3 ms·
Apple had to develop a process to unlock iPhones when they started selling internationally. Not permitting it in the USA, when unlocking phones after a period o
by Sidnicious 16y ago
Apple had to develop a process to unlock iPhones when they started selling internationally. Not permitting it in the USA, when unlocking phones after a period of time is the standard, is not lack of innovation, it's a step back.
Providing no way to install applications outside the App Store (and actively working to stop jailbreaking), while rejecting applications that compete with Apple or AT&T (Google Voice, Grooveshark, Podcaster, MailWrangler, etc.)? That's a great way to present like a monopoly, regardless of whether Apple is one at this time.
- xenophanes 16y agoThe app store is a feature, not a bug. Or maybe I and Apple are wrong, but why should it be illegal to make a product the way you think is best? If Apple's doing it wrong, someone else can outcompete them. Apple thinks a free-for-all app store would make the product worse. Smart people take both sides of the issue. Why should the courts get involved? As for locking, yeah it sucks. Presumably it's AT&T's idea since it doesn't benefit Apple. But anyway, if you don't like it, don't buy it. You knew what you were signing up for. It's not like Apple has a monopoly on cell phones. Again I don't see any place in this for the legal system.
- dablya 16y agoThey are arguing that in fact people did NOT know what they were getting into. People were signing up for 2 year contracts with AT&T while Apple had a 5 year exclusivity contract with AT&T. Meaning people were locking themselves into 5 year commitments without realizing it.