In article <slrng77ddi.58.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis
Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > the iphones on ebay don't have a contract. people want to unlock them
> > (if they aren't already) and use them on whatever cellphone plan they
> > currently have, rather than sign up for a whole new 2 year plan (or 3
> > years in canada).
>
> This is true. On the other hand I haven't seen any signs that AT&T's
> contract terms and conditions will be different for the iPhone than
> other AT&T phones, which seems to mean that one could sign up for a contract,
> cancel before the end of the first month, pay the ETF and be free and clear
> for not too much over $400. It hence seems like the resale value of an old
> iPhone has got to be less than that since the old iPhone has an inferior
> feature set.
if you cancel before 30 days, you have to return the iphone. if you
cancel after 30 days, you can keep the iphone. so at a minimum, you
have to pay for two months of service (they might prorate one of those
though) and the early termination fee.
also, the old iphone can easily be unlocked. nobody yet knows how easy
it will be to unlock the 3g iphone, so some people are playing it safe
and going with the older one.
On 2008-07-08, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrng77ddi.58.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis
> Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> > the iphones on ebay don't have a contract. people want to unlock them
>> > (if they aren't already) and use them on whatever cellphone plan they
>> > currently have, rather than sign up for a whole new 2 year plan (or 3
>> > years in canada).
>>
>> This is true. On the other hand I haven't seen any signs that AT&T's
>> contract terms and conditions will be different for the iPhone than
>> other AT&T phones, which seems to mean that one could sign up for a contract,
>> cancel before the end of the first month, pay the ETF and be free and clear
>> for not too much over $400. It hence seems like the resale value of an old
>> iPhone has got to be less than that since the old iPhone has an inferior
>> feature set.
>
> if you cancel before 30 days, you have to return the iphone. if you
> cancel after 30 days, you can keep the iphone. so at a minimum, you
> have to pay for two months of service (they might prorate one of those
> though) and the early termination fee.
Which terms and conditions are you seeing that in? The generic terms of
service say if you cancel the service within 30 days and return the phone in
like-new condition they'll give you a refund for the phone and waive the
ETF. They don't say you have to return the phone. If you don't return
the phone (or if you've dropped it in the toilet) you pay the ETF. Nothing
keeps you from cancelling the contract any time you want, and keeping what
you've bought, as long as you pay the ETF.
> also, the old iphone can easily be unlocked. nobody yet knows how easy
> it will be to unlock the 3g iphone, so some people are playing it safe
> and going with the older one.
This is true at the moment. I'd point out, however, that Apple's
own vested interest in chasing unlockers seems to be diminished with
the new iPhone since Apple now makes money only from the phone's sale
and not from the subsequent service. It could be that Apple will devote
more resources to trying to keep the new phone locked anyway but, given
that there's no longer money for Apple involved in doing so, I wouldn't
bet on it.
In any case, I'd still be surprised if the new iPhone didn't take the
resale prices of old iPhones down quite a bit. The new model has a
better feature set and is priced to sell a lot of phones, unlike the older
boutique pricing, so I'd be surprised if the boutique resale pricing
of the old model continued for much longer.
In article <slrng77jpg.bt.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis
Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > if you cancel before 30 days, you have to return the iphone. if you
> > cancel after 30 days, you can keep the iphone. so at a minimum, you
> > have to pay for two months of service (they might prorate one of those
> > though) and the early termination fee.
>
> Which terms and conditions are you seeing that in? The generic terms of
> service say if you cancel the service within 30 days and return the phone in
> like-new condition they'll give you a refund for the phone and waive the
> ETF. They don't say you have to return the phone. If you don't return
> the phone (or if you've dropped it in the toilet) you pay the ETF. Nothing
> keeps you from cancelling the contract any time you want, and keeping what
> you've bought, as long as you pay the ETF.
3G Devices
The return policy for 3G is changing from 14 days to 30 days for both
Apple and AT&T stores.
To cancel service within the first 30 days, the customer must return
their equipment to the place of purchase (no exceptions).
If the customer cancels service after 30 days, they will be charged the
ETF. The customer is not required to return the device to cancel after
30 days.
> >> Stupid people. Walk into any apple store and pay cash. Walk out with
> >> iPhone.
> >> Hack it and save hundreds.
> >
> > except that a 2 year contract is required.
> >
> > the iphones on ebay don't have a contract. people want to unlock them
> > (if they aren't already) and use them on whatever cellphone plan they
> > currently have, rather than sign up for a whole new 2 year plan (or 3
> > years in canada).
