Hey, remember that iPhone class-action lawsuit we poked around in a couple months ago and discovered Apple's lawyers
confirming the original five year AT&T exclusivity agreement? Well, get ready to hear about it a lot more in the months to come, as the judge in the case has officially certified the case as a class action, meaning it now officially includes anyone who's ever bought an iPhone on AT&T. If you'll recall, the argument is that iPhone customers signed up for a two-year contract without being told that AT&T had an exclusive for five years -- thus in reality being held to the carrier for an additional three years without recourse. Sure, that sounds a little silly, but if you bought the first-gen iPhone and wanted to stick with the platform it's the truth -- discounting the fact, of course, that no one's required to buy another Phone after two years, and even then you have to sign a new contract. While we're definitely curious to see if the plaintiffs can get past that little logical hurdle and win something more than a token settlement, we're far more interested to see if they can get any more documentation from Apple nailing down its actual agreement with AT&T. Should be juicy -- we'll keep you in the loop.
posted July 9th 2010 7:02PM
Who cares... besides the damn lawyers, raising the price of cellular services.
If the dispute is characterized the way this article says, I don't hold much hope for it. The real reason the person buying the I-Phone has to stay with AT&T is that the I-Phone only works on 3G frequencies that AT&T uses in the US (850 & 1900 Mhz). Let me explain. So you go out and buy an I-Phone for $200 from AT&T. You're getting a $200 to $300 discount on the phone because AT&T is going to stick it to you with its high data charges over the two years of your agreement. Here's where the problem comes in. After the two years, you have to stick with AT&T if you want to have a 3G data connection because the I-Phone does not have a competing 3G radio (e.g., the 1700 Mhz frequency used by T-Mobile). It's your phone. After the 2 year agreement, you've paid 100% for that phone. You should be able to go to the other competing network, but you cannot. You cannot because Apple and AT&T have decided that you must stay with them. These comments don't just apply to AT&T and Apple.
HTC is doing the same thing. If you buy the HTC HD2 from T-Mobile for example, you cannot run it on AT&T's network after your two year contract is up. What if you don't want a contract and are willing to pay full price for the HTC HD2 but want to use AT&T's network? You cannot because HTC does not make an HD2 with radios that work on AT&T's 3G network. This comment applies to so many phones. This exclusive phone deal stuff and limiting 3G or higher radios to those of just one carrier is total BS.
Any buyer should be able to buy the phone he wants and use it on the network of his choice. I realize that CDMA phones are not going to be compatible with GSM phones. But at least for GSM phones, there should be a requirement for a competing 3G radio. CDMA phones could be forced to use a SIM type card (yes the technology exists) so the phones can be switched from Sprint to Verizon and vica versa.
@rambo6
The phone WILL work on another carrier. It just won't function at 3g speeds. After the contract is over the phone should be unlocked.
@gmaxx
Of course the phones will work on Edge on both AT&T and T-Mobile but without 3G why even by a smart phone? The user experience without 3G is almost worthless.
@rambo6
The first iPhone was Edge only. And once unlocked you can use it on any network you want. I just had to correct your statement that it couldn't be used on another network.
I hope the result would be an order to unlock all existing and future iPhones. I'm already under a 2year contract with ETF, so there's zero reason why the handset should be provider-locked. Also, somebody should start another angle of lawsuit about provider locking. Sure, AT&T can be the exclusive iPhone carrier in the US. But if I'm traveling outside the US, I'm no longer under the jurisdiction of AT&T, so why can't I use the iPhone with a local carrier in that country?
I don't understand why this lawsuit exists. Well...I do, but it's stupid. The original iPhone required a 3 year contract. The 3G did also for awhile until sold subsidized. The thing is, AT&T and Apple aren't MAKING anyone sign contracts now, it's just not cheap to get an iPhone full priced. I could have sworn that this 5 year exclusivity was known a long time ago too, but hey, we're not the experts here.
