Class Action Against Apple & AT&T Over iPhone Moves Forward

from the not-buying-it dept

It looks like a class action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T for the way the two companies have conducted business around the iPhone is going to finally move forward. A judge in California is consolidating a few different such cases, covering two separate issues. The first questions whether or not the lock-in that required iPhone buyers to remain with AT&T for five years is legal, and the second questions the legality of the iPhone's app store, where Apple is the gatekeeper. To be honest, even as the consolidated case moves forward, I can't see either claim getting very far. Both seem to represent reasonable business decisions, and it's difficult to see an argument that Apple should have been forced to act otherwise.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    David T, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:09am

    That's a long time...

    "lock-in that required iPhone buyers to remain with AT&T for five years..."

    Five years!? What happened to two years?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Marvin P., Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:11am

    Re: That's a long time...

    The idea is that even though you signed up for 2 years, at the end of 2 years there was no where else to go with your iPhone so it's really 5 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:17am

    "Both seem to represent reasonable business decisions, and it's difficult to see an argument that Apple should have been forced to act otherwise." - yet you think that copyright of music and movies should be ignored? a 5 year lock in an iphone is one heck of a lot worse than any drm system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:28am

    My two cents.

    "Both seem to represent reasonable business decisions."
    I disagree with this completely. Originally, I didn't have a problem with this, but years later, it has become a big problem.

    For starters, Apple is removing apps people may be seeing as beneficial to warrant a purchase of the device. To sign up for 2+ years, then have the very reason(s) removed without notice can not be defined as a "reasonable" business decision.

    Then, there's AT&T's recent announcement any new contracts now require a limited data plan. For users of the phone, this is damaging, especially if they're heavy users. AT&T has deliberately enacted this plan because its iPhone base represents heavy users. People who discover what the phone can do usually do it more often, including viewing videos online. Again, there is absolutely nothing "reasonable" about this change. Throw in the fact AT&T is the only company supporting the iPhone and dubious replaces "reasonable".

    I believe these lawsuits will fail because of the way they're drawn up, rather than the implications of having such actions taken against users who believed their products would support their decisions, not shaft them into "going by the rules" which no one saw coming.

    This is the very same reason why people are suing Sony for removing a feature maybe less than 2% of owners actually use, including the Air Force.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but how are any of these choices being done by companies considered "reasonable", Mike? There wouldn't be any lawsuits filed if people did consider them such.

    I just don't believe it's a coincidence these changes came after a few noticed the "lock in" people are now tied to.

    Don't forget about those increased ETFs.

    Reasonable? No way are these changes reasonable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:28am

    Re:

    "a 5 year lock in an iphone is one heck of a lot worse than any drm system."

    How did you come to this conclusion?

    The 5yr apple/att lock is limited duration which you can avoid.
    DRM on the other hand does not expire and for some, there may not be a choice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    sherry, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:30am

    att lawsuit

    so what att has the iphone locked jal break it. Sprint has their phones where you can use the on sprints neetwork. so whats the big deal? Oh, maybe someone is crying because they didnt have the ideal first.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:30am

    In France, we had a sort of similar case where only one Phone company (namely Orange) was the sole distributor of Iphone and thus, if you wanted one, you had to be tied to it.

    France ruled that this was considered unfair, and forced to break the deal between Orange and Apple, thus allowing other companies to sell Iphones with their own contracts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    ProphetBeal, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:36am

    Re:

    Most carrier subbed phones in the US are locked and can only be used on that carrier. How is the iPhone any different? I also wonder how many folks chose to actually leave AT&T after their first 2 years instead of just renewing their contract and getting the newest iPhone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:39am

    Re: att lawsuit

    The difference is that the other carriers will give you an unlock code if you request it, letting you use the phone on other compatible networks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:44am

    Re: My two cents.

    I'd say that "reasonable" in this case doesn't exclude "stupid", "silly" or "short-sighted".

    From a consumer point of view, all of the information about the app store was out there from the moment it opened. Apple were known to be the only people in charge of apps from the very beginning, so suing them after the fact probably won't work. People who bought the iPhone before the app store opened don't have a case, as that wouldn't have influenced their decision.

