Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Mike Zimmer on From the other side at AALS . . .

    • Mike Zimmer on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Mike Zimmer on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • M.G.M on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • A.J. Sutter on Lawyers: Don’t Trade on Inside Information!

    • No Load Funds on Consumer Financial Product Safety?

    • grad student on Princeton and the Behavioral Revolution

    • Anon321 on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Steven Kaminshine on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Alex Kreit on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • Alex Kreit on Election Night 2009

    • mikeb302000 on Election Night 2009

    • Neal Goldfarb on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Orin Kerr on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • MYarnell on Curricular Reform Revisited

  •  

    Site Meter

How to Be a Useless Company: ATT and iPhones (with irony and a request)

posted by Deven Desai

I don’t buy Apple products. I was just starting to change my mind but Apple has managed to annoy me yet again. I wanted an iPhone. My brother noted that and thought he was getting me a gift card for the iPhone. But wait, I am an ATT customer for ten, yes ten, years. Through the Cingular back to ATT shift I have stayed with the service. My reward? I cannot get the new customer prices until March 19, 2009 when I am allowed to upgrade. (ATT business meeting: Eureka! Force delayed spending in a down market where people have many reasons not to spend! That’s a great idea!) If they said you can upgrade with the blasted two year contract and get the iPhone right now at the new customer price, would I do it? YES! When the time comes to upgrade and maybe shift cell service will I consider it? YES, YES, YES!!!!

Let’s talk goodwill. For the sake of a stupid business model, ATT and Apple have decided to annoy longtime, loyal customers. Now the iPhone is pretty cool. Is it cool enough that I would not consider a Blackberry? After the lame service, of course I would consider the Blackberry. In fact, I am considering switching cell companies just to demonstrate how lame ATT is. HEY APPLE! Get a clue. Exclusive partnerships are obviously working at one level, but ATT is silly. Their choice of cutting off old customers and thwarting their attempt to embrace Apple products is downright idiotic and makes people think less of Apple. In other words, how is it wise to prevent an alleged 72.9 million people (ATT’s claimed current customer base) from the better price? Sure Apple has had big sales, but it is still behind Nokia and RiM in a shrinking smartphone market. In hard numbers Apple sold 4.7 million units. Now if ATT is accurate about its customer numbers, one has to wonder whether letting customers upgrade phones and enter new contracts in mid-contract might be wise. I freely admit that ATT must have some double secret probation protected theory about its system that I, unfrozen caveman lawyer, fail to grasp.

The irony is there may be many of us who erroneously wanted the iPhone but can’t get it at a price that makes sense. And, as I looked around for options, I find that Blackberry has many useful features and maybe most of the services that I want. Who knows? Google’s nascent phone empire may offer more too.

So here is the request: Please share advice on what is the best phone for email, music, and Internet use? In addition, ideas for the best cell service are welcome too. See what happens when companies deny a customer from obtaining on impulse? The rational buyer returns and finds better options. Hmm maybe I should say thanks Apple and ATT.


 December 22, 2008 at 7:46 pm   Posted in: Technology   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (10)

  1. Jay Levitt - December 22, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    AT&T does, in fact, suck.

    But from a lifelong Palm and Windows Mobile user: There is absolutely no phone on the market that comes anywhere near the iPhone for *usable* Internet access. It’s a stylus-free, full-screen, zoomable, scrollable web browser, with 3G and WiFi. I don’t know if it’s that Apple has patented enough of the multi-touch concept, or just that everyone’s really far behind, but even the recent G1 and Storm seem come nowhere close.

    Seriously: Who are you punishing? You bill at how much an hour? Pay full price for an unlocked iPhone. I would.

  2. Deven - December 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    I do not bill anyone by the hour. Nonetheless how much is the unlocked iPhone and where does one acquire one?

