[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 4:15PM]

Or, because you realized that the iPhone was a closed system and that you would encounter these problems, you should have bought a different phone. It's not like Apple or AT&T forced anyone to buy an iPhone and now have them locked in.

[JeffnLA @ Oct 10th 2007 4:20PM]

Ryan I agree 100%. Accept responsibility people.

So now... I'm going to sue Apple because my PC software won't work on it! Yea right...!

[Brian @ Oct 10th 2007 4:34PM]

I 100% disagree.

Not everybody reads blogs like this. Some may have seen it on TV and bought the iPhone only to THEN find they cannot unlock (ever ?) and have to pay over the odds.

Contracts should be fair to both the consumer and the seller, when there is an imbalance somebody needs to try and fix it.

[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 4:48PM]

Regardless of whether someone reads blogs, does that absolve them from responsibility? If you see a car on TV, buy it, and then find out that it doesn't work with Ethanol, are you justified in starting a class-action lawsuit?

And really, what reason would someone have to believe that they would be able to use their iPhone on a different network? It's standard procedure to lock a phone to a network, it's not like that come out of nowhere. And as far as a termination fee, why wouldn't there be a termination fee? That's standard procedure for a phone contract as well. It doesn't even matter whether the phone is subsidized, the layperson wouldn't even know whether it was.

I mean seriously, do at least a little homework before you buy something! This is pretty basic even for non-nerds.

[something @ Oct 10th 2007 4:52PM]

I got to be honest. I own an iphone and for the most part I agree with the whole idea of "you knew what you were buying" and "it's your fault your phone is bricked if you hacked it". However it wasn't until this post that it even clicked with me that they were locking people into contracts and charging ETFs for unsubsidized phones. That is NOT fair. The phone companies' argument all along for ETFs was to recoupe losses on subsidized phones. I thought that was fair also. But what's their excuse now?

[John @ Oct 10th 2007 4:53PM]

There is a reason your car will not work with pure ethanol - its engine can't run on ethanol. An analogous situation would be buying an iPhone and expecting it to work on a US network other than AT&T or T-Mobile's. There is no technological reason that the iPhone won't work on T-Mobile's network, it's just that they won't let you.

A better analogy is buying a car, and then being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline.

[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 5:04PM]

John,

The difference is that in either case, there is no reason to expect it to work with Ethanol or with another carrier. As I said, it's standard practice to lock phones.

something,

They could easily justify an ETF simply based upon contract pricing. If you are a distributor for, say, mobile phones and you have a retailer sign a contract saying that they will buy so many a month for a specified price and then they back out halfway through the contract, there should be an early termination fee because that price was based upon the fact that they would buy the full amount over the time period. The other thing is, they offer non-contract pricing and it's significantly more expensive per minute and per kilobyte, so obviously, the price you're getting is singularly dependent upon the understanding that you will be purchasing service from them for 24 months. And secondly, you seem to have thought it was fair enough when you signed the contract, none of these terms were declared after-the-fact.

[Mugsy @ Oct 10th 2007 5:11PM]

Actually the better analogy would be:
Being told that you have to use Exxon gasoline if you buy this car. Buying the car. And then complaining that you can't use BP gas.

[Ty @ Oct 10th 2007 5:12PM]

What about if someone bought a car they saw advertised on TV but can only fill it up at Shell stations (or void their warranty) and can't add tires supplied by third parties (or they void their warranty).

What Apple did with the iPhone was good for Apple, bad for consumers, and it pissed someone off enough to file suit against them. Which, I believe, will ultimately be good for consumers should they win. Do you want to stay locked with AT&T forever, and never be able to install any third party application on your iPhone?

I'm confused by your logic here. You are willing to swallow Apple stealing your right to use an electronic device the way you want to because you like the company and you like the device the way it is. Fine. And that is an argument *against* someone who finds Apple's move hard to swallow, and wants to use their device the way they want to use it?

Apple did what they did because we live in a capitalist country where companies do whatever they want within the law (and sometimes outside the law) to make a profit. We also live in a country with a legal system designed to keep said companies in check from breaking the law and making a victim out of the consumer. I'm scratching my head wondering why you scorn the very people trying to give you your rights back. What difference does it make to people who are happy with stock iPhones?

[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 5:19PM]

"What about if someone bought a car they saw advertised on TV but can only fill it up at Shell stations (or void their warranty) and can't add tires supplied by third parties (or they void their warranty)."

The difference is that there's no reason to believe that the iPhone wouldn't be network locked. Whereas in that example, there's no reason to believe that you can only fill it up at Shell stations (not standard practice). But, using your analogy, if you did buy a car that could only be filled up at Shell stations, and this was made clear to you, then what right do you have to complain? You should have bought another car. All this does is perpetuate stupidity and absolve buyers from any and all responsibility.

You ask "What difference does it make to people who are happy with stock iPhones?"; I ask "If these people weren't happy with a stock iPhone, why would they have bought it?" That exemplifies idiocy.

