Recent Comments:
Apple not just refusing cash, also refusing Apple Gift Cards for iPhones {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 29th 2007 5:24AM Riiiiight. Preventing their devices from being activated fraudulently with a carrier that's not the one named in the CONTRACT is just so TERRIBLE.
Look. Lots of cell phone companies retain exclusive rights to a certain make/model of cell phone. It becomes an exclusive perk of that particular carrier.
Apple has an exclusive agreement with one carrier in regards to sales and activation of the iPhone. One carrier. That's it. The consumers who purchase the iPhone know this and it's in the T/C's for the iPhone activation. As soon as people start skirting that agreement, Apple has a responsibility to AT&T to make it as difficult as humanly possible for iPhones to be sold under these false pretenses.
Sure, it sucks that cash/gift cards won't be accepted anymore. The young people who have been saving their allowance for months and others who just don't use credit cards are getting a raw deal.
So, in short - thanks for ruining it for everyone else, folks.
Apple refusing to accept cash for iPhone, limits 'em to two per person {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 27th 2007 1:11AM ...that's the point. They're trying not to screw AT&T out of the money they are due, per the agreement iPhone purchases agree to when they purchase the phones. You know, that pesky "activation is subject to AT&T credit approval" part no one seems to care about.
..oh, and a lot of businesses - large and small - don't accept cash.
Greenpeace dismantles iPhone, discovers "hazardous chemicals" {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 15th 2007 6:53PM Why waste time calling them "environmentalists" when we can just skip to "tree-huggers" and "dirty hippies".
Apple hit with class-action antitrust lawsuit over bricked iPhones {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 9th 2007 6:07PM You know, I hate to say it, but I agree with you. These cats got what they deserve. Do you notice that no one can even begin to defend their own actions when it comes to ignoring the terms and conditions that were agreed to when activating these phones? No one even tries to address that. Everyone runs around blaming Apple instead to divert attention from their own stupidity.
Sure, you have every right to not like the closed nature of Apple's software. But when one agrees to T/C's and decides that they don't have to agree to them, I don't feel sorry for you.
Apple hit with class-action antitrust lawsuit over bricked iPhones {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 9th 2007 12:45PM You were wise enough to heed the warning Apple presented before doing a firmware upgrade. You are certainly well-founded in your belief that you should have a little more freedom with a device you paid between $300-$600 for. In theory, I also agree with this premise. That's a lot of cash to dish out and have limited access to after a firmware update crashes your phone. I personally would never pay that much money for a phone and not be able to do anything "creative" with it.
My problem is with the people who DIDN'T heed the warning Apple presented and are now expecting Apple to hand them the moon and the stars. Apple tried to warn them! Anyone with enough cellular phone know-how (enough to hack a phone/activate it with another carrier/etc.) should have known this would happen. I just don't have any sympathy for them.
Apple hit with class-action antitrust lawsuit over bricked iPhones {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 9th 2007 8:08AM The bottom line is that you can always refute this guy by saying, "...but you signed a contract."
Everyone bitching about Apple seems to forget about those pesky terms and conditions that they signed to. You know, that little non-committal/optional part that said using the phone means you MUST use it on AT&T and that third party apps might brick your sh*t.
...we don't really HAVE to pay attention to contracts we sign, do we? What a drag.
Apple hit with class-action antitrust lawsuit over bricked iPhones {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 8th 2007 9:33PM No Don, you're wrong.
Did you miss the part in the user agreement that said the phone was "subject to AT&T credit approval"? That means that when you buy and activate the iPhone, you agree to only use it with AT&T. Those are the terms you agreed to. You can't agree to those terms then turn around and try to activate it with whomever you want. You're in violation of the terms and conditions that Apple and AT&T agreed to. If you don't want the phone on AT&T, then don't buy an iPhone. But that's the agreement. If you don't like the terms a company presents you, turn around and walk away.
This is so clear, so black and white, it's ridiculous.
Apple hit with class-action antitrust lawsuit over bricked iPhones {Engadget Mobile}
Oct 8th 2007 7:19PM OH GIVE ME A BREAK.
Seriously? I have no words. These are the reasons why Apple and other big companies create terms and conditions for people to read and agree too! No one FORCED this moron to 1)Buy and iPhone; 2)Agree to the T/C that stated he'd use it with AT&T; 3)Agree to the T/C that stated if he put non-Apple approved stuff on his phone, it could brick his phone; 4)Plug his phone into iTunes and continue with the update EVEN AFTER ITUNES WARNED HIM HIS PHONE MIGHT BE RENDERED USELESS.
This has to be one of the most obnoxious wastes of our legals systems. What. a. loser.
iPhone update: facts and fiction {Engadget Mobile}
Sep 28th 2007 5:27PM Not going to happen. T/C's for iPhone activation via iTunes state that service is subject to AT&T credit approval ONLY. There is ONLY an agreement between Apple and AT&T for the iPhone. Period. Apple doesn't have to unlock any of these devices.
Read your freakin' customer agreement and stop whining.
iPhone update re-locking handsets, disabling 3rd-party apps? {Engadget Mobile}
Sep 27th 2007 5:48PM I'll take, "Things I saw coming from a mile away" for $500, Alex!
