[MW Forums]

Apple is accepting only credit or debit card payments for iPhones, according to Apple Store employees, in an effort to curb people from unlocking the device. more

[iron_chef]

such a stupid deal.
Being beholden to a telco provider is the lowest form of slavery.

[Macdev8]

Before anybody gets their knots in an uproar, the law as previously posted re cash payments is simply this:
From the US Treasury Site:
The Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which reads:
"United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

As well, this is not any more illegal, insidious or immoral as artists, concert promoters and ticket agencies are doing now to help curb ticket scalping.
*Apple Insider comment.

[mrbach]

Fortunately for the consumer, it is this kind of customer abuse that invigorates the competition. In a few years, this will be about as important as eWorld. I want your product, I don't want to marry you Apple.
You want to track me? Track this (|)

/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[edwardd20]

Quote:

---

According to store employees, the two-device limit has always been in place .

---

If I remember right, it was two at the beginning. Then it was a limit of five for a while once the supply was under control. Now it's back to two.

[tfrogh]

/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif I still use eWorld icons for my companies server share points. eWorld may be gone, but not forgotten.
I applaud Apple. What people have been doing is stealing. If they don't act to protect themselves then they cannot go after the thieves.
If you don't like AT&T go use another phone. I remember when the Razor came out and it was tied down to a carrier. Same with the LG Chocolate. Nobody was crying foul or hacking the phones in droves. No one really cared. You still can't use a Treo 680 with Verizon. You cannot use any Treo with Virgin Mobile.
There are usage limitations all over the cell phone spectrum. Get over it.
Tom

[nucFlash]

I do not mean to attack any one person, here or elsewhere, but I'm so sick and tired of people bching because the toy they want can't be bought on their terms.
You want an iPhone that can be used anywhere, then you should have invented one yourself. The world is not Burger King, you can't always have it your way.
Apple has just as much right as anyone else to do anything damn thing they want in the selling or marketing of THEIR products. Just as Microsoft has the right to do anything damn thing they want with theirs.
People always complain because of the high cost of Windows, THEN DON'T BUY IT. People love the fact that Apple Computers are easy to use and reliable (I'm one of them, will never buy anything but Apple for this very reason), BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE PREMIUM FOR IT.
It's no secret why generic PCs are cheaper, because they use price as the lowest common denominator when purchasing parts. Some are better then others, but very few work as pain-free as Macintoshs.
Same with phones. The iPhone is a nice phone if you buy one (and, hopefully you can afford it if you buy it /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif). But, if you can't afford the iPhone AND AT&T service (or if you do not desire AT&T service for whatever reason) THEN DON'T BUY THE PHONE!
Apple hasn't cheated you in any way, shape or form. They didn't trick you into buying the phone AND THEN tell you about having to use AT&T. AND (just to make one final point) if you buy an iPhone, knowing full well your going to cheat (it may not be illegal, but you are cheating none the less) and jury-rigged (I do not call it unlocking because that would imply it works perfectly fine other than not being on AT&Ts network, the fact is that these jury-rigged phones only provide about 2/3 the features when hacked, with the exception of maybe being able to run 3rd party applications) it to run one some other network, then you deserve what you get.
They gave you no guarantees what so ever, in fact they warned you not to do it.
P.S. I was glad to see someone actually quote US Law, kudos.

[Flavum]

Quote:

---

Apple has just as much right as anyone else to do anything damn thing they want in the selling or marketing of THEIR products. Just as Microsoft has the right to do anything damn thing they want with theirs.

---

Let's not confuse "rights" with "choices". Freedom of speech is a right. Denying the use of cash payment is a choice. And if you recall, Microsoft has had more than a little trouble with some of its business choices over the years. "Doing any damn thing they want" hasn't always been wise.

[adobephile]

Quote:

---

such a stupid deal.
Being beholden to a telco provider is the lowest form of slavery.

---

Bull dookey.
It's simply a further measure to maintain control of a product which happens to be a little more complex than a can opener. I think Apple and AT&T are remaining mum on the subject for the time being, not wanting to reveal unnecessarily any proprietary information about their infrastructure.
This to me indicates that this situation is not important enough for them to lend it too much of their attention. Yeah, 250K possible unlocked phones is no drop in the bucket. But I'd still like to hear how happy customers are with their glorious unlocked phones and service.
We've been happy AT&T (and previous named versions such as Ameritech in Chicago) for about 15 years now. It's certainly not slavery. To us it's enablement, and a growingly significant part of our daily lives.
iPhone #2 will hopefully be coming this Christmas for the wife. I've been very pleased with mine and the service since June 29th. And we look forward to even better service on our AT&T family plan and from software updates, Apple-blessed 3rd party apps, and new iPhone hardware versions in the future.

[LeeSF]

$18 * 24 months = $216, so presumably Apple could sell unlocked phones for an additional $200 and more-or-less break even. But what about infrastructure and back-end support? They'd have to declaim responsibility for visual voicemail working, having the correct icons appearing, and would probably have to disconnect tie-ins between iTunes and AT&T customer support and verification/validation.
Apple would need to take the position that if your phone doesn't work as a phone, it's not their problem, even though they'd be selling to an audience that expected it to just work. Doesn't seem very Apple-like.

[Toe_MW]

Quote:

---

I want your product, I don't want to marry you Apple.
You want to track me? Track this (|)

---

Then you may wish to stop using the internet, credit cards, and anything else which requires a sign-up (including this discussion board).

[zensunni]

Quote:

---

What people have been doing is stealing.

---

Uh, interesting remark. How is reselling stealing? No one is signing a contract promising to sign-up with AT&T when they buy an iPhone. Apple is using draconion methods that will hopefully be found to be illegal to force people to do so.
I'm just waiting to hear what the unlocked price in France will be, because I have no interest in being forced into a 18 month contract with a plan based on more minutes/data than I need.

[lhudd]

Quote:

---

I applaud Apple. What people have been doing is stealing. If they don't act to protect themselves then they cannot go after the thieves.

---

Yeah... you couldn't be further off base. It is absolutely NOT stealing to hack a product you have purchased at an arms-length transaction. Find me some authority on that one. You may be able to come up with a DMCA argument, but that's not "stealing," per se. Also, the this is precisely the situation that folks at the EFF and similar lobby groups have been indicating (for years) as why the DMCA is an illegal extension of copyright.
The only grievance Apple has is a possible breach of contract complaint, but then again, they sell the phones without asking anyone to sign anything, so good luck with that approach.
I'm pretty sure the RAZR wasn't tied to a single carrier for 2 years. I'm also pretty sure that nobody wanted the POS LG chocolate phone. And comparing the lack of a treo on Verizon or Virgin is non-analogous. The treo is available at more than one network.... The iPhone is not, and will not be for several years. Selling a phone at full price and insisting it be tied to one network becomes an antitrust problem for apple.

Don't get me wrong.. i love my iPhone and am glad to have it. But i'm also hoping that it's popularity and tying arrangement will lead to something i've been wanting for years.... a prohibition on mandatory contracts and hardware locks on cell phones.

[iron_chef]

you should consider that some of us need the ability to call home abroad with the cellphone of their choice. I have to swap SIM cards frequently for legitimate travel needs.