[classicalscholar]

I have read some of the Apple cultists claims that this is all OK because by buying, unlocking, and reselling iPhones they are stealing from Apple.
Balderdash!
These people have bought into the anti-piracy mindset that makes corporations treat their customers like criminals. This is, for starters, not a piece of information that can be copied and resold ad infinitum by its users. This is a tangible device which can only be sold as many times as it is bought from the vendor. If Apple is losing money each time they sell an iPhone, that is their problem, not the consumer's.
Imagine buying a Honda Civic that runs on normal gas and tweaking with the engine to run on gas, ethanol, and peanut oil. By Apple mentality, you should not only not be allowed to sell this car to someone else, but it shouldn't be able to work on the roads any longer to boot. To top that off, you would only be allowed to buy one more Honda before they cut you off. Thankfully there are pleny of other car companies down the street will let you buy and sell as many of their cars as you like, after all, they are still getting paid out of the deal.
If you are going to sell me a product, I will buy it only if I am allowed to do whatever I like with it, I do not buy anything that comes with a user agreement. That's called a rental, and perhaps Apple's ads should better explain their $399 iPhone rental service.
I do hope that consumer backlash will prevail and that this is not a sign of things to come. Let it be known, however, that I am drawing a line in the sand and boycotting all retailers who refuse to accept cash.

[AtomicPunk]

Sure, then one day, you go to restaurant. As you pay for the bill, you hand the waiter your card. They go off, swipe your card with this little box they carry in their pocket. Then they go off, swipe your card to pay the bill. Everything is fine, until, later on that week you discover that a couple of thousand have been sucked out of your account. Rent is due, and bills need to be paid and you've got nothing.

[cubismo]

A typical shoot foot reaction, if Apple doesn't trust us, why should we trust Apple?

[adobephile]

Quote:

---

I have read some of the Apple cultists claims that this is all OK because by buying, unlocking, and reselling iPhones they are stealing from Apple.
Balderdash!
These people have bought into the anti-piracy mindset that makes corporations treat their customers like criminals. This is, for starters, not a piece of information that can be copied and resold ad infinitum by its users. This is a tangible device which can only be sold as many times as it is bought from the vendor. If Apple is losing money each time they sell an iPhone, that is their problem, not the consumer's.
Imagine buying a Honda Civic that runs on normal gas and tweaking with the engine to run on gas, ethanol, and peanut oil. By Apple mentality, you should not only not be allowed to sell this car to someone else, but it shouldn't be able to work on the roads any longer to boot. To top that off, you would only be allowed to buy one more Honda before they cut you off. Thankfully there are pleny of other car companies down the street will let you buy and sell as many of their cars as you like, after all, they are still getting paid out of the deal.
If you are going to sell me a product, I will buy it only if I am allowed to do whatever I like with it, I do not buy anything that comes with a user agreement. That's called a rental, and perhaps Apple's ads should better explain their $399 iPhone rental service.
I do hope that consumer backlash will prevail and that this is not a sign of things to come. Let it be known, however, that I am drawing a line in the sand and boycotting all retailers who refuse to accept cash.

---

Flinging derisive epithets and trying to compare Apples to Honda's is the highest--no lowest--form of pathetic protestation. Backlash. . . line in the sand. . .boycott. . .familiar language--and you call US a cult! That's rich--no, that's pathetic.

[adobephile]

Quote:

---

A typical shoot foot reaction, if Apple doesn't trust us, why should we trust Apple?

---

I like the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" analogy, or perhaps the concept of King Solomon offering to cut the baby in half, which seemed reasonable to one of the claimants!

[LeeSF]

Quote:

---

Assuming that Apple designed the phone as a GSM phone (and they can't advertise it as such unless it operates on GSM networks), then there's no reason an unlocked version shouldn't "just work." They will be selling unlocked iPhones in France, and I'm sure those customers expect the phone to "just work." Obviously they won't get Orange's visual voicemail or tech support, but then they'd get Apple's tech support, which is what they would get if they purchased any other Apple product.

---

When you initialize your iPhone through iTunes, there's a set of transactions between Apple and AT&T to create your account and set up the phone number and billing, and probably to init the SIM card. I don't know how that would happen without the hookup between the two systems.
Also, when I had some issues porting my number from Verizon to AT&T, Apple and AT&T support did background communicating to figure out the problem, that wouldn't happen with an unsupported carrier.
None of this is insurmountable, and it'll be interesting to see how Apple works it in France. It still seems like a departure from the Apple brand message (pardon the jargon).

[feefer]