    With the AT&T lock-in, it gets a little hazier for me as I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of US networks, but the 2 year lock-in sounds reasonable from a business perspective (a hardware provider with no track record of making phones would need assurances from network providers, and an exclusive contract is one way to get that). If it was extended to 5 years or there were other shenanigans that changed the deal after people bought the phones, there might be a case, but it's still reasonable from a business point of view for a brand new device.

    "This is the very same reason why people are suing Sony for removing a feature maybe less than 2% of owners actually use, including the Air Force."

    That's different, as it involves a change in the terms of service after the product was purchased. Somebody could reasonable say that they bought a PS3 instead of a 360 purely because of that feature, and so Sony could be said to be unfairly or falsely marketing features to leverage the marketplace. Unless I'm wrong about the AT&T deal, I'm not seeing where Apple did this, and I don't count the following:

    "Apple is removing apps people may be seeing as beneficial to warrant a purchase of the device."

    The removal of apps from the store does not affect people who have already bought the app in question. So, what you're arguing for here is that people have bought an iPhone instead of, say, an Android phone specifically because they knew a particular app was available and the removal of the app invalidated their reason for purchase before they could obtain the app. This strikes me as being a rather unlikely situation, and certainly not one experienced by most users.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Watashiii, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 5:45am

    it's better then infinity

    I don't know how things are in the developed world, but in Croatia, it's a normal policy for most mobiles to be locked to the network that sells them. It's kinda sad when people have to break into their own property

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Elie, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:12am

    Didn't they have to?

    I seem to recall they made an exclusive deal with AT&T because all the other carriers (in the U.S., at least) wouldn't deal with them. Didn't Verizon, by their own admission, reject the offer of the first iPhone? Hard to justify that as anti-competitive. The market looked a lot different then than it dows now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    jilocasin, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:17am

    Just because they can doesn't mean they should be allowed to.

    Apple/AT&T is wrong, and just because they can technically do so doesn't mean they should.

    When you purchase something it should be yours to do with as you like. The company shouldn't be able to retroactively force you do use it a certain way, nor should they be able to change the rules, or remove functionality after the fact.

    For those of you who would say "If you don't like it, then don't buy an iPone." That isn't an answer, or at least not one we would accept in any other aspect of our lives.

    If you buy a Ford you have to use only Exxon gas. You can only get parts at the Ford dealership, and any 'aftermarket' enhancements (say a new surround sound stereo or GPS) can only be bought through the Ford store. Ford reserves the right, solely at its own discretion to remove or disable functionality after the fact. [And the latest model stalls if you hold the steering wheel a certain way, but don't worry they'll happily sell you a custom steering wheel cover for only $29.99 {sorry I couldn't resist}].

    I mean, if you don't like it, then you could always not buy a Ford right?

    You can only use analog phones on AT&T's network that are manufactured by AT&T.

    You can only read you set of encyclopedias at a kitchen table [and the printer reserves the right to delete pages at it's sole discretion].

    You can only wear your Nike sneakers with socks purchased at the Nike store. You can only run on streets that Nike has pre-approved. You can only wear them to Gold's Gym (use in Planet Fitness, Curves, or your local YMCA is strictly prohibited). You can only purchase laces or insoles from authorized partners from the Nike Store. Nike at it sole discretion reserves the right to change the places you can wear you Nike's or remove your laces or insoles.

    Microsoft Windows can only be run on approved Microsoft devices. All applications must be bought at the Microsoft app store. Microsoft reserves the right to delete purchased applications or otherwise remove functionality at its sole discretion.

    None of the above would be tolerated, so why it it 'O.K.' for Apple and AT&T?

    If 'just don't buy a ' isn't a legal answer, why should it be when we are talking about an iPhone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:21am

    "Both seem to represent reasonable business decisions"

    So was the Internet Explorer integration in Windows, or the media Player pre-instaled.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    JD (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:25am

    Complaints about AT& and the iPhone

    You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else and get a different phone.

    The idea is that even though you signed up for 2 years, at the end of 2 years there was no where else to go with your iPhone so it's really 5 years.