@Sliderocket21 gahh, 2 year contract. WE NEED AN EDIT BUTTON!
I think both legally and logically, a better argument is to say that they signed up for a two year contract and weren't told that after the two years, neither Apple nor AT&T would unlock the phone. This is especially true for people who paid full price for the phone and still couldn't get it officially unlocked because of the exclusivity, but I'm not a lawyer (yet).
did anyone find that engadegt news really difficult to understand, could anyone explain to me what the news just wanna say in plain words? not those col-wanna-be tones?
I really don't care if this case was against Apple or HTC. I hope that this will flesh out the road to where you still have to opportunity to get a nice phone free or at a very good price with 2yr contract but allow people to use what ever phone they want on what ever carrier they like considering it supports their network.
I think one of the main things this case will take against Apple is that the iPhone is the only phone they make and it's attached to a single carrier. HTC, Samsung, etc have a variety of phones available across the carrier spectrum. They even have versions of the same phone on different carriers.
I do also believe in buyer beware. If you don't ask alot of questions going into a contract then you get what you get. I always ask about the ability to use my phone overseas, or even if I wanted to end my contract and go to another carrier. If I am locked into that network with that particular phone then I decide if I can deal with that if the phone is the perfect device for me at the time.
Call in the lawyers. My out of contract Sprint phone will still only work on Sprint.
Since when does Steve wear a red turtleneck on grey jeans? Why did I miss that, it should be on CNN.
O wait. Big fail for the iPhone. Face recognition did not work and so autocorrection of Steve's pullover and jeans did not work. Go code on that Apple programmers!
what about me, i bought about 38 first gen iphones
WOW! I hope i get money for pain and suffering lol
Are iSheeps finally realizing that they are being screwed? Weren't you guys telling everybody that your device was magical? And now you realize that you are actually in jail?
Stop buying iPhones, and see the light. Android will be waiting.
.....so let me guess....after the 5yr contract is up.....the iPhone will hold and hour long press conference to let people know which carrier it's moving to at which point the majority owner of AT&T will write an angry response and put a curse on the carrier it moves to and current iPhone owners will burn their iPhones for switching carriers on them..........wait........
who cares about this... the minute that the stupid iPhone goes to Verizon people will just find something else to bitch about!
This is the stupidest lawsuit ever! The attorneys that took this should be ashamed of their selves. This is going to cost us all in the end. This will cost the company a lot of money to defend it and be tied up for years. No one is going to be the winner and they will just figure out a way to recoup the money. These people are complete idiots. Some people will sue over anything trying to make a quick buck and yea the previous person is right the most John Q public would get would be about 5 dollars or a coupon for a 5 dollar rebate or something.
There is a real lawsuit that has been going on for about 10 years that has major meat to it and so far AT&T is still winning. They froze the pensions for everyone over 40 for several years and their pension would not grow but the people younger they didn't do this. It involves billions so they are fighting it to the hilt. It is immoral to do this but big business plays this way. No matter what anyone says T has the best service overall especially international. My sister just went to Italy and her Verizon phone was useless. All carriers work out a deal with teh phones in order to pass it to you at a hugh discount.
I HOPE HOPE HOPE this will eventually grant unlocked iphones to all! F#CK AT&T...
I heard the judge is a Droid user.
Actually, no. Go try and pay full price for a phone at Sprint. If your a new customer they require a 2 year contract.
According to the source PDF, Apple/AT&T won summary judgement on the claims regarding Apple not replacing phones bricked by the iOS 1.1.1 update. And the term "bricked" got used in a court document.
As I haven't been following this before, I wonder if the excusivity agreement specifically stipulates that the phones can't be unlocked during the exclusivity period, and which party stipulated it. Cingular/AT&T might have wanted it to insure their revenue stream.
