In article <ne8h95-a06.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Sinister Midget <fardblossom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2008-02-27, alt <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:46:38 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >
> >> Democratic bill could force Apple, AT&T to unlock iPhone
>
> > I still say that the best thing one could do is to completely shun the
> > iPhone. If Apple doesn't want to sell an unlocked iPhone, then I don't
> > want to buy an iPhone.
>
> That /is/ the best way. I wouldn't waste my money, even if it didn't
> have strike two against it for being tied to ATT.
What you completely overlook is that Apple offered the iPhone to other
carriers, and they rejected it. Only AT&T was willing to allow it, in
exchange for it being an exclusive for a few years.
The other thing you are overlooking is that locked phones are the norm
in the US market for all major carriers. Every major phone manufacturer
has models that are only available for certain carriers.
So, essentially what you are arguing is that Apple and AT&T should be
singled out and required to play by a different set of rules than the
other phone makers and carriers. That doesn't seem very fair, does it?
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