    As for a "5 year lock-in" - no such thing. You're under contract for two years, which is typical in the industry. At the end of that two years you can renew, upgrade, or leave. Since most people must replace their phone when they change carriers anyway due to difference in carrier's technology, having "no where else to go with your iPhone is a specious argument at best

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:28am

    Re: it's better then infinity

    That's normal everywhere I think - the justification being that the price of the handset is subsidised by future line rental income.

    It is possible to buy unlocked iPhones and other mobiles, but they're significantly more expensive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Nate (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:35am

    Re: Re:

    Most carrier subbed phones in the US are locked and can only be used on that carrier. How is the iPhone any different?

    I agree with you that this is a double standard. However, I think the high profile of the iPhone is a good place to start with demolishing this restriction. It's a huge privilege that the carriers have this restriction to begin with. I can't think of another industry that guarantees its income and significantly reduces the ability for the consumer to vote with their wallet (is this common elsewhere?). Either way, removing this restriction should increase each carrier's desire to compete because more money is at stake.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    NullOp, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 6:56am

    CA

    I really can't think of a reason all big corporations don't deserve a class action for one-thing-or-another. Price fixing comes to mind for sure! Try to find something with a significantly lower price on a daily basis. Price fixing is alive and well in the U.S.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    sysadmn (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 7:07am

    Not the place

    If the restriction needs to be demolished, it should be done by Congress, or the Executive branch (FCC, maybe FTC), not the judiciary. It's not a huge privilege to have this restriction unless either the carrier or the phone producer have a monopoly. You have alternatives, if you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract. IMHO, the abusive part of the practice was carriers not unlocking phones once you'd met the contract terms, but I think that has been changed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    jilocasin, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 7:39am

    Is there any other defense than 'don't buy it'?

    sysadmin: "You have alternatives, if you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract."

    JD: "You know, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. If you don't like the deal, go someplace else..."

    Can the Apple/AT&T defenders come up with anything other than "if you don't like it then don't buy it"?

    Just because you can purchase a car/tv/computer/shoes/mobile phone from more than one company doesn't make it legal for them to dictate what or how you can use your purchase after the fact. Nor does it justify forcing you to make other related purchases on their terms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 7:44am

    With the rapid speed of technological advancement, especially in the telecommunications industry makes a 5 year contract STUPID and any idiot that signs up for it is just stupid also.
    Now that I know this about iPhone users / purchasers I will put the following question on the application for employment with my company.
    "Do you own an iPhone with an active account. Yes or No."
    Answer yes and I think you're an idiot for agreeing to such a stupid plan. So guess what? I won't hire you because you are going to cost me nothing but money. You make bad monetary decisions. If you own a business and I see you using one, I don't even want to shop at your business because you are an idiot.
    You locked into a 5 year plan for a phone that is extremely overpriced and the apps are locked up like all Apple software and plus your app only works on 1 phone.
    Idiots!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    Re: CA

    Try to find something with a significantly lower price on a daily basis. Price fixing is alive and well in the U.S.

    That does not prove price fixing. In fact, in a perfectly competitive market, the goods will naturally have the same or similar price.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 7:52am

    Re: Is there any other defense than 'don't buy it'?

    I have an XBox 360 and the Live service. I can't buy online games from any other service, nor can I play games online through some other service. Would that be illegal bundling? I don't have to buy the online games at all, I can just get game discs from anywhere. And I don't have to sign up for Live, I can just play locally on my one box. This seems similar to the iPhone, except that there you have to sign up with AT&T for the device to be useful. Just wondering about the paralells.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 7:53am

    I'd rather see a class action lawsuit based on the fact that ATT's 3G network is nowhere near as excellent as their ads boast.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    yo ho ho...., Jul 12th, 2010 @ 8:01am

    Wireless 101

    An iphone is a GSM-based phone -- and therefore it has almost no use on any other network in the US except for T-Mobile.

    Verizon and Sprint are both CDMA-based networks -- that is why they require different handsets... and why Apple would need to develop a different iphone to work on their networks.

    Not only is this class action lawsuit irresponsible, without any merit and just another case of lawyers hoping for a settlement without going to court -- it is also technically without any justification in this country.

