supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| I thought AT&T had the iPhone for 5 Years?
Wouldn't that be kinda breaking the agreement by screwing over the one that helped you succeed in the first place?
I think Apple was stupid to allow only one cell co to have it in the first place but I'm sure Apple got big bucks for doing it. Apple makes all the money off the iPhone was basically the agreement. No wonder VZ Wireless didn't want the iPhone. "You want us to sell a phone that is forever linked to just iTunes? Nah, we'll pass."
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | AT&T has a 5-year exclusivity agreement for the iPhone. Assuming it covers future iterations, Apple shouldn't be allowed to use it on "their new network". |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | AT&T may want to check the fine print on that 5-year exclusivity deal. It may only apply to third parties, not Apple itself. |
|
lsj
@qwest.net | well couldn't they come out with a new device that wouldn't be under the agreement, or just rename it and change the case color |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | They could if they wanted to get sued by AT&T. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to lsj
said by lsj :
well couldn't they come out with a new device that wouldn't be under the agreement, or just rename it and change the case color
I hope Apple does. It'd be fun to watch that lawsuit.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
johnsawyercjs
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to supergirl
From what I've read, Apple went with ATT since the other cell companies wanted to control what the iPhone's user interface looked like--maybe some wanted a big logo on the opening screen. Apple wants all its products branded as Apple. As it is, there's a small ATT logo on the iPhone's screen.
But you're right, I think one of the other factors was that Apple wanted more control over sales of the iPhone, but probably only partly because it would make them more money--as with the iPhone interface, they wanted more control over the "buying experience". As it is, you can buy iPhones only in the bigger ATT stores, unless that's changed.
I like the comment in the article in which Apple says one of its concerns over participating in the bandwidth auction, is in fielding support calls from angry users when things don't "just work". This is partly because Apple has been sloppy about keeping its services, like .Mac, working properly, and has been going cheap on customer service by phone for some years, hiring too many people without good phone/social skills, technical knowledge, etc., since better employees cost more money. When they first farmed out support calls to India, the Phillipines, etc., support was pretty bad for a couple years, but these days, I sometimes find Apple support from overseas, better than when you reach someone in the US. If Apple would stop being cheap, shy, and resentful of customers who call with problems, and grow up and treat problems professionally, then maybe they'd find themselves with a company mindset that's better able to tackle more things that involve dealing with the public successfully than just selling boxes, like offering its own broadband access. |
|
