Apple and AT&T Sued, Again, Over 3G 230
Macworld is reporting that Apple and AT&T are being sued, again, for the lack of delivery on their 3G network. This follows a long line of other lawsuits in San Jose, San Diego, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and New York "The lawsuit charges the companies with Negligence, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Unjust Enrichment, Negligent Misrepresentation, Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Other Similar State Statutes, and Breach of Contract. Dickerson is seeking to force Apple and AT&T to correct its labeling and advertising, as well as to recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages."
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well they are forcing you to stick with them.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason blackberrys are more attractive to networks than the iPhone is because
I'm sorry, but I'm fairly certain that most other networks would be more than happy to get a share of the iPhone market. The customers may not be happy with the resulting performance! But the networks would have no problem adding an iPhone, and accompanying plan, to their offerings...
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they are.
They claim it does all this wonderful stuff, you buy it and it doesn't work as promised*.
You cant switch providers or get your money back.
In that enviroment suing is the only avenue a consumer has.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um.. yes, AT&T _IS_ forcing one to use their service. You remember that little thing called a contract?
Granted, nobody forced me to *choose* them, but once they are chosen - I'm locked in for two years!
But what happens when after 6 months or 1 year my service begins to suck? Have I no recourse?
I have no idea if this lawsuit has merit or not, but an attitude of 'don't like it, don't use it' is likely an oversimplification of the situation.
Re:Sue-Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
If they weren't locked into a contract, they wouldn't have to sue over it.
Most purchases can be returned when the product doesn't work as advertised. Usually this is because the store has a return policy to keep their customers happy, but some of the time it's the law.
In this case, there not only isn't a policy like that, there's a contract guaranteeing that you have to -continue- paying for it.
golden chariot with lame horse (Score:3, Insightful)
"Your chariot may be made of gold my friend, but your horse has a lame leg. My wooden cart and donkey aren't much to look at, but I get where I need to go every time", said the old man.
Re:3G iPhone not all it's cracked up to be? (Score:4, Insightful)
But it handles WiFi data just fine which is in most cases faster than 3G. I doubt the phone itself is the issue.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
EDGE is an extension of GPRS (which is an extension of GSM) that provides higher performance packet data on GSM (in this context, the air interface).
The data traffic - inlcuding authentication - travels over either GSM/EDGE or WCDMA until it is handed off from one to the other.
You do not "need" both GSM and WCDMA coverage at the same time to use data. Many devices can be set to use WCDMA only.
Contract (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Contract (Score:1, Insightful)
Umm no one put a gun to anyone's head and made them sign a contract. That actually IS against the law. In fact, contracts signed under duress are unenforceable. AT&T simply says here, you want this product from us, you must sign a contract. No force there, you are perfectly free to not purchase the product.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
Wonder what the shareholders with short time investment strategies would think of that.
Re:Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep they built their network for two users and now have 1000. This is not just the iPhone here. This happens with Verizon too and guess what they don't have it.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yup (Score:2, Insightful)
He is correct.
Re:Yup (Score:4, Insightful)
You need high speed on both ends (Score:3, Insightful)
After 30 years, perhaps you should move from your parents home so you can have better internet connectivity? :)
You have to have high speed at both last miles in order to have a high-speed connection. Even the fastest Internet connection hairyfeet can buy won't help him communicate with his parents any faster.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can cancel your contract. You'll pay a nice penalty, but you can cancel.
Why should I pay a penalty if the other party didn't uphold its end of the agreement?
Re:Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
No, opinions like that are mostly held by people with business experience who see other businesses being run by (overpaid) complete morons. I've seen many, many businesses involved in short-term thinking that screws long-term profitability. Any time I see a new CEO brought in to "fix" a company, as a general rule, that's when it's time to sell the stock. Well, maybe wait until the new executive's short-term thinking has driven it up a bit, then dump the stock before it crashes. Either way. I've seen this too many times to believe that short-term thinking is unusual. It may not be the rule, but it certainly isn't the exception, either.
Indeed, short-term thinking is to blame for most of the current state of the economy. Betting your pension plans on high-yield, high-risk investments? Short-term thinking. Issuing loans that pay a high interest rate in spite of the risks because you know you're just going to sell the loan to somebody else anyway? Short-term thinking. Driving the stock market down rapidly because of a high number of people shorting the stock? Short-term thinking. And so on.
I tend to agree with the assessment that most companies, particularly those with entrenched monopolies like telecoms, tend to solely value short-term profit because they know they have little real competition, so their long-term profits are pretty much guaranteed in the absence of a significant disruptive technology (cell phones reducing land line use, for example). The only thing that will ever change this is removal of the monopoly---for example, passing laws that mandated cell phone unlocking after the initial contract period....
Re:Yup (Score:1, Insightful)
But instead, they chose to continue charging outrageous fees (and FORCING you to get an overpriced data plan)... without doing much to upgrade their network.
That may be true, but in the US, virtually ALL unlimited data plans are the same price: $30 per month, no tethering. This goes for Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint. The only exception was the $20 data plan for the original iPhone EDGE.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
He is being forced to continue using their service while they do not uphold their part of the deal (that of providing working 3G connectivity). The reason why he made his choice of going with them was because there would be 3G. Now, some time later, there's no 3G. Why shouldn't he sue?
Re:Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it ironic... every example you list is NOT an example of the failures of thinking only for the short-term.
The problem with that investment strategy is that people dismiss the risk. Those 15% annual returns of a few years ago simply outweigh the possiblity of losing it all, in the minds of those investors. Interestingly, a diversified high-risk/high-yield strategy outperforms a low-risk/low-yield strategy in the long term. When you are investing for the short term (i.e., you're close to retirement) is when you should use a low-risk strategy.
That's not short-term thinking. That's smart business. Regardless of how it plays out in the long term, you've maximized your return. The problem is that the buyers of those risky loans underestimated the risk, and overvalued them. It's not a failure of planning for the long term, it's a failure to adequately estimate risk by the *buyers* of those loans.
That's a good investment for the short term. And, once the stock price is unreasonably low, those short sellers can buy in to catch the price increase. This investment strategy is a good one for the investor -- can you really say that the people using this strategy aren't *personally* far better off than if they didn't use it?
A better example would be the American car companies cutting off R&D for production of a low-cost, high-mileage vehicle. Or price fixing that reduces the incentive to increase supply of a scarce good (e.g., electricity in CA).
I think you're right re: short-term thinking, I just think you could have used better examples. What's coming through to me based upon your examples is that many actors in the economy have chosen strategies that benefit them while causing problems for everyone else... related to to the classic Tragedy of the Commons. Those strategies ARE the best strategies for the individual, unless everyone cooperates.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I pay a penalty if the other party didn't uphold its end of the agreement?
In my own little world, if the other party didn't hold up their end of the agreement then the contract is already broken and I don't owe a thing. I know, I know, try convincing the carrier of that.