Other manufacturers do the "exclusivity" thing all the time, but with individual models. I suppose the difference with the iPhone is that Apple only makes one model at a time, and AT&T gets it. I wonder what would have happened if Apple did release different models to different carriers? I wonder if the agreement with AT&T prevents them from doing so? Before anyone says, "the iPhone won't work on (whatever) carrier", it won't because it wasn't built to, not because it couldn't be built to.
Otherwise, it appears the first suits were filed just a few months after the iPhone was introduced. I hate to say it, but this whole thing stinks of a bad case of "buyer's remorse."
How come I feel like I am the only person who knew about the 5 year contract when Apple announced the iPhone?
Seriously, I remember knowing and hearing about this when the iPhone first launched.
@LandMine Hare
You aren't the only one:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2007/05/23/iphone_exclusive_to_at_t_until_2012
It seems quite a number of tech news websites were at the time convinced it was only for six months, although Apple's press release called it a "multi-year partnership."
An interesting find, apparently Verizon passed on the opportunity:
http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/Verizon_Passed_on_an_Exclusive_iPhone_Deal/
It's always a big deal if it's Apple because they were supposed to be the good guys.
I'm a happy iPhone owner, and this stuff is really growing tiresome.
If you don't like AT&T, don't buy an iPhone. It's that simple. There are plenty of viable alternatives on other carriers.
As for the argument that the exclusivity "forced" people to stick to AT&T for longer than two years, 1) no one ever promised them that AT&T's exclusivity would only last two years, 2) their existing iPhone was never going to be usable on another carrier without unlocking even if exclusivity had ended after two years, 3) no one was forcing them to buy another iPhone after their contract was up, and 4) this lawsuit would logically have to be expanded to include any other phone that stayed exclusive beyond two years.
Just another example of what a joke the American legal system has become.
you guys noticed the singular words "phone" and "network"?
I don't want to be included in this suit and would like to know how i can opt out. I love AT&T and appreciate how the enthusiastically accepted Steve Jobs' offer to be Apple's exclusive carrier. I don't want anything to do with this bogus law suit. How do I contact the law firm to get them to remove my name from it?
Wow. This law suit makes no sense...all carriers offer exclusive devices, or ranges of products. No one is forcing you into purchasing equipment, or forcing you into using a service...and under FCC guidelines wireless carriers only need to inform you of contractual status that you the individual are signing - which AT&T does. There is no law on books that DirecTV customers need to be told that the NFL Sunday Ticket exclusivity is for two more years than the two year contract they just signed.
Why shouldn't AT&T (Cingular) benefit from being the only company that said "yes" to Apple when they came knocking on all the telecoms doors? Verizon didn't like how little their pretense would be felt in the UI!
Also about unlocking devices:
1. No telco in the US explicitly promises to unlock a device.
2. All devices sold through telcos are locked.
3. The majority of other devices will not work/have limited functionality on other carriers. For instance AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM carriers, while Spint and Verizon are (currently) CDMA carriers. AT&T and T-Mobile, while being GSM carriers, use different bands for their 3G service.
4. The expiration of a contract has no bearing on whether or not a telco will unlock a device, it differs from carrier to carrier. For instance, AT&T will gladly unlock a 1-month old BlackBerry 9700 - but will never unlock a iPhone (barring FCC/FTC mandate).
5. Don't be idiotic people, you can unlock any device you want to anyway - but unless you are international why bother?
Everyone I think misses the big point..... Apple went to Verizon first. Verizon turned them down. And so did a couple of other companies. So if you want to blame someone for AT&T's exclusive contract blame your preferred carrier. And if you don't like AT&T service don't buy the phone. Simple. I have had many phones some were unlocked after the contract and some were not allowed to be. If you are going to sue and want to win you need to include all the carriers that practice this and not single out one phone and one carrier.
The 5year exclusivity was big news before the first iPhone was even released. People must not pay attention to news or fail to research. I knew what I was getting into then and am glad to have had every model of iPhone so far.