Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Should Apple be sued over false advertising?
tgdaily.com — Yes, I am in. Suing for $75 million. Or wait, maybe that is a bit low. Let's make that $100 million. Just in case. Looks like a really dumb move on Apple's part.
PeterNorton- 260 diggs
- digg it
- Vernicious, on 07/08/2008, -9/+24Everyone knows the hidden cost, or at least everyone on digg. This is bull crap though, their tomfoolery. Don't be hoodwinked by their shenanigans.
- RyomaNagare, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1what I don't get, maybe because I'm from another country, with really expensive cellphone plans is this. Here every phone you purchase has an associated cost with its use, so if I buy a prepaid phone, I have to pay X money, and then for making calls, I have to pay Y monthly in prepaid cards, thats usually not really cheaper than a contract.
In the same way the iphone 4g plan is 10 dollars more expensive than its predecessor, I have yet to see a serious calculation of the total cost, considering an actualization of future cost to present time, discounting the interest rate, that would give an accurate cost of the device after 2 years, and comparing that older model, that came out 1 year ago, even with its cheaper plan, I'm willing to bet its not really that much more expensive, especially because money today is more valuable than money in the future.
its just basic economy 101 reasoning.- RyomaNagare, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Bury the above comment, what I meant is this:
What I don't get is that the difference in price is only relevant to the ∂ of owning another cellphone with the same amount of minutes and and comparable data plan.
since every single phone has an associated cost, those charts that rate the cost of the iphone at US$3000 or US$4000 are at best inaccurate.
The iphone 3g's plan is 10 dollars more expensive than its predecessor.
I have yet to see a serious calculation of the total price, considering an actualization of future costs to present time, discounting the interest rate, that would give an accurate assessment of the device's price after 2 years.
Comparing that to the older model, that came out 1 year ago, even with its cheaper plan, I'm willing to bet its not really that much more expensive, especially because money yesterday is more expensive than todays which in turn is worth more than money in the future.
This is especially relevant in a high inflation scenario. - theratster, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Especially if you live in the US, where the value of the US dollar is DROPPING, so you would also have to add that into the value of the calculation. That would make the dollar yesterday worth even more than just a difference in interest and inflation.
- RyomaNagare, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Bury the above comment, what I meant is this:
- idavidtang, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1What's with all the country-folk terms?
- geometry, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1If Chevrolet cut the cost of the 2009 Corvette from say $60k to $30k from that of the 2008 would anybody have a problem with them advertising that it's now half the cost? I think everybody would agree that it's okay to make such a statement.
But if you apply the same logic as you guys are attempting to do to the iPhone you would have to take into consideration the rising costs of gas and auto insurance. Gas is now probably around 150% of the cost last year and auto insurance is probably around 110%. Would you argue that Chevrolet was using false advertising?- sancho, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0That certainly wouldn't be reasonable, unless Chevy were making deals with the gasoline companies. With cell phones in the US, the carrier and the phone are entwined. Apple and AT&T work together to come up with a price point for both the device and the service plans.
Further, you are CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to pay that extra money. With Chevy, once you buy the car, you can choose not to drive it. You can modify it so that you can drive it on more efficient fuel, or you can take it to another country where gasoline is cheaper (hah!) With the iPhone... you're stuck. You're legally obliged to pay well over "half" the cost of the previous iPhone.
- sancho, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0That certainly wouldn't be reasonable, unless Chevy were making deals with the gasoline companies. With cell phones in the US, the carrier and the phone are entwined. Apple and AT&T work together to come up with a price point for both the device and the service plans.
- Konstantino, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1The plans aren't Apple's business, so I don't see how it's really false advertising on their part. AT&T and the other carriers determine the pricing for the plans and it's not Apple's job to advertise that.
- RyomaNagare, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1what I don't get, maybe because I'm from another country, with really expensive cellphone plans is this. Here every phone you purchase has an associated cost with its use, so if I buy a prepaid phone, I have to pay X money, and then for making calls, I have to pay Y monthly in prepaid cards, thats usually not really cheaper than a contract.