Wow, isn't it clear to everyone that Apple is trying to police/protect IT'S distribution channels, IT'S dealer networks, which is something that EVERY manufacturer tries to do, and is completely within their legal right to do? If some 3rd-party tries to re-sell Roland or Yamaha keyboards as their business, without attaining authorized dealer status, I can assure you that the manufacturers would be all over it to shut them down!
I am aware of one situation where Roland shut down an unauthorized dealer by using IP law as the basis of their claim: Roland said the 'gray market' devices contained IP that Roland clearly owned, and hence they were fully able to determine licensing rights for how their IP was distributed. The company backed down after the C&D order was issued, as it was clearly an open and shut case that Roland would've won, if they pushed the issue in court...
Apparently some of you are unaware that unauthorized parties are buying up iPhones to unlock and re-sell for substantial profit, acting as unauthorized Apple resellers? That's wrong, and unfair to those Apple dealers who operate legit businesses that have to attain/maintain benchmarks to insure quality. There ARE some authorized Apple resellers (aside from the retail stores).
This kind of unauthorized activity is almost as bad as the idiots who stood in line to buy up all available iPhone supplies on the 29th of June, hoping to create an artificial shortage and drive up demand, just so they could "flip" the iPhones on eBay for a profit. How ludicrious was that! It's almost as bad as those people who rip and burn commercial DVDs, profiting off IP they don't have any right to control...
IMO, Apple has every right to disallow this practice of buying iPhones with cash (heck, even restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, regardless of how they pay), as it's within their legal domain to control the distribution of THEIR IP; it's THEIR trademarked product, and Apple's reputation, that's at stake here. Notice it'ss not yours, as an iPhone buyer.
FWIW, there's a misstatement above: the DMCA does NOT specifically mention that unlocking a cellphone is an allowed exception to the DMCA; that concept came from a policy letter issued by the Copyright Office last year. The letter states that individual USERS can unlock cellphones for their personal use on another network (and those who are unlocking iPhones to sell to others are treading on untested legal ground).
FWIW, I wish Apple would focus on improving some onerous oversights on the iPhone: the reality is I posted from an iPhone, but had to resort to a laptop to edit. It is a bit maddening to realize that you cannot advance the iPhone's cursor to the next paragraph to continue editing on an iPhone, if it's off the tiny screem. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[feefer]

Quote:

---

Sure, Apple is within their rights to protect their authorized re-sellers, but I get the sense that this is just another step among many. Will they be tracking names against serial numbers? Will the next move be to "follow up" with people who have bought phones and not activated them?

---

If and when anyone develops the ability to accurately predict the future, let me know... Your questions remind me of the Tom Cruise movie, "Minority Report", where people are arrested for crimes not yet committed.

Quote:

---

Apple clearly wants the iPhone to be a continuous stream of revenue (as opposed to most of their other products, which generate revenue on the date of sale only).

---

And if true, then what is your point? Is that a crime?

[Philbert]

Quote:

---

How so? Apple wants to be able to track purchases by customer. For some reason, they decided that anyone buying any more than 2 iPhones is guilty until proven innocent of being an unauthorized reseller. Since they'll be able to tie IMEIs to individual customers (just like a carrier), an obvious question is what they intend to do with that information. If you're asking me whether I get suspicious when a big corporation wants to find yet another way to get more information about me, then, yes, I am a bit concerned about what comes next.

---

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?
If you're that paranoid about your privacy, what are you doing on the net? Shouldn't you be living off the land on a mountain top somewhere sans modern conveniences? In today's world, there's no such thing as privacy.
First, every company wants to track purchases. That's just a normal part of doing business. Ever fill out a warranty form? What do you think that's actually for? The uproar over "cash only" is a complete waste of energy. Where's the public outcry about Dell? As far as I know, there is no way for the average consumer to purchase anything from them with cash.
Buy anything in an Apple Store and they ask for a name and address - before they ask for the payment method. Even if you buy something they will accept cash for, are you going to refuse or lie about your name and address so they can't "track" you. Heck, for most things I've purchased in an Apple Store, I WANT them to know I've bought it.
The only thing Apple is doing by limiting purchases and requiring a CC is preventing unauthorized sales. I don't know why this is such a shock - they tell you up front that an ATT contract is mandatory for the phone to work (in the U.S.). And yes, Apple loses money from unauthorized iPhone purchases. Are you really surprised they are trying to prevent it?
There's nothing nefarious about the way Apple does business - it's about money. Its their job to get it out of your hands, into theirs. Personally, I think they're quite good at it - but I also fully understand that I'm under no obligation to purchase a single thing.

[adobephile]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How so? Apple wants to be able to track purchases by customer. For some reason, they decided that anyone buying any more than 2 iPhones is guilty until proven innocent of being an unauthorized reseller. Since they'll be able to tie IMEIs to individual customers (just like a carrier), an obvious question is what they intend to do with that information. If you're asking me whether I get suspicious when a big corporation wants to find yet another way to get more information about me, then, yes, I am a bit concerned about what comes next.

---

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?
If you're that paranoid about your privacy, what are you doing on the net? Shouldn't you be living off the land on a mountain top somewhere sans modern conveniences? In today's world, there's no such thing as privacy.
First, every company wants to track purchases. That's just a normal part of doing business. Ever fill out a warranty form? What do you think that's actually for? The uproar over "cash only" is a complete waste of energy. Where's the public outcry about Dell? As far as I know, there is no way for the average consumer to purchase anything from them with cash.
Buy anything in an Apple Store and they ask for a name and address - before they ask for the payment method. Even if you buy something they will accept cash for, are you going to refuse or lie about your name and address so they can't "track" you. Heck, for most things I've purchased in an Apple Store, I WANT them to know I've bought it.
The only thing Apple is doing by limiting purchases and requiring a CC is preventing unauthorized sales. I don't know why this is such a shock - they tell you up front that an ATT contract is mandatory for the phone to work (in the U.S.). And yes, Apple loses money from unauthorized iPhone purchases. Are you really surprised they are trying to prevent it?
There's nothing nefarious about the way Apple does business - it's about money. Its their job to get it out of your hands, into theirs. Personally, I think they're quite good at it - but I also fully understand that I'm under no obligation to purchase a single thing.

---

True words of wisdom! Couldn't have said it better, myself!