In Europe EULAs are not worth the virtual paper they are written on. Has any ever been enforced in the US? I understand that where charges have been attempted, the parties involved have settled. Has any precedent ever been set, which would establish the validity of these once and for all?
Not illegal. Reverse engineering is not illegal in Europe. You need to go a bit further before you have a case for damages.
Copyright breach is probably the best bet AT&T has of intervening in the US, but it would possibly require Apple's cooperation.
That's an idiotic reply. NO. You signed a contact with ATT. You are either a former customer of Verizon and Nokia and possibly paid through the nose to leave or you were never hooked up with them.
I understand that many want the freedom to use whatever service they want. but everyone knew upfront about the Apple ATT connection here. No one forces you to buy or use an iPhone like you are not forced to by an iPod. If you due it is tied to iTunes. Granted iTune is a great service that was designed by the same company.
The RAZR phone was exclusive to one carrier for a time. Yes not two years but if you wanted one you had to sign up in the beginning.
I can't understand that attitude at all. As a customer I have the right to do whatever is most beneficial to me. If that isn't what is most beneficial to a company, well tough. So ATT paid big bucks? Tough. Caveat emptor. Applies not only to customers as you think, it also applies to companies.
Now guess what I think about your reply.
Companies have all the right to try to get my money. I have every right to avoid giving it to them.
You ARE getting a discount on the phone. Just because it says full price, it's full price with a 2 year contract. Without that contract, full price would certainly be higher. About $200 higher based on how much Apple can expect to make from each new ATT user.
Unlocking the iphone does nothing to the contract you've signed. ATT will happily keep taking the money out of your account for that.
All this means is, people can buy their own phone (not ATT's) off Apple, unlock and choose their own network.
Follow-up
To Weckart: Yes, EULAs are enforceable. In mid-2006, over $2,000,000 fines in just 19 cases in the US. See Business Software Alliance (bsa.org) and Microsoft. When settlements are reached out of court, they still constitute precedent.
Damages: AT&T would go in claiming every potential customer lost. Whether they would get a settlement for that is another matter.
Reverse engineering: You can reverse engineer anything if you want to--you just can't use the intellectual property for your own product or commercial benefit, and that includes Europe (we have patents in the EU).
To Weckart: Yes, EULAs are enforceable. In mid-2006, over $2,000,000 fines in just 19 cases in the US. See Business Software Alliance (bsa.org) and Microsoft. When settlements are reached out of court, they still constitute precedent.
Damages: AT&T would go in claiming every potential customer lost. Whether they would get a settlement for that is another matter.
Reverse engineering: You can reverse engineer anything if you want to--you just can't use the intellectual property for your own product or commercial benefit, and that includes Europe (we have patents in the EU).
I agree there. That is fine as long as you don't start using with ATT. Once you log in wit them you are obliged to their subscription. That other "idiotic" reference I posted was in regards to a statement about taking money from Verizon and Nokia. If you legally not use their service or equipment, you are not stealing from them.
Yes, it's called stealing
ATT subsidizes this phone with the intention of making the subsidy back during the course of the contract. Not to mention the hours of work and millions of dollars spent on research and development.
Stealing is stealing. Its has nothing to do with "freedom"
ATT subsidizes this phone with the intention of making the subsidy back during the course of the contract. Not to mention the hours of work and millions of dollars spent on research and development.
Stealing is stealing. Its has nothing to do with "freedom"
Evidence?
That $200 could be pure 'profit' for Apple - i.e., a cash cow for Apple.
The cost analysis of the phone has already been made and Apple are already making a hefty profit from each iPhone ( ignoring r&d, marketing etc ).
That $200 could be pure 'profit' for Apple - i.e., a cash cow for Apple.
The cost analysis of the phone has already been made and Apple are already making a hefty profit from each iPhone ( ignoring r&d, marketing etc ).
Totally agree. How can anyone who knows the terms of a deal in advance (it's called a contract folks and it takes two to have one) after the fact say it's their "right" to change the deal. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone and sign a contract with ATT. Go ahead and buy one. Don't activate it with ATT. That's your right, but don't expect Apple to give a damn about you after you do. Nor would I, as an investor in any company, want to support unauthorized uses of devices that we are obligated to warranty. ATT helped Apple bring the product to market. They have mutually beneficial advantages from this arrangement. It's called capitalism and it's perfectly legal. All this crap about ATT being awful is spin. They're no worse than Verizon or T-Mobile. It just depends on where you live. If ATT doesn't work for you, too bad. You will just have to wait or buy an iPhone that will be unsupported.