    Stupid, stupid, STUPID!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 8:21am

    *facepalm*

    It's not a five year contract in that if you sign up, you are locked into a five year contract. Even though it was described in the second post (wouldn't want to trouble you to read that far or otherwise investigate) I'll go ahead and spell it out for you - The phone is locked to AT&T until its open to other carriers (The phone is locked, you aren't.) After two years, jailbreak it or stay with AT&T, big deal (do you switch carriers every two to four years? I don't.)

    I am glad to know that there are idiots out there (e.g. you) who would deny employment on a knee-jerk reaction to something they misinterpreted. Good day sir, you have failed my pre-employment employer assessment. That's a hard one to fail too so my hat is certainly off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    interval (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 8:26am

    Re: That's a long time...

    A five year sentence, jail locked to AT&T. Must be worse that the french colonial prison Papillon was consigned to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    jilocasin, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 8:33am

    an XBox360.......

    nasch,

    An XBox360 suffers from some of the same problems as an iPhone (except the holding the controllers thing), but not all of them.

    Similarities:
    XBox Live == AT&T
    XBox360 peripherals (memory, hard drives) you can only use over priced Microsoft components rather than perfectly good 3rd party parts.
    XBox360 arbitrary changes by Microsoft after the fact.

    With the second one I believe that Microsoft is, or is about to be sued for. We'll have to await the Sony suit over the third.

    Differences:
    The XBox360 is a machine for playing XBox360 games. You can play games without buying them from Microsoft or through XBox Live.
    The iPhone is ostensibly a mobile phone. You can't legally use it to make phone calls without going through AT&T.

    If the XBox360 _required_ purchasing XBox Live and only allowed you to play games purchased from XBox Live then it would be a closer analogy.

    Just like you can't expect to play PS3 titles on an XBox360 doesn't mean that you should expect a GSM iPhone to work on a CDMA network. You should be able to use the GSM iPhone on any GSM network.

    In the iPhone's case you should be able to install any compatible software (i.e. written to work on the iPhone)
    without forcing you to go through the iStore. It shouldn't void your warranty, to install compatible aftermarket software. Just like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act prohibits Ford from voiding your warranty if you install compatible aftermarket parts, it should prohibit Apple from doing the same thing with aftermarket software.

    "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions[3], and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives." ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 9:07am

    Re: an XBox360.......

    XBox360 peripherals (memory, hard drives) you can only use over priced Microsoft components rather than perfectly good 3rd party parts.

    I really don't like this. I don't know for sure if it's legal or not, but it's heavily anti-consumer for sure.

    XBox360 arbitrary changes by Microsoft after the fact.

    Do you mean changes to the Live service? Or OS updates? I'm not aware of anything significant like with the PS3 recently, but it could be a concern. As for the former, I think they should be allowed to change their service however they choose. They could abuse this, but I think I company needs the freedom to adjust its services. They should be required to give fair notice and issue refunds to anyone who doesn't agree to the changes. For the latter, this is another thing that rubs me the wrong way. It's ripe for abuse to make me accept your latest OS version in order to play online. Again, I don't think MS has done anything nefarious here, but Sony has and MS could some time.

    You should be able to use the GSM iPhone on any GSM network.

    Isn't that possible? I don't have one so haven't looked into it, but if there's another GSM network (T-Mobile?) can't you unlock your iPhone and use it elsewhere? Minus the app store I assume.

    It shouldn't void your warranty, to install compatible aftermarket software.

    I agree, that's BS. I don't mind if it voids support, but the warranty on defects should be intact. What I mean is, if you've jailbroken your iPhone and you call in to say your home screen is messed up, I don't mind AT&T or Apple saying they have no idea what your software might have done to your phone and they can help you if you want to return it to its factory condition. On the other hand, if the screen cracks from normal usage, they need to honor the warranty.

    I think the app store aspect of the suit seems to have a better chance than the lock-in. I would think prohibiting exclusive cell phone contracts would be a matter for Congress to take up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 9:14am

    Re: Didn't they have to?

    Apple chose AT&T because it had the biggest network. Verizon took a look at the phone and rejected it because of some things with the deal that it didn't like but it was never really in the running anyway.

    As you say, though, the market is a lot different now.

    What I find curious is that while the iPhone was delayed in Canada it wasn't long once it came in that all three major carriers (Bell, Rogers and Telus) were flogging the thing while it remains exclusive to AT&T in the U.S.

    And no, I'm not a fan of lock in either. I can see the two year contract but beyond that a handset owner ought to be free to go where they want to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Bikerelc (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 9:57am

    Re: Re: an XBox360.......

    You really hit it right on the ball. The i-phones problems are apples direct attempts to brick phones that have been taken elsewhere, and also their scheming to get out of their hardware warranties.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    HrilL, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 10:44am

    Reasonable? Are you kidding?

    Mike, I'd have thought someone with your views would think this is unreasonable.

    Lets get a few facts straight.

    1. You buy a iPhone and a 2 year contract. After 2 years you can't use your iPhone anywhere else. Thus your contract to use your phone is now 5 years.

    2. You buy any other phone from At&t and after your 2 year contract they'll unlock it for you. Since after 2 years you do in fact OWN your phone.

    3. The iPhone is the only phone At&t won't unlock.

    4. the DMCA gives us the right to unlock our phones for the purpose of moving to a different service provider. Apple broke peoples phones because they unlocked them.

    5. None of this was disclosed before people got their phones nor was this in their contracts. If you own your phone and are out of contract yet your phone can only be used on one network then you are in fact not free from that contract.

    I for one plan to join this class action to show support in a case that clearly has merit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    yo ho ho...., Jul 12th, 2010 @ 10:58am

    Re: Reasonable? Are you kidding?

    Learn before you join any class action lawsuits. You have ZERO to gain by joining anything here.... unless you want to switch to T-Mobile... which I doubt.

    Read wireless 101 above -- may provide some insights to your foolishness.

    The willingness to allow users to take their phones to other carriers is "voluntary" action by the carriers -- not federally mandated. Unlike the rest of the world, there is very little use or precedent for unlocking in the US.

    The radio chipsets dictate the functionality of the phone. Different wireless standard also drive different features.

    So much to learn... so little smarts... go sue McDonalds for giving you Hot coffee (which you choose to hold between your legs instead of using your cupholder).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Michael Long (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: That's a long time...

    In the US you can't take it to Verizon or Sprint, since the iPhone is GSM-based hardware and they run on CDMA. Nor can you really take it to T-Mobile, since they use a different 3G frequency band.

    So where the heck are you SUPPOSED to be able to take it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Michael Long (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 12:31pm

    Are you going to demolish physics too?

    As mentioned above, in the US you can't take it to Verizon or Sprint, since the iPhone is GSM-based hardware and they run on CDMA. Nor can you really take it to T-Mobile, since they use a different 3G frequency band. The technologies are incompatible.

    Since Apple doesn't make a CDMA-based phone (and likely won't until LTE), simply demolishing the rule doesn't change one, single, solitary thing.

    An Evo can't run on AT&T. An iPhone can't run on Verizon or Sprint. Or to borrow an argument from below, if you buy a car with a diesel engine, don't whine about how you can't fill it up with gasoline.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    HrilL, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?

    The iPhone can in fact run on T-Mobile. While you can't get 3g you can run Edge just fine. Remember that is lawsuit was brought on from the release of the first iPhone that was Edge network only anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 3:08pm

    Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?

    True, but remember that AT&T has a network customization on their SIMs that prevent you from selecting an alternative network.

    I tried this by placing an AT&T SIM in an unlocked phone and the menu to manually select a system will automagically disappear.

    Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network coverage.

    This is misleading: if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?

    True, but remember that AT&T has a network customization on their SIMs that prevent you from selecting an alternative network.

    I tried this by placing an AT&T SIM in an unlocked phone and the menu to manually select a system will automagically disappear.

    Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network coverage. This too is misleading because if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't actually manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 3:10pm

    Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?

    True, but remember that AT&T has a network customization on their SIMs that prevent you from selecting an alternative network. Try placing an AT&T SIM in any unlocked phone and the menu to manually select a system will automagically disappear.

    Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network coverage. This too is misleading because if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't actually manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 3:25pm

    Re: Re: Didn't they have to?

    AT&T doesn't have the largest network. They have a number of roaming agreements that allow through roaming partners the ability to service you. But if you have problems in areas where AT&T doesn't own the network, they really can't do much to help you.

