| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
languistic
Joined: 25 Nov 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
What a joke. If people didn't like iPhones, then they wouldn't buy them. And they aren't a monopoly because there are competitors. At least three!
Even if Apple were a monopoly, there is no way in a million years this would benefit the consumer.
What a crass disgusting joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
languistic
Joined: 25 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
What a joke. If people didn't like iPhones, then they wouldn't buy them. And they aren't a monopoly because there are competitors. At least three!
Even if Apple were a monopoly, there is no way in a million years this would benefit the consumer.
What a crass disgusting joke. |
"Crass, disgusting"? Your iphone owns you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gaber
Joined: 23 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| languistic wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
What a joke. If people didn't like iPhones, then they wouldn't buy them. And they aren't a monopoly because there are competitors. At least three!
Even if Apple were a monopoly, there is no way in a million years this would benefit the consumer.
What a crass disgusting joke. |
"Crass, disgusting"? Your iphone owns you. |
Did seem a little ... melodramatic. The fact that AT&T is being named as a co-defendant seems makes it seem like they're more interested in opening the thing up to other carriers. Definite possibility for consumer benefit there - better coverage and competitive pricing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't own an iPhone. I just find this sort of stuff distasteful. They are being punished for being successful. How could they be a monopoly? There are competitors to the iPhone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They aren't being punished for being successful. The lawsuit has nothing to do with how popular iPhones are (beyond, perhaps, the fact that iPhones being popular made the lawsuit more likely), or iPhones monpolizing the cell phone market. It has to do with Apple restricting people who purchase an iPhone to utilizing a certain service provider (AT&T) for a longer duration than they were lead to believe on purchase.
Here's the basics of it:
| Quote: |
| Here's the deal: an ongoing California class-action lawsuit filed in 2007 claims that Apple and AT&T illegally exerted a monopoly over iPhone service by telling customers the iPhone's required service contract was two years long when the Apple / AT&T exclusivity deal was actually for five years -- thus requiring buyers to re-up with AT&T for three years (and not, say, T-Mobile) if they wanted to keep using the iPhone. |
This is deceptive practice and should be rightly illegal. Why are you supporting Apple and AT&T deceiving consumers in violation of the law? They were lead to believe that buying the iPhone would require them to do business with AT&T for 2 years, not 5. Why do you feel that the courts protecting consumers in this case hurts consumers? Courts mandating that after the intial, agreed-upon 2 years passed customers must be able to be allowed to choose their own carrier would increase competition, lower prices, and help consumers.
Deceptive business practices are not okay, and they are not something consumers should just be expected to shrug off and learn a lesson from. They should be actively responded to by the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
They aren't being punished for being successful. The lawsuit has nothing to do with how popular iPhones are (beyond, perhaps, the fact that iPhones being popular made the lawsuit more likely), or iPhones monpolizing the cell phone market. It has to do with Apple restricting people who purchase an iPhone to utilizing a certain service provider (AT&T) for a longer duration than they were lead to believe on purchase.
Here's the basics of it:
| Quote: |
| Here's the deal: an ongoing California class-action lawsuit filed in 2007 claims that Apple and AT&T illegally exerted a monopoly over iPhone service by telling customers the iPhone's required service contract was two years long when the Apple / AT&T exclusivity deal was actually for five years -- thus requiring buyers to re-up with AT&T for three years (and not, say, T-Mobile) if they wanted to keep using the iPhone. |
This is deceptive practice and should be rightly illegal. Why are you supporting Apple and AT&T deceiving consumers in violation of the law? They were lead to believe that buying the iPhone would require them to do business with AT&T for 2 years, not 5. Why do you feel that the courts protecting consumers in this case hurts consumers? Courts mandating that after the intial, agreed-upon 2 years passed customers must be able to be allowed to choose their own carrier would increase competition, lower prices, and help consumers.
Deceptive business practices are not okay, and they are not something consumers should just be expected to shrug off and learn a lesson from. They should be actively responded to by the law. |
Couldn't agree more. I probably flew off the handles without knowing the facts of the case. But, this isn't a monopoly case, and Apple can do what ever it wants with its products. "Lock" them. Restrict access to others. Restrict apps. Whatever.
| Quote: |
| An amended complaint filed in June 2008 takes issue with Apple's practice of "locking" iPhones so they can only be used on AT&T's network, and its absolute control over what applications iPhone owners can and cannot install on the gadgets. |
This seems like a simple false advertising case. Certainly deceptive business practice. What does monopoly have to do with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I assume the word monopoly was used because Apple's deceptive practices relate to their granting of a monopoly on carrier service to AT&T. From a legal perspective, this might make it a more severe violation of the law (or a violation of more laws than it otherwise would have been), I really don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ulsanchris
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: take a wild guess
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| An amended complaint filed in June 2008 takes issue with Apple's practice of "locking" iPhones so they can only be used on AT&T's network, and its absolute control over what applications iPhone owners can and cannot install on the gadgets. |
This is what really gets me. Imagine if Apple and other vendors had this policy for their computers. This is a complete joke and wonder why anyone would think this is a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ulsanchris wrote: |
| Quote: |
| An amended complaint filed in June 2008 takes issue with Apple's practice of "locking" iPhones so they can only be used on AT&T's network, and its absolute control over what applications iPhone owners can and cannot install on the gadgets. |
This is what really gets me. Imagine if Apple and other vendors had this policy for their computers. This is a complete joke and wonder why anyone would think this is a good idea. |
People continue to buy the product. If you don't like it you don't have to buy it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
People continue to buy the product. If you don't like it you don't have to buy it. |
Actually, that is not always the case. There are many cases where you don't like the product but you HAVE to buy it.
Just an example off the top of my head would be bottled water in a disaster area. Someone who doesn't like Dasani Water may have no choice in the matter in buying it because there is no alternative.
Gasoline is another example. Many of us hate oil companies and how they've been getting record profits despite Americans paying up the wazoo for gas. However, people need the gasoline for their livelihood. I don't like Exxon, but I gotta buy it if I am to go to work and make money.
How about someone who needs a pacemaker to live, and the company that makes the pacemaker they WANT hasn't been approved in the US? The only option is to buy company XYZ. The man doesn't like company XYZ, and yet he doesn't have any choice in the matter in getting it.
You don't like it, then don't buy it is not applicable. Especially in courts where it IS possible to sue a company for monopolistic practices, even though said company had no intention of being a monopoly.
Business is fascinating. I love it.
EDIT
Another example is Cable/TV provider. In Richmond, Virginia the only provider was Comcast. There was no choice. People who hated Comcast could not use Adelphia. Time/Warner, or any other provider. Highspeed internet was also only available through Comcast cable internet. What do you suggest consumers in Richmond do? Just not buy Comcast and use 56k modem connections? Some businesses NEED high speed internet connections in order to DO business.
(Eventually, after much complaining, Verizon FiOS came in which then gave consumers a choice). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
People continue to buy the product. If you don't like it you don't have to buy it. |
Actually, that is not always the case. There are many cases where you don't like the product but you HAVE to buy it.
|
Well, we were talking about iPhones, but, OK, I'll bite.
| Quote: |
| Just an example off the top of my head would be bottled water in a disaster area. Someone who doesn't like Dasani Water may have no choice in the matter in buying it because there is no alternative. |
Who are you going to sue though? Hardly analogous to iPhones.
That is what you are doing, I assume? Trying to justify suing Apple for "Monopoly?
| Quote: |
| Gasoline is another example. Many of us hate oil companies and how they've been getting record profits despite Americans paying up the wazoo for gas. However, people need the gasoline for their livelihood. I don't like Exxon, but I gotta buy it if I am to go to work and make money. |
The oil companies are a cartel aided and abetted by congress and the presidency. Cut out the corporatism and you get more competition, and lower prices.
| Quote: |
| How about someone who needs a pacemaker to live, and the company that makes the pacemaker they WANT hasn't been approved in the US? The only option is to buy company XYZ. The man doesn't like company XYZ, and yet he doesn't have any choice in the matter in getting it. |
Govt mandated monopoly. Always evil. I 100% agree with you.
| Quote: |
| You don't like it, then don't buy it is not applicable. Especially in courts where it IS possible to sue a company for monopolistic practices, even though said company had no intention of being a monopoly. |
Which is evil. A court should only convict if there is harm done. Where is the harm here? Apple actually creates immense value for millions of people. Why should they be punished for that?
| Quote: |
| Business is fascinating. I love it. |
It is.
| Quote: |
EDIT
Another example is Cable/TV provider. In Richmond, Virginia the only provider was Comcast. There was no choice. People who hated Comcast could not use Adelphia. Time/Warner, or any other provider. Highspeed internet was also only available through Comcast cable internet. What do you suggest consumers in Richmond do? Just not buy Comcast and use 56k modem connections? Some businesses NEED high speed internet connections in order to DO business. |
That is a bad situation. What was stopping another provider from stepping in? Lack of competition doesn't always indicate monopoly. Simply no other company saw it as profitable to provide a service in that area. What do you suggest the answer to this problem is?
| Quote: |
| (Eventually, after much complaining, Verizon FiOS came in which then gave consumers a choice). |
They probably saw that they could make some cash offering a better service or lower price. Suing Comcast's ass would never have solved the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ulsanchris wrote: |
This is what really gets me. Imagine if Apple and other vendors had this policy for their computers. This is a complete joke and wonder why anyone would think this is a good idea. |
If such a policy was extended to PC software, you'd be talking about Microsoft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
languistic
Joined: 25 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by languistic on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buildbyflying
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: To your right. No, your other right.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Earlier someone asked how Apple and ATT could be held to monopoly laws.
Considering how T-Mobile is likely going under because the extra muscle ATT got from Apple only leaves room for three carriers in the entire US, I would argue that monopoly rules should apply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