- stresslife, on 07/08/2008, -9/+11Actually, I don't agree with you. "Everyone knows hidden costs?" There is a reason why those disclaimers are put on ads for the service. Back in my home country, we don't want an iPhone. We're happy with $25/mth for unlimited data plan where ever you are in the world. Only culprit is - you have to pay 250-350 USD for a Blackberry.
- chemokid, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Wow! What country is that?? And what's the immigration policy like?
- stealthspc, on 07/09/2008, -7/+34It's not false advertising. The phone *does* cost $199. The claim wont hold up in court, they'll just laugh at you.
Sure AT&T raised the plan $10, but the way I see it, you'll be using 3G which means you'll use more data. So I thing the $10 is justified.- jo21, on 07/10/2008, -9/+210*24
240 that could help you someday.
199+240- iplen, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1ur retarded. go home.
- CheatRZ, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Not only that, but the article is arguing that the pricing shouldn't be "just about the hardware".
Apple is selling you their hardware at half the price, that bit holds true as it's Apple's ad. They're not in charge of the pricing from the service providers. - jhop, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1That is true, but ATT doesn't tie the $10 bump to the 3G. They tie it to the iPhone. I have unlimited 3G data on a 3G phone and I pay $20/month. If I could get an un-bricked iPhone somehow, and put my sim card in it, I'm pretty sure I could surf away at $20/month.
Oh yeah, Apple's not falsely advertising their product either.- jbella, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1What 3G phone do you have? When I was looking at the prices it seemed like AT&T was charging $30 for all it's PDA / Smartphones.
- djadamjay, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1the $10 extra for 3G isn't an iPhone exclusive cost.
every 3G phone in AT&T's lineup has the same data cost.
i don't think its false advertising. If anything, the fact that it raises the question is brilliant advertising. Because here we are, reading and debating some idiot's claim that Apple could be sued.
Apple Apple Apple... all ***** day long on digg. and its only going to get worse as the week continues. Anyone who thinks that type of buzz is anything less than brilliant (from a sheer corporate standpoint) and won't translate into more iPhones sold is not looking at the real picture here.
Apple does what they want and everyone talks about it. No one else can do that. That is brilliant.- jhop, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Uhh... sorry. Not true. $15/ month is the lowest 3G data plan on ATT. $35/month includes unlimited SMS, MMS, etc...
Now, these are branded as "Media Net" or some such *****, but I've been using Media Net since, like 2003, and I use it to get my laptop online through bluetooth.
- jhop, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Uhh... sorry. Not true. $15/ month is the lowest 3G data plan on ATT. $35/month includes unlimited SMS, MMS, etc...
- slinky317, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, this is true. The phone itself costs as much as Apple says it does.
However, no matter if your case can go to court or not, if it looks like there's a large enough crowd to get bad press Apple (and any company for that matter) will settle before it would even get to court. - PunkRampant, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, the phone ISN'T $199 depending on what kind of customer you are.
From http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=ne ...
$199 price available to the following customers:
* iPhone customers who purchased before July 11
* Customers activating a new line with AT&T
* Current AT&T customers who are eligible, at the time of purchase, for an upgrade discount
Everyone else, including most people who already have AT&T and are buying their first iPhone, will have to pay $399 for the device.- leontes, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Everyone else, including? Who else beside those "who already have AT&T and are buying their first iPhone" would have to pay 399?
- matters5, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3This is the lamest *****. I can't believe it got popular.
- jo21, on 07/10/2008, -9/+210*24
- liuping, on 07/09/2008, -6/+83We should sue the automobile manufactures as well. My car is useless without Gasoline, which has gone up 100% in the last year. Therefore, the price of my car is not $24999+tax any more...
- PeterNorton, on 07/09/2008, -15/+4Yes, but you don't have to subscribe to one gas station either. I actually agree that the iPhone and the service make up the iPhone as it is sold - as a cellphone. I actually should be talking to my lawyer tomorrow how much you can squeeze out of Apple for this claim.
- Lukesed, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6Wow, you totally shut him down. I bet he forgot about all of the alternate cheap gas stations.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4You're forced to subscribe to EVERY gas station essentially. It doesn't matter which one you use, but you MUST use at least one of them.
- rft3rd, on 07/10/2008, -8/+1WTF do you live that gas was 2 bucks a gallon last year? Truth you say, Start with your comments!