>
> This is true. On the other hand I haven't seen any signs that AT&T's
> contract terms and conditions will be different for the iPhone than
> other AT&T phones, which seems to mean that one could sign up for a contract,
> cancel before the end of the first month, pay the ETF and be free and clear
> for not too much over $400. It hence seems like the resale value of an old
> iPhone has got to be less than that since the old iPhone has an inferior
> feature set.
yes, that's a plausible plan... but not many will want to go through a
credit check, pay $175, then cancel a few days later just to make a few
$100... a lot of work for not much money.
come friday, 1.0 iphones will be exactly the same as the new ones, other
than 3G and a few other tweaks... so for most people that only use WiFi,
it will be a better deal than having a slower 3G phone that they rarely
would use.
> > also, a lot of iphones on ebay are purchased by people living in
> > countries where the iphone is not available at all. ebay is one of the
> > *only* ways they can get one.
>
> That is also true, though the number of such countries becomes
> significantly smaller on July 11 and will continue to decrease over
> the next half-year. I'm considering the purchase of a new iPhone in
> Hong Kong since the phone+contract price is significantly cheaper
> than AT&T and there's some chance it will be sold there without
> the SIM lock. Relying on overseas buyers to continue to keep the
> resale price of the old phones high might not be a good bet.
yep! it will be interesting to see how the huge country launch will do
to iphone prices... but the fact will remain the 1.0 phones are the most
usable... at least, without having to pay huge fees.
> Tell a co-worker that. He went and bought one with a apple gift card that he
> bought for the purpose of getting a iPhone. Went to buy a gift card with
> _cash_ then a day later he bought the iPhone. He never activated it. Hacked
> it and sold it for 50.00 more. No name was given for the two yr contract
> being he never activated it on AT&T. The name he gave apple for there
> records was bogus.
>
> "Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
> news:apony-F9A07A.08412308072008@news.qwest.net...
> > "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Stupid people. Walk into any apple store and pay cash. Walk out with
> >> iPhone.
> >> Hack it and save hundreds.
> >
> > apple won't allow you to pay cash for an iPhone.
> >
> > plus to get one, you must sign a 2 year contract, thus the value of
> > non-contract, "unlocked" iPhones remains high...
Sure... you can use a Gift Card, even buy a Gift Card with Cash, then
buy an iPhone... but you can't "Walk into an Apple Store, pay in cash,
and Walk Out" with an iPhone...
My fact stands is the point...
(ps, don't TOP Post on USENET... it makes you look ignorant)
> > Tell a co-worker that. He went and bought one with a apple gift card that
> > he
> > bought for the purpose of getting a iPhone. Went to buy a gift card with
> > _cash_ then a day later he bought the iPhone. He never activated it. Hacked
> > it and sold it for 50.00 more. No name was given for the two yr contract
> > being he never activated it on AT&T. The name he gave apple for there
> > records was bogus.
>
> That's the way it used to work with the old iPhone with its unsubsidized
> price. Since the price of the new iPhone is now subsidized by the contract
> it seems likely that Apple won't be letting you out of their store with
> a new $200 phone without having done the paper work and credit check
> required to sign you up for a contract.
>
> It will be interesting to see how that works out. The idea of giving
> someone in an Apple store my SSN is unappealing to me for reasons that
> probably aren't rational.
i fully agree... it's the neanderthal, "price fixing" cell industry that
is in error... not apple, not the iphone, nor or any rational person.
if you buy a "computer" you don't need to PAY for a contract to connect
to the internet... so the IDEA of paying for a 2 year contract is
COMPLETELY out of line, unethical and simply won't stand...
it's criminal... since prices aren't dropping year to year in line with
normal technology trends.
the entire cell industry is "corrupt" but I sure you know that...
In article <apony-E97E8D.17570108072008@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> if you buy a "computer" you don't need to PAY for a contract to connect
> to the internet... so the IDEA of paying for a 2 year contract is
> COMPLETELY out of line, unethical and simply won't stand...
actually that business model has been tried. buy a cheap pc (like $100
or something) as long as you sign up for 2 years of internet service.
In article <080720081110390306%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> the iphone 3g will not be sold without activation, at least in the
> short term. when they do start selling non-contract phones, it will be
> $400 more.
I read that they will also require ID like a drivers license.
> yes, that's a plausible plan... but not many will want to go through a
> credit check, pay $175, then cancel a few days later just to make a few
> $100... a lot of work for not much money.
Not everyone will do it for profit- assumig the 2.0 is able to be unlocked,
some will buy to use it on T-Mo, or perhaps prepaid.
> come friday, 1.0 iphones will be exactly the same as the new ones, other
> than 3G and a few other tweaks...
I've never been inside ATT or Apple, but you boys are smarter than the
average joe, even OX.
Have you EVER gotten a secret, internal, eyes only memo that started with
an ADVERTISEMENT for the product?
Come on....OPEN YOUR EYES! This "secret memo" is a SPAM! They don't send
spams to themselves!
