Apple being Apple

Why would anyone spend 800 bucks on a phone? Especially a phone that costs around $300. I guess he bought it before it hit the states?


Still, I guess that sucks.


I think if Apple continues with the over-controlling type moves like this, eventually, people will catch on, and the Android platform will gain ground faster than it is now. I don't want to turn this into an Apple vs. Android thread though.

 

This type of **** is why I ditched most apple products.

 

Sounds like a carrier decision, not Apple. They could care less who uses their phone and on what network. Carriers, on the other hand, want you locked in.

 

I just figured that because you could only buy the universal Apple phone from Apple, that it was something they implemented. Could be the other way around for the exact reason, though.

 

FIFY.

 

This is a pet peeve of mine, when you say someone *couldn't care less*, this does not, by the letter, mean that they do not care, it means that they are at their least amount of caring, which could still be quite significant. When someone says they *could care less*, it doesn't mean they care any significant amount, it means that they are so disaffected or non-plussed by whatever that is that they could easily give it even less attention or thought. So really, neither version of that phrase are perfect and they can be used interchangeably, as they always convey the same meaning. I mean really, when is the last time you heard someone say "they could/couldn't care less" as a means to convey to you that someone actually cares about something?

 

Thread title implies Apple is the culprit, even though the author of the article states the following:

"So if you paid retail for your iPhone 4S and purchased it from Verizon, Sprint, AT&T or Best Buy, you will never be able to use that phone with a different carrier. In my view, this is a scam by these companies."

 

If you buy an iPhone from Apple for the full retail price, of course it won't be locked into any singular carrier. That is the whole point behind buying a subsidized phone from a carrier. I'm not sure how this is news to anyone. Aren't there tons of other phones that have multiple versions that are designed to specifically work on certain carriers only?

 

Repped for the stupendously anal character of the discussion.

 

Plausible, but it begs the question if this scam is apple iphone specific or not. And if so, why?

 

I'm not sure it is a scam, but I suppose these telecomm companies could be more forthright in explaining that these phones are handcuffed to their respective companies. I don't blame Apple for this one at all. It's not unheard of at all that the telecomm companies would demand that the phones they buy from a producer are designed to work only for their network. Apple got their production contract and it's the carriers (and consumers) responsibility after that to know what the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the device are.

 

Anytime a company is called out for "not being more forthright" I tend to think "they scammed someone" but that's arguable.

You can't deny this reeks of apple tactics. Get the "pure" product from our store and our store only!

 

I don't think Apple isn't being forthright. I think it's the telecomms who aren't. It doesn't help Apples bottom line to hide the info about the carrier lock on phones, in fact, it hurts them. Meanwhile, its in the carriers best interest to hide this fact.

Quite frankly, I'm happy that you can get the "pure" product at all. That doesn't seem to be the norm with highend phones.

 

Accurate...

 

Can't think of any other manufacturer selling their phone unlocked through normal retail channels.

 

All right all right! Apple is not the devil incarnate! I confess my sins to the apple inquisition - put out those torches!

 

clutchfans being clutchfans.

 

The Apple unlocked phone does not work on Sprint and Verizon. At least that is what it says on their website. That would make sense since Sprint and Verizon do not use sim cards.