- neonfunk, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1and besides, who (except someone with a ludicrous amount of money) would buy a phone without looking at the service plans? nobody is getting "hoodwinked" -- in fact, they're signing an explicit contract. to argue otherwise, you're either looking to "nail" apple, or you're irresponsible with money.
if anything, there ought to be a lot less suing in the world... - artfuldodga, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Its up to you how much you waste in fuel with any vehicle, or how much a vehicle you buy is going to cost...
- PeterNorton, on 07/09/2008, -15/+4Yes, but you don't have to subscribe to one gas station either. I actually agree that the iPhone and the service make up the iPhone as it is sold - as a cellphone. I actually should be talking to my lawyer tomorrow how much you can squeeze out of Apple for this claim.
- t4stringer, on 07/09/2008, -1/+16its not false, like stealth said, the phone does cost that much they dont say the phone+service= half the price
- Matrixsjd, on 07/09/2008, -3/+15You know what, people like you bitched last year when the phone wasn't subsidized, and guess what? it is now, and obviously they're going to make up for it somehow. You would get laughed out of court in a second. This isn't a false claim at all. The hardware itself is half the price. Get over it. If you don't like it, it's not the only handset around.
- MarkusX, on 07/09/2008, -15/+9Since Apple creates a monopoly by exclusively letting AT&T sell the iPhone in the USA, the price for the product is not only the price for the hardware, it is the price for the hardware and the service.
The claim is "Twice the speed for half the price", but how can you experience the speed if you don't have any service. No service, no speed. If you want the promised speed (or a working iPhone anyway), you have to buy the service plan. Since AT&T forces you to buy the service plan, it automatically becomes a necessary part of the whole claim.
The future option of getting an unlocked iPhone for 1.5 times the old price, doesn't fulfill the claim either, obviously.
So, in short: Yes, it is false advertising.
And to those, saying that AT&T has always had these plans, nobody complained before, why now? I have to say: Better late than never!- cadmiumpaint, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2apple never created a monopoly on anything. the iPhone is a particular model of smart phone. there are a few dozen other smart phones on the market from every major manufacturer.
why don't you sue Porsche for creating a monopoly on 911's? - ijake, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word monopoly.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2apple never created a monopoly on anything. the iPhone is a particular model of smart phone. there are a few dozen other smart phones on the market from every major manufacturer.
- macmangb, on 07/09/2008, -14/+17buried for PC fanboy whine!
- slinky317, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Not so much PC fanboy as Apple antiboy. I hate Apple and their overpriced, underpowered proprietary *****. Give me Ubuntu as an alternative to Windows any day of the week - I actually have it on my laptop and love it.
- Trammel, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1LOL.
"It is an accurate description of the PC experience so I don't know why you are complaining. Can't take a joke? Hurts because it's the truth?"
Decided to rear your ugly head again?
"PC fanboy"
GOLDEN.
- ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -1/+20I'll keep it short & sweet -- if you're looking to point fingers, look towards AT&T. Apple cannot be sued for this ad since most consumers know this product's pricing by now.
- jamesfaction, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Shorter and sweeter: Apple can share the blame for tying their customers to AT&T.
- PeterNorton, on 07/09/2008, -13/+5Kinda fascinating how Apple is defended no matter what it does. As said above, I think it is a clear violation of law. It is just a matter of time until Apple will be sued and I think this one will get expensive.
- DeadSociety, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I was thinking the exact same thing, even as I write this your comment is being buried, interesting.
Imagine if the article was "Should microsoft be sued over false advertising?" - iplen, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Quit whining, if you don't like it, don't buy it! dumbass!
- PeterNorton, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1So companies can violate the law as they like in your mind?
- DeadSociety, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I was thinking the exact same thing, even as I write this your comment is being buried, interesting.
- diggymow, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6This wouldn't be legal in Australia. In Australia you can't advertise a product price like that (iphone 3G) if it requires another product to use (AT&T contract). You would have to clarify the point. So because the total cost with the contract is more it is false advertising. Just saying 'Well most people who want an iphone get it anyway' doesn't actually cut it.
- jasmus, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1was just thinking that. There are optus plans here that will give you the phone for free, but you know you're paying for it included in that plan. Apple and AT&T can only have a monopoly because no one is there to tell them they can't. Sometimes the Accc gets it right, like with the iPhone. They told apple they aren't allowed to give it to just one carrier.
Also, I agree with a post above that said these people are probably the same people that bitched about not having a subsidized iphone last time.
- jasmus, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1was just thinking that. There are optus plans here that will give you the phone for free, but you know you're paying for it included in that plan. Apple and AT&T can only have a monopoly because no one is there to tell them they can't. Sometimes the Accc gets it right, like with the iPhone. They told apple they aren't allowed to give it to just one carrier.
- fluidfoundation, on 07/09/2008, -6/+3Wow.... slow blog day.
- dpowre, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7well it doesnt say twice the speed FOR half the price...its two separate statements.
- dpowre, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3at&t has an asterisk on their site http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/spe ...
- MarkusX, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Yeah, well, ... I think the asterisk needs to be sued!
There has to be put a stop to this.
Countless people already got ripped off by this character?
NO asterisks!
- MarkusX, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Yeah, well, ... I think the asterisk needs to be sued!
- haentz, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5It's as honest as every other ad...
- PeterNorton, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4just checked the asterisk: it says "*Qualified customers only. Two-year contract required." It just does not make much sense.
- ccchapman, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3Except Apple makes zero revenue from the monthly fees. So from their side, it is a cheaper phone. The carriers are the ones charging more for the monthly data fees. But it makes sense for the increase price. You are upgrading to the faster 3G network. Would you expect to pay the same monthly fee for high speed cable that you did for dial-up?? Probably not, so quit complaining people.
- invasi0n, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind ...
In the UK, Apple receives a share of revenues from calls made on iPhones. Probably they receive a share from ATT too, but who knows?
BTW... Why they did not just sell the iPhone unlocked? They could have sell it just like the iPod.- ccchapman, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1That was true about the agreement between AT&T and Apple for the first gen iPhone. Apple did receive a portion of the monthly fees. However the new agreement for the iPhone 3G has eliminated that. Apple receives zero percentage of the monthly fees from AT&T. Although, it is rumored that AT&T is paying Apple upwards of $360 USD per iPhone they sell.
Not as familiar with any of the international deals but from what I have heard is that Apple has adopted a more traditional agreement with the carriers, like mentioned above, and have decided to make up the extra revenue on the quantity of units sold. But, I could be completely mistaken on that.
- ccchapman, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1That was true about the agreement between AT&T and Apple for the first gen iPhone. Apple did receive a portion of the monthly fees. However the new agreement for the iPhone 3G has eliminated that. Apple receives zero percentage of the monthly fees from AT&T. Although, it is rumored that AT&T is paying Apple upwards of $360 USD per iPhone they sell.
- jo21, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1wrong.
the whole world its getting 3g now, the update was done in many countries years ago.
for such devices, that lack basic functions any - slinky317, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1If you don't think Apple is making money off of the amount of iPhone subscribers to AT&T (even on the backend), you're either ignorant, delusional, or both.
- invasi0n, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind ...
- JoeBaynham, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3No you shouldn't sue Apple, it's not Apple's fault AT&T put the price up, in other countries the iPhone and its price plan has gotten cheaper so at heart this is AT&T's fault. By saying half the price Apple mean the upfront price.
- username7410, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5Who cares? Some guy with a ***** blog apparently.
- choopie911, on 07/10/2008, -2/+11They are advertising the hardware, nothing else. Stop bitching, if you're too stupid to figure out the eventual cost, then tough *****.
Do car manufacturers have to advertise how much the car will cost in fuel per year for the average person? No.- quizzy, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0it's not half the price for me - a current at&t customer without the 'equipment upgrade' privilege - even though I have to renew my existing family plan with the contract for 2 years. this is predatory. like pedobear creepy, when you throw wiretapping immunity into the mix.
- ijake, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4The phone has the ability to be faster than the first generation and Apple sells it for half the price of the original. Why can't people get it through there thick skulls that Apple has nothing to do with what carriers decide to charge for service.
This is a prime example of people just trying to find something else to hate Apple for.- jamesfaction, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1You CAN'T GET the phone at that price without the service. You must get it with a two-year AT&T contract. So they are NOT separate and it makes perfect sense to look at both because it is a PACKAGE DEAL.
- JFallon126, on 07/10/2008, -3/+7Um...this is stupid. Apple is selling the iPhone NOT the service. As far as Apple is concerned they are selling their 3G enabled phone (twice the speed) for 200 bucks compared to 400 (half the price). Not only tempest in a teapot but his argument just doesn't hold up. Buried.
- uggidi, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4why not just make it a combo deal and sue both Apple and AT&T ?!
- daines88, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6What a whiney bitch, the iPhone is Apple's product 199 is in fact half of 399. The plans are AT&T's product, and they are in no way advertising them being cheaper. Buried.
- judicar, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Somehow I find it doubtful that a jury will find the plaintiff's argument of "yeah right" very convincing.
- Nysul, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6You're the reason every product has warning labels.
- artfuldodga, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Without a doubt, Apple needs to be sued for its lies
- vovka3, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Maybe we should sue YOU! for ***** servers!
- digjam, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1So can we sue ATT then? I m in...
- MrKrinkleDude, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Well, Steve Jobs did say "maximum, $199" as the price of the iPhone 8GB. There was no "fine print" or superimposed asterisks popping up during his WWDC speech.
That's all I got... whatever. I'm just going to be using the current Gen iPhone, no plans to upgrade for another year or two. - LoudMusic, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1If you're going to sue Apple for false advertising why not start with the G4 ads proclaiming "More powerful than a supercomputer". They were referencing supercomputer statistics that were about 20 years old.
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1what an idiot. bury weak ass articles like this plz.
- goph, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5who cares? the iPhone is a piece of ***** anyway.
an overpriced piece of *****.- SupaDawg, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Agreed. It's a nifty gimmick, but i'll take a blackberry thanks.
It was quite a chunk of false advertising. Should have announced it at the actual retail pricing and left it up to the various service providers to handle the usual contractual hardware subsidy.
- SupaDawg, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Agreed. It's a nifty gimmick, but i'll take a blackberry thanks.
- iplen, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1You're a ***** ass. Not only are you taking advantage of the privilege we have as Americans (to sue in a court of law), but also being really gay about it. What did Apple do to you? Did you lose money from just looking at the advertisements? Are people with iPhones just 'too cool' for you? Advertisements are just that, advertisements. Don't be a little bitchass and suck it up if you don't like it.
- rambamslam, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Wolfgang Gruener needs "IDIOT" written on his forehead.
- dontwhine, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2im gonna bitch about a cell phone and all the idiots on digg will think im sooooooo cool. what a *****
- CobolNoFun, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0it is half the price, ATT is picking up the other half for you when buy the phone.
Why are there so many sandy vaginas surrounding the IPhone? Ohh they lowered the price after i bought one? oh noes is so expensive? I cant do math, wah wah wah. Jebus would be mad. - Hax0rJimDuggan, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Would you like some cheese with your Whine?
- jhonizzle, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2it is half the cost.... with the subsidized price. it's an up hill battle that you won't win. just because they don't say
"half the price...because of subsidizing" doesn't make it false advertising.
what about "you can buy this car" ads... if you don't have the money you really can't! ooohhh FALSE ADVERTISING because you don't meet the criteria. cry me a ***** river.
and no i'm not buying one. i prefer the "think different" era of apple - tomato1324, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2that train of thought would mean you have to sue just about every other cell phone maker in the industry, as well, to be fair.
- sevenslashfour, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1That...that was a joke, right? Please tell me that was a joke. My...my brain hurts after reading that stupidity...
- yodinosaur, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5site is down - here's a text mirror
FTA:
"[Sensationalist introduction sentence]. [Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine]. [Overdramatic summary with questionable reasoning]."
you're welcome. - DeadSociety, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Its actually gotten to a stage where I think digg is parodying itself with this apple crap, seriously you must be mentally lacking. The only difference between apple and any other company is that they have a good public image, what the hell is wrong with you people?
No, I don't care for apple, No, I don't care for microsoft I don't give a ***** whether you run OSX, linux or windows. I don't give a ***** whether you a have a WII, PS3 or Xbox 360!
STOP DEFENDING THESE COMPANIES! None of it actually matters!
GO OUTSIDE AND BREATH SOME FRESH AIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*assplodes* - jimmydurden, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0oh yes sue them....*****, what could be more important. take price of iphone add price of service...2+2=4 dummies....not exactly hard to see is it......***** the price of gas has gone up since i got my car....should i sue ford because the hunk of ***** is costing me more than the sticker price.....what the ***** is wrong with all you ***** and your complaining.....do not buy the ***** iphone....problem solved. besides the freaking thing isn't even out yet....no one's bought it....no one has been duped by the evil corporations yet.....just shut up.....
- cycac, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2A lot of people don't seem to understand the pricing structure for the new iPhone.
You can get it for $199/$299 if you are one of the following:
1. New AT&T customer
2. Current iPhone owner
3. Current AT&T customer that is eligible for an upgrade
Someone in my situation (doesn't own iPhone, AT&T customer, not eligible for upgrade) has to pay $399/$499 and renew for 2 years. Anyone else, buying w/o commitment will be $599/$699.
All of the pricing is here:
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/spe ...
In Jobs' keynote, all it said was $199...no disclaimers regarding customer status, contracts, etc. It was a bit misleading. - zazerh, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I just ordered mine (from a wireless reseller) and was surprised to learn that I had to pay sales tax on the original undiscounted price ($699 for 16GB model) before the discount is applied, so I get to pay what amounts to about 20% sales tax. She claimed this is true no matter where you buy your iPhone.
- denizb, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0What is outrageous is the fact that the FCC does nothing in the way of stopping this ridiculous business of buying a phone from a telco and locked for said telco. This is so far from the american way - ie Capitalism. In europe you buy your phone from anywhere, use it with any service. The result is very cheap and way better service.
So the real outrage here is that Sprint has an unlimited data/voice plan with unlimited text messages and an arguably faster network, for only $99. There is no unlimited plan with ATT. Why? Because they can, because Apple bent to ATT's demands and locked the phone up.
As much as I am a fan of Apple, own Apple Stock, various computers, Apple TV, iPod - I refuse to buy the iPhone because I hate ATT that much! And why should when I can make phone calls and go online and do GPS with a phone I buy from Sprint and only need to pay 100$/month.
I hope Google will make use of those airwaves they bought after TV went digital, to reform the cellular market in North America. - geometry, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1If Chevrolet cut the cost of the 2009 Corvette from say $60k to $30k from that of the 2008 would anybody have a problem with them advertising that it's now half the cost? I think everybody would agree that it's okay to make such a statement.
But if you apply the same logic as you guys are attempting to do to the iPhone you would have to take into consideration the rising costs of gas and auto insurance. Gas is now probably around 150% of the cost last year and auto insurance is probably around 110%. Would you argue that Chevrolet was using false advertising?
Just trying to be logical here- ViperDC, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Chevrolet doesn't force you to buy x amount of gas per month for 3 years in order to get this price. You would be free to leave this vehicle of yours parked wherever you pleased and not insure it.
The iPhone now costs more for more speed. Unfair? Not really. But to claim you're getting more for less is an absolute lie.
- ViperDC, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Chevrolet doesn't force you to buy x amount of gas per month for 3 years in order to get this price. You would be free to leave this vehicle of yours parked wherever you pleased and not insure it.
- jamesfaction, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1it's blatant false advertising, You cant get the phone at that price unless you sign up for AT&T's 2-year contract. It's the same old thing with every cellphone, get a new one for next to nothing - or in fact for free! - if you sign up for a long enough big enough contract. What Apple is doing with cellphones is nothing new, apart from the snazzy interface. That snazzy interface along with their sexy brand image is going to sell a lot devices though.
I don't care! Crackberry is going one better and giving their phones away to random business customers. I just got a free Crackberry yay! LOL. - ookees, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1The author of this post is an idiot.
This is typical advertising, especially for cell phones. Maybe you should go to college and take advertising or marketing. There is nothing wrong with their ad and there is nothing false about it. You need to realize that this is not an iPod its a phone, so there is nothing wrong with the ad.
If you go to this link: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/ ...
you can clearly see the * next to the same motto, and if you are smart you would see that it requires a 2 yr contract. This was just a lame attempt by you to gets hits on your blog by using digg. -
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by