  3. Daniel J. Solove - December 22, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    I was considering getting an iPhone, but decided instead to get a Blackberry because the iPhone came with AT&T, and I’ve heard way too many stories about how bad AT&T is. What good is a great device if you can’t get good phone service? The iPhone sure is snazzy and great for Internet browsing, but I love my Blackberry with Verizon, which thus far has been quite good. My primary use is email; perhaps the equation would be different for me if my primary use were Web browsing. Regardless, I would have gotten the iPhone if it didn’t come tied to AT&T.

  4. TRE - December 23, 2008 at 3:02 am

    All cell phone companies are like this, it is outrageous. To get the best deals you essentially have to switch carriers all the time as soon as your contract is up. The lowered phone prices are up front subsidies that you end up paying back over the life of your contract, and if you don’t get a new phone as soon as you can, you are paying extra on your contract.

  5. Roo - December 23, 2008 at 7:25 am

    Your sense of entitlement is just embarrassing. Would you expect an accommodation for a brand new Corvette because you’ve been a loyal leaser of Chevy Cobalts for the last 10 years? People like you are what’s wrong with America.

  6. Howard Wasserman - December 23, 2008 at 8:49 am

    If my lease agreement with GM allowed me to upgrade to a Corvette in 4 months for $X, but right now GM is going to charge me $2X for that Corvette while charging a Chrysler owner $X for that same Corvette, I would say I am getting a bad deal. It is not about entitlement, but about why GM would treat it’s current/longstanding customers so much worse than new customers.

    Btw, I wrote this on my new iPhone; pretty cool.

  7. Edward Swaine - December 23, 2008 at 10:26 am

    I understand how this is annoying — but not much more than any long-term contract. I’m supposing you can’t upgrade because you changed phones; the price of your new phone was discounted to reflect the value to AT&T of your commitment for N years of service. There are drawbacks to this method of pricing, and if what you are proposing is that you be permitted to buy an iPhone at a non-subsidized price (tentatively, $400 more than subsidized, per AT&T) and use it on the AT&T network, explaining why you shouldn’t be able to do that is harder. But if you are asking to pay the subsidized price, the comparison to eligible-now AT&T customers is simple (they have paid their two-year tax), as it is against new customers (they “owe” nothing to AT&T, and besides, have had their own service commitments to fulfill).

    I probably misunderstand — there are points when you seem to be objecting to Apple as much as AT&T. But to the extent relevant, I don’t see anything irrational in deciding not to give the existing customer base the same equipment option as those lacking any service commitment. Loyal customers can always be treated better, but it is very often the case that newbies get preferred in some way (most commonly, with a newer widget). You are right that you can retaliate by switching services when you’re eligible, but AT&T/Apple cruelly anticipate this and counter-move with exclusivity . . . so if what generates irritation is iPhone lust, they may still keep you.

  8. Bruce Boyden - December 23, 2008 at 11:10 am

    People here are missing the obvious solution: carry more than one device. A phone for phoning, an mp3 player for audio, a camera for photos, a Blackberry for emailing, etc. If you put them all on your belt, you can be all cool and look like Batman. The 1960s Batman, that is.

  9. Sigivald - December 23, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    So you’re complaining that the contract you signed to get a cheap deal on your current phone won’t let you get a cheap deal on a new phone, without having two contracts at once?

    And this is Apple’s fault? Or AT+T’s?

    Nobody made you buy a subsidized phone on contract in the first place, did they? Did you not realize you were signing a contract, and that you don’t get a cheap subsidized price on a new phone without a new contract?

    Sense of entitlement is right.

  10. Andrew - December 23, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    This is unfortunately typical of all of the cell phone companies. The phones are relatively cheap (often free), because the carrier subsidizes the cost of the phone and recoups that subsidy over the life of the two-year contract. The fact that AT&T won’t let you upgrade at all, even with an extra fee, seems like a bad business decision. Sure, they’ll recoup the cost of the subsidy for your current phone, but don’t they want to keep you as a customer past the end of the current contract? (I do love my iPhone, but AT&T service is not very consistent.)

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress