Got a Jet Black Plus from Best Buy- Questions

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by gadgetfreaky, Oct 8, 2016.

  1. gadgetfreaky macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #1
    First off- Apple sent a lot of Jet Black Pluses to Best Buy. They ship next day and often are available in store if you are ninja. I got super lucky and found one. It's a great device but - buying from Best Buy- there are a couple thing I am surprsied/ confused buy.

    "Reseller Locked" One odd thing I didn't understand and find sorta hard to believe but is true- Even if you buy full price these things lock to the carrier you activate it first on. Long story short, if it's not Verizon, it locks to that carrier- in my case ATT.

    Also- I presume ATT will unlock the device on reuqest even tho I have 9 month on my contract. Is this the case? If not - since I need this for overseas travel I'll need to return it. That'll be a bummer if after all this I have to return it because I didn't activate it on a Verizon sim card first. (crazy).

    How the heck does anyone legally lock a device that you pay full price for. Seems a bit sketchy.

    Anyway- given it's a full price device will ATT unlock it even tho I have 9 months left on my contract?
     
  2. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #2
    US Reseller Flex Policy. If you had done the initial activation with an inactive Verizon SIM card over WiFi, it would have been unlocked.

    First, I would apply for an unlock through ATT:

    https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/#/

    If that doesn't work, I would return for a refund, and then rebuy and do the initial activation with a Verizon inactive SIM over WiFi. Apple will give you a Verizon SIM for free or they are I think $5 from Best Buy.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/threads...inanced-by-the-carrier.1999350/#post-23674307
     
  3. gadgetfreaky thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #3
    I know this now- didn't know when I bought it. Never heard of such a thing for a full price device.
    if i bought a full price device from ATT it wouldn't be locked but somehow it's locked to ATT now since I bought it from Best Buy.

    The question is- will ATT unlock it?
     
  4. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #4
    I edited my post since you quoted it.

    First, I would apply for an unlock through ATT:

    https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/#/
     
  5. gadgetfreaky thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #5
    yeah i put the request in- still waiting. I wonder if I can call to unlock it.
     
  6. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #6
    I would not. I have gotten many an AT&T phone unlocked from that link when they didn't even qualify for unlocking. It takes a few business days. Wait for a response and if they don't do it, return for a refund and refuse to pay the restocking fee.

    BB needs to work with Apple on this - they need to come up with a protocol to be able to unlock phones that are mistakenly locked. BB also needs to tell customers about the US Reseller Flex Policy.
     
  7. Thor_1 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2016
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    AT&T unlocked my phone once paid off, took 12 hours.

    By contract you mean with AT&T and not owe on the phone.

    Why can't you use it overseas
     
  8. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #8
    But OP's phone should have never been locked to AT&T in the first place. He can't pay it off since it wasn't financed and he is still on contract.
     
  9. gadgetfreaky thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #9
    EXACTLY
     
  10. Thor_1 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2016
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    I was on contract at the time too.

    Can't speak to the Best Buy issue, never purchased there
     
  11. Lyshen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Location:
    California
    #11
    Target also has the US Reseller Flex Policy too.

    Got my JB Plus there, full price and it had no SIM card in it.
     
  12. gadgetfreaky thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #12
    I completely agree. I don't know how you can legally lock a phone that someone paid full price for. in fact, i paid 100 more than full price since Best Buy adds $100 bucks to it.
     
  13. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #13
    If you sued them you would win but all you would win is your damages, which is the price you paid for the phone, which is what you would get back if you return it and aren't charged the restocking fee.

    So as long as you are still within the 14 day return period (DAY 1 = Day you purchased), wait for the unlock from ATT. If they deny it, return for a refund and refuse to pay the restocking fee.

    Anyhow it isn't BB who is doing this, it is Apple. This is how they implement things. It is just that the BB reps aren't informed about it. They need to warn customers.
     
  14. gadgetfreaky thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #14
    Is it Apple? IT sounds more like a carrier move. i.e. best buy is getting paid for each carrier lock it gets
     
  15. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #15
    Yes it is 100% Apple. BB has no control over it. It is implemented by the Apple activation servers.

    The only thing you can blame BB for is not telling you about this. And in all fairness it is new for BB, many reps I suspect may not even know about it yet.
     
  16. gadgetfreaky thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #16
    Well any phone that's sold has to have a mechanism to facilitate this-- it's a commercial deal tho. Some $$$ are going somewhere and I think it's to BBY not apple.