    To see what coverage AT&T actually owns, I suggest you take a look at their prepaid coverage maps. With prepaid services, they need the ability to shut off phones with relative immediacy and can do this on network segments that they own. The same capability isn't readily available if you're on a partner or roaming network. So look at the prepaid offering for AT&T's native service areas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Are you going to demolish physics too?

    True, but remember that AT&T has a network customization on their SIMs that prevent you from selecting an alternative network. Try placing an AT&T SIM in any unlocked phone and the menu to manually select a system will automagically disappear.

    Also, the SIMs are programmed to show the AT&T banner on the phone in areas where they have roaming agreements yet lack network ownership. This too is misleading because if someone has trouble with obtaining a signal and AT&T doesn't actually manage the network, they can't fix it regardless of how many times you call customer service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Jul 12th, 2010 @ 9:38pm

    What is with the t-mobile hate?

    Using t-mobile without an unofficial unlock is exactly what I'd like to do. It's ridiculous that I can own something outright (I purchased my iPhone used) and still be refused an official unlock.

    I'm still putting up with it because I like the device, but I should not have to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    mike, Aug 13th, 2010 @ 12:29pm

    att iphone list?

    can we still get on it??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    hkingwise, Oct 25th, 2010 @ 12:28am

    ipod/iphone/ipad/macbook parts supplier in shenzhen china

    Dear sir:

    my name is lisa liu, i am from KINGWISE INT'L CO.,LTD in shenzhen china. We have supply ipod
    parts/iphone parts/ipad parts/macbook parts and other Digital Accessories in Shenzhen China
    for many years .Our main products include:

    unibody macbook pro glass panel 13.3" $28.7
    unibody macbook pro glass panel 15.4" $37.7
    unibody macbook pro glass panel 17.1" $40.8

    ipad digitizer at OEM 43.3$ Original 58.7$
    ipad LCD at 58$ Original
    ipad back cove wifi $23
    ipad back cove 3g $23

    Iphone 4g Full touch screen Assembly 72$
    Iphone 4g touch screen at OEM 21$ Original $35.5
    iphone 4g back cove at $28

    iphone 3GS touch screen OEM $5.2
    iphone 3Gs Full touch screen Assembly $15.8
    iphone 3gs LCD toshiba $20.7 Sharp $24.5
    iphone 3Gs Full lcd screen Assembly $42
    ipone 3GS Full back cove assembly $65

    iphone 3G touch screen OEM $5.2
    iphone 3G Full touch screen Assembly $15.5
    iphon 3G LCD toshiba $17 sharp $20.7
    iphone 3G Full lcd screen Assembly $39.5
    ipone 3G back cove assembly $62

    iphone 2G Full Display Assembly $49.5
    iphone 2G Full back cove assembly $16.8

    ipod touch 1st gen digitizer screen $6.2
    ipod touch 1st gen lcd screen $7.4
    ipod touch 1st battery $2.1

    ipod touch 2nd gen digitizer screen $6.5
    ipod touch 2nd gen lcd screen $7.8
    ipod touch 2nd gen battery $2.1
    ipod touch 2nd gen back cove 7.4

    ipod touch 3rd gen digitizer screen $6.8
    ipod touch 3rd gen screen $14.2
    ipod touch 3rd gen battery $2.1
    ipod touch 3rd gen back cove 7.8

    ipod video 30G HDD mk3008gal $24.5
    ipod video 80G HDD MK8010GAH $44.5
    ipod video 120G HDD MK1224GAH $53
    ipod classic 80G HDD MK8022GAA $51.8
    ipod classic 120G HDD MK1231GAL $66.7
    ipod classic 160G HDD MK1626GCB $71.5
    ipod classic 160G HDD MK1634GAL $102

    hope we can do businees ,waiting for your good news. thanks

    2010-10-25

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: KINGWISE INT'L CO.,LTD.
    Contact : Lisa
    Tel: 0086-755-23815871 Fax: 0086-755-23815871
    Mobil:86-13926540692 MSN:juan19841230@hotmail.com
    http://www.ipodsparts.com Email:hkingwise@gmail.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This