[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 5:26PM]

Ty, if you really want your rights back, support an open platform like OpenMoko. They have what you describe. It's not like Apple took your rights away, you voted with your money and said "this is okay! this is worth my money!" instead of casting your vote for OpenMoko. If anything, anyone who bought an iPhone is keeping that sort of platform alive. If you want to cast blame, look no further than iPhone owners, not Apple.

[h0mi @ Oct 10th 2007 5:39PM]

"The difference is that in either case, there is no reason to expect it to work with Ethanol or with another carrier. As I said, it's standard practice to lock phones."

Phones that are *subsidized*. And even so, it's still possible to get the phone unlocked.

[Brian @ Oct 10th 2007 5:40PM]

Ryan, I have given my mother your contact details. You can explain to her what a closed system is and all about the terms in the contract. She can only just print out emails so good luck.

Also the contract to purchase the phone is concluded before you sign up to AT&T if you purchase at an apple store. I havn't seen the box but I doubt all the T&C's are on the outside.

[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 5:45PM]

It's possible to have phone unlocked, at least in theory. But would you purchase a phone that needed to be unlocked without knowing for sure that you could?

And regardless of whether they are unsubsidized phones, do you think people didn't realize that they were not getting their phone subsidized for signing the contract?

If it's so unfair, don't buy the phone. Don't whine about how unfair it was after you bought it.

[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 5:50PM]

Brian,

That's poor judgment on your mom's behalf. Sorry. It's not Apple's responsibility to ensure that their customers don't make bad decisions.

And if your mother doesn't know what a closed system is, this really doesn't apply to her, does it?

And if the contract is concluded before you sign up for AT&T, then that means you bought a phone for which you don't have service without finding out how to get service. Again, extremely poor judgment. Personal responsibility FTW.

[Ty @ Oct 10th 2007 6:22PM]

"Ty, if you really want your rights back, support an open platform like OpenMoko"

I don't actually own an iPhone nor did I claim to own an iPhone. I do see that my gas analogy was a bit off because Apple does state prior to purchasing an iPhone that you can only use it with AT&T. So I lose on that one.

But seriously, why do people with iPhones who are happy with their iPhones care if someone is unhappy with their iPhone and wants it to be better. What does it matter what was stated at the beginning, what's obvious to the consumer, and what Apple has a right to do? Maybe it's frivolous, but class action lawsuits are the only way to influence a company as large as Apple, and ultimately I'm of the opinion that being able to install third party apps, and pop in an international pre-paid SIM for traveling overseas, would be good for consumers. I get the feeling that people who love Apple want this lawsuit to be thrown out instinctually out of sheer fandom, even though the end result would benefit them.

Explain this to me: how does it hurt the consumer for Apple to be sued over this? How does it hurt you iPhone owners?

[ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 6:44PM]

Ty,

First I want to state that my use of 'you' wasn't directed at you, necessarily, more of a general 'you who purchased an iPhone'.

"Explain this to me: how does it hurt the consumer for Apple to be sued over this? How does it hurt you iPhone owners?"

It may not hurt the consumer for Apple to be sued over this, but that doesn't make it right. And, you could argue that it does hurt the consumer because it teaches that you don't have to be intelligent about your purchasing decisions, you just have to sue when you're not happy. Ultimately, that hurts consumers because then the money that would have been better spent on a phone that wasn't as locked down as the iPhone is spent on an iPhone. This perpetuates what you have already declared is bad for the consumer. I'm not an iPhone owner, so it doesn't personally hurt me. If it hurts an iPhone owner, it hurts them in that Apple is theoretically out a significant amount of R&D dollars that could ultimately be used on furthering the innovations that have made the iPhone a success, regardless of its limitations. It also hurts people in general in that it takes money out of the hands of the people who earned it. You might not think that the iPhone is a good product, but many people do and they thought it was worth anywhere from 4-600 of their dollars. The designers of the iPhone (Apple and co.) earned that money.

That said, I want to state that I do not own an iPhone and have no plans to ever purchase an iPhone. I think it's a product that doesn't allow me the functionality that I'd like and is not worth 400 dollars to me. Unfortunately, that means I have to forgo the better parts of the iPhone's design. Sucks, but I can't have it both ways. And suing to try to have it both ways isn't going about it the right way.

[JT @ Oct 10th 2007 6:59PM]

Ty why does it matter if it affects iPhone owners? Can they still not have the opinion about the suit? This is friggin' engadget, who has to demonstrate that they have standing to have an opinion about something around here?

On the topic, people pass on buying phones all the time because they're not offered by their carrier. Maybe your mom doesn't know what a closed system is, but she probably has enough sense to ask, "Can I use that phone with Sprint?" If she doesn't then she's probably not in the market for a $400 cellphone anyway.

Back in January Steve made it abundantly clear that they were selling an AT&T phone with no 3rd party apps. Anyone who spent several hundred thinking they were entitled to an Apple supported T-mobile phone with 3rd party apps should not be in charge of their finances.