    I guess it's no big deal as long as ATT apporves the request. it's been about a day or so. Says 2 business days
     
  17. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #17
    It's 100% implemented through the Apple activation servers.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016 ---
    Well you are wrong. This was Apple's choice to set it up this way. BB used to sell the carrier models, but now they sell the SIM free models that are subject BY APPLE to the US Reseller Flex Policy. You just don't know about it. Now you do.

    Many of us have known about this for a long time since Target and Walmart never sold the carrier models.
     
  18. lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #18
    There is no law about locking s phone so long as the carrier is able to unlock it (and they will unlock it since it's not under contract). This is simply a policy (made by Apple, mind you) to thwart people buying dozens of phones at a time for the purpose of reselling. I think it's a stupid and potentially dangerous policy though since a reseller is likely to sell he phone as new unlocked anyway.

    It would make a lot of sense for Apple to sell all csrriermphones like this (except that they still insist on making different sets of hardware) as its kind of silly for the Apple store to run out of an ATT model but still have T-Mobile in stock (as an example). Order s phone. Pop a sim in. It locks. And the carrier will unlock it. Simple.
     
  19. gadgetfreaky thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #19
    Nobody is disagreeing that Apple does the implementation.
     
  20. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #20
    It's a contract issue. I am very knowledgeable about these things. But like I said earlier, the real issue is damages for the breach of contract. The only damages would be the price of the phone, which OP could get refunded if he/she is w/in the return period and as long as he isn't charged the restocking fee, there are no damages.


    So like I said, it is a breach of contract but one in which OP has no damages as long as he returns for a refund and isn't charged the restocking fee.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016 ---
    You are implying some sort of conspiracy, and that is false too.
     
  21. lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #21
    I'm not really sure what is a breach of contract. The device isn't being sold expressly as unlocked right? Who's breaching what?
     
  22. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #22
    That has absolutely nothing to do with it. You are just making things up, lol!

    It was BB's choice not to sell the carrier models because it allows them to be more flexible. Hence the "Flex" in US Reseller Flex Policy. When BB was selling the carrier models, a Verizon customer could come in and want a particular color, storage size and they would be out but have it in the Sprint model. Well they couldn't sell the Sprint model to a Verizon customer and then they lost the sale.

    With the SIM free models subject to the US Reseller Flex Policy, as long as BB has the color/storage size in stock, doesn't matter which carrier the customer is with, they can sell it to them since the locking policy is determined by the SIM card used for the initial activation. It works fine except for when people buy full retail like OP.

    Now the only entities selling the carrier models are the carriers. BB, Target, Walmart, etc all sell the SIM Free models subject to the URFP. Maybe Costco is still selling the carrier models, idk.

    --- Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016 ---
    Because you are not an attorney and you don't understand the law so it's not surprising. I don't have time to be a law professor this evening so you will just have to wonder about it unless you want to take the time to research contract law.
     
  23. Thor_1 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2016
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    And if they didn't stop people from buying all the unlocked phones they could we would have different threads.

    But there has to be a simpler solution.
     
  24. lordofthereef, Oct 8, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2016

    lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #24
    Apologies. I wasn't trying to "make things up". I was going with how other countries have handled this for a while, and a large reason is exactly this; keeping scalpers from scooping up devices as a deterrent. It's not exactly difficult to scan barcodes which include IMEI and serial number at the point of sale and lock the device to said carrier before it's ever removed from the box.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 8, 2016 ---
    Again. Going by other countries that have done this for years. Simply a deterrent. Same as other deterrents Apple enacted for online orders this year.

    I did make some assumptions for the US though. I was carrying over what I've read/know about U.K. Phones.
     
  25. JulesJam Suspended

    JulesJam

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2014
    #25
    But that isn't what this is about. It is simply to allow sellers like BB, Target and Walmart who sell devices for multiple carriers to have flexibility. Hence the "Flex" in URFP.

    The SIM free model subject to the URFP works fine EXCEPT when the buyer buys full retail and is not told about the URFP.

    OP thought they were buying an unlocked phone since they bought full retail. That is a reasonable assumption. OP should have been told the device would lock to ATT if he did the initial activation with an ATT SIM card.

    It is not such an issue with the ATT phones as ATT is very likely to unlock it for him. It is much more of an issue with the Sprint phones since Sprint makes you keep the phone active for 50 days before they will unlock the phones.
     

Share This Page