For the record, I wish Apple had kept the phone open, but it was their right to do what they did.
I'll guess this will be settled in the courts and the lawyers win again.
Subsidizing?
Please provide proof that AT&T subisidized any development on the iPhone. Even if they did, the argument is not relevent to the discussion.
Please provide proof that AT&T subisidized any development on the iPhone. Even if they did, the argument is not relevent to the discussion.
Do they? by how much? Does it say they are anywhere in Apple's store or on the box?
If they do then that's their choice to do so, if unlocking the phone can be done legally between buying it and signing up to AT&T's service then their subsidy of the phone looks pretty dumb business practice to me. And dumb businesses generally get what they deserve.
As Apple will surely find out if they let their quality slip any further, but that's another issue.
I thought that you can walk into an Apple store and buy and iPhone?
Where do I sign?
On my way home - I will get it unlocked... then pop in my SIM and away I go!
Who has the new contract? O2? It doesn't matter at all if the iPhone is unlocked
Why are they obligated to inform us of how much they make off the ATT relationship? What's dumb about choosing business partners to make something happen that couldn't have efficiently happened on their own? What's wrong with Apple and ATT getting a return on their strategic partnership?
Buy an iPhone and unlock it. It's yours.
Buy a Ford Mustang and chip it. It's yours.
Buy anything and modify it....it's yours.
I think these modded iPhones are fine. They just are no longer the responsibility of Apple.
Possibly you've hit the nail on the head here, but definitely not the way you intended. If true that phones are not the same as computers, maybe people should realize that simply because it's called the iPhone and is capable of making calls doesn't make it a phone in the traditional sense. Phones don't have a computer's operating system. It's really a handheld computer, and apple wants to maximize that experience.
I personally have no reason to unlock the iPhone and move to T-Mobile, AT&T has much better coverage (in my area) and better prices. I am very happy with AT&T... even *gasp* their customer support! I would however like to be able to sign up for a pay-as-you go account with Digicel and use that when I come to the Cayman Islands, instead of paying AT&T's outrageous international rates. Seriously $20 per meg?!?! WTF I can buy an all day Wifi pass for that!
They're not.
Nothing, obviously, but what Apple could've brought the iPhone to market without AT&T couldn't it? What functionality would've been missing? visual voicemail? Was visual voicemail that important to the success of the iPhone?
Nothing.
Not sure why you seem to have aimed those points at me as if you were countering what I'd said, 'cause I never mention those issues.
Nar, you're all right, I not a fan, too limited for a smartphone IMO.
I wonder if there are terms in the at&t / apple exclusivity contract aggreement that will cause apple to revamp it's software and or possibly future hardware in order to not breach their contract agreement with at&t? Afterall, at&t never saw the phone when in development and agreed upon it on blind faith. Apple, in return, says at&t will be exclusive USA carrier. Can't be exclusive with all these hacks, both physical changes and software hacks.
Apple will need to step up to the plate, afterall it is their hardware and software that has been cracked, nothing doing from at&t standpoint (other than possibly locking the phone to be exclusive carrier as contractually agreed upon by at&t and apple).
Again, I wonder if Apple could be held in breach of exclusivity contract if they don't come up with a fix or "fined" by at&t for lost revenue by taking out that fine through monies paid from iPhone purchasesers who use at&t or if such a clause was written into the apple/at&t deal?
YES!
Please show me where on Apple's website, you have the option of at&t or t-mobile or whoever else and where ever else? Apples USA website looks pretty easy to understand: Apple iPhone / AT&T Mobile Service Provider. Am I wrong?
The handing over of $599 gives you a 'brick' - the activation with at&t makes it alive...
It's Alive... It's Alive...
Not necessarily. Don't you sign the contract at activation, and not when you buy the phone? If that's the case, you could buy an iPhone and then hack it to another provider. That's not breaking a contract if you never signed one.
Is it possible that T-Mobile might have liabilities or might not want to piss Apple off with the hopes of having the iPhone available to them in the future? Can T-Mobile refuses to allow an "unlocked" iPhone on to their network?