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


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)

Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)

TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)

Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett.  Manual of Ideas (LAC).

Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)

Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Hawk Circle on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • Shag from Brookline on National Referenda

    • PrometheeFeu on Tumblr, Porn, and Internet Intermediaries

    • Kyle on Contract Evolution

    • Bruce Boyden on Tumblr, Porn, and Internet Intermediaries

    • Orin Kerr on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • Guy Spier on Symposium Redux: Essays and Lessons

    • John Mihaljevic on Is Berkshire Hathaway Really a Psychology Experiment?

    • Sy Lorne on The Many Audiences of Buffett's Letters