"***Confidential AT&T Information. For Internal Distribution Only.***
AT&T and Apple today announced that the iPhone 3G will be available in the
U.S on July 11. iPhone 3G combines three products into one small,
lightweight device: a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod, and it
puts the Internet in your pocket with the best e-mail, web browsing, search
and maps applications ever on a mobile phone."
They don't sell products to the store managers....
"$30 - Unlimited Data (E-mail/Web), includes Visual Voicemail"
God I hope Attorney General Cuomo in NY State reads this. It cost Verizon
through the ass to sell "unlimited" data that WASN'T unlimited and never
has been. ATT needs a taste of some of that venom to stop this shit.
Email and web browsing are NOT "unlimited data"....
> but you boys are smarter than the
> average joe, even OX.
>
> Have you EVER gotten a secret, internal, eyes only memo that started with
> an ADVERTISEMENT for the product?
that's not an ad, that's just a brief summary of the device, along with
the procedures to sell and activate it. nothing unusual about that.
> Come on....OPEN YOUR EYES! This "secret memo" is a SPAM! They don't send
> spams to themselves!
if you think it's bogus, then why not call or visit an apple or at&t
store and find out what the policy is for purchasing, cancelling and
returning an iphone. report back with what you find.
> > yes, that's a plausible plan... but not many will want to go through a
> > credit check, pay $175, then cancel a few days later just to make a few
> > $100... a lot of work for not much money.
>
> Not everyone will do it for profit- assumig the 2.0 is able to be unlocked,
> some will buy to use it on T-Mo, or perhaps prepaid.
we'll see... but att will supposedly offer unsubsidized 2.0 versions
priced at $599 and $699 once initial demand has eased.
> > come friday, 1.0 iphones will be exactly the same as the new ones, other
> > than 3G and a few other tweaks...
>
> "Tweaks" like GPS?
iphone 1.0 already has quite decent GPS through skyhook, so i doubt
anyone will see the difference of having that additional "checkoff" item.
> "$30 - Unlimited Data (E-mail/Web), includes Visual Voicemail"
>
> God I hope Attorney General Cuomo in NY State reads this. It cost
> Verizon
> through the ass to sell "unlimited" data that WASN'T unlimited and never
> has been. ATT needs a taste of some of that venom to stop this shit.
AT&T does allow "unlimited" web access on PHONES. They have a 5GB limit on
aircards and any data plan that allows/includes tethering a PC or external
device. Since the iPhone doesn't allow tethering, users can slurp as much
data s they are willing to.
> Email and web browsing are NOT "unlimited data"....
That's up to AT&T to define- not you, I or even the NY AG, as long as the
terms and restrictions are clearly spelled out to users.
Verizon was slapped by the AG for calling 5GB "unlimited"- not for
restricting the definition of "data" to web and e-mail.
> I've never been inside ATT or Apple, but you boys are smarter than the
> average joe, even OX.
>
> Have you EVER gotten a secret, internal, eyes only memo that started with
> an ADVERTISEMENT for the product?
>
> Come on....OPEN YOUR EYES! This "secret memo" is a SPAM! They don't
send
> spams to themselves!
As a former SBMS/Cingular dealer, I Can say with absolute certainty that
"secret internal memos" often DO sound like advertising.
> "***Confidential AT&T Information. For Internal Distribution Only.***
> AT&T and Apple today announced that the iPhone 3G will be available in
the
> U.S on July 11. iPhone 3G combines three products into one small,
> lightweight device: a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod, and
it
> puts the Internet in your pocket with the best e-mail, web browsing,
search
> and maps applications ever on a mobile phone."
>
> They don't sell products to the store managers....
Sure they do. They don't call it a "Compane Line" for nothing! ;-)
The memo looked and sounded perfectly legit to me...
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
news:apony-E97E8D.17570108072008@news.qwest.net...
>> That's the way it used to work with the old iPhone with its unsubsidized
>> price. Since the price of the new iPhone is now subsidized by the
>> contract
>> it seems likely that Apple won't be letting you out of their store with
>> a new $200 phone without having done the paper work and credit check
>> required to sign you up for a contract.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see how that works out. The idea of giving
>> someone in an Apple store my SSN is unappealing to me for reasons that
>> probably aren't rational.
>
> i fully agree... it's the neanderthal, "price fixing" cell industry that
> is in error... not apple, not the iphone, nor or any rational person.
Since the iPhone is the ONLY device in AT&T's arsenal that requires a
two-year contract to purchase it, I'd say Apple is as guilty as anyone here.
Any other AT&T-sold device can be bought cash-n-carry (at unsubsidized
price), put on a one-year contract (in return for a smaller subsidy),
activated month-to-month, or put on prepaid service. Only the iPhone
REQUIRES a two-year deal, apparently.
> if you buy a "computer" you don't need to PAY for a contract to connect
> to the internet... so the IDEA of paying for a 2 year contract is
> COMPLETELY out of line, unethical and simply won't stand...
But you COULD- People PC and AOL both offered PC price subsidies back in
their day. Like with most cellphones, it was OPTIONAL- the customer could
take advantage of the subsidy if they chose.
> it's criminal... since prices aren't dropping year to year in line with
> normal technology trends.
Sure they are; normal technology trends are that new technology items are
high priced, then drop until a natural "bottom" is found, then that low-end
becomes more featured rather than continuing to drop in price. Cellular has
been around nearly THREE DECADES. Wholesale cost has bottomed out at about
$30-40, and those low-end handsets get better and more featured every year-
those $30 handsets are a tenth of the size and weight, and have far more
features, than my circa-1987 Tandy CT-350, which wholesaled for $800.
That's right in line, trend-wise, with "mature" technology products like TVs
and VCRs. VCRs are four decades old, yet they still cost $30-40- they hit
"bottom" years ago.
> the entire cell industry is "corrupt" but I sure you know that...
Oh, please. It's a business like any other. You could argue that fast food
is also "corrupt" and "price fixed." Everyone's value menu seems
coincidentally "fixed" a $1 per item, and a chain's "signature" sandwich
runs about $3 from any of them, regardless of who sells it or what's in it.
A competitive marketplace tends to resemble "price fixing" since the
low-cost leader sets the bar, and everyone else decides how close to that
bar they are willing or able to go. If one grocery store sells a loaf of
Wonderbread for $1.99, the others can't get $5 for it. When they all end up
at or near $2, it's not price-fixing, it's competition!
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:080720081913110593%nospam@nospam.invalid:
>> Come on....OPEN YOUR EYES! This "secret memo" is a SPAM! They don't
>> send spams to themselves!
>
> if you think it's bogus, then why not call or visit an apple or at&t
> store and find out what the policy is for purchasing, cancelling and
> returning an iphone. report back with what you find.
>
>
Has Apple filed suit against Gizmodo for posting this secret document,
company proprietary stuff they always sue over?
NO, they have not.
Has Apple threatened them with a lawsuit if they don't remove it from the
website, as they have others?
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:g519d2$mi1$1
@aioe.org:
> That's up to AT&T to define- not you, I or even the NY AG, as long as the
> terms and restrictions are clearly spelled out to users.
> Verizon was slapped by the AG for calling 5GB "unlimited"- not for
> restricting the definition of "data" to web and e-mail.
>
>
>
Nope, it is not. It is up to the Attorney General of the State of
NY.....and the courts, if necessary, not me. This isn't about me....This
is about ATT doing the same shitty advertising as Verizon Wireless....
In article <Xns9AD5F22FA7D19noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry
<noone@home.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:080720081913110593%nospam@nospam.invalid:
>
> >> Come on....OPEN YOUR EYES! This "secret memo" is a SPAM! They don't
> >> send spams to themselves!
> >
> > if you think it's bogus, then why not call or visit an apple or at&t
> > store and find out what the policy is for purchasing, cancelling and
> > returning an iphone. report back with what you find.
>
> Has Apple filed suit against Gizmodo for posting this secret document,
> company proprietary stuff they always sue over?
>
> NO, they have not.
it's at&t confidential information, not apple confidential information,
so it's not for apple to sue.
> Has Apple threatened them with a lawsuit if they don't remove it from the
> website, as they have others?
>
> NO, they have not.
which other websites has apple sued to have the at&t memo removed?
> Ask yourself why.....
as i mentioned, it's an at&t memo to its stores so apple isn't
involved. if anything, it's for at&t to find out who leaked it and
take appropriate action, should they decide to do so. also,
journalists are not liable for reporting news, even if someone *else*
violated an agreement.
it's also all over the net. who is to say that gizmodo isn't reporting
it after having read it elsewhere? whom do they sue first?
> > That's up to AT&T to define- not you, I or even the NY AG, as long as
> > the terms and restrictions are clearly spelled out to users.
> > Verizon was slapped by the AG for calling 5GB "unlimited"- not for
> > restricting the definition of "data" to web and e-mail.
> >
>
> Nope, it is not. It is up to the Attorney General of the State of
> NY.....and the courts, if necessary, not me. This isn't about me....This
> is about ATT doing the same shitty advertising as Verizon Wireless....
>
> Unlimited has been defined and THIS AIN'T IT!
How has the NY AG defined "unlimited" differently than AT&T? Again, they
went after Verizon for capping a plan advertised as "unlimited" at 5GB. As
I said, there is no transfer limit on AT&T's on-phone data plans, only
tethered plans, which AT&T does NOT describe as "unlimited."
Re: I Phone? 
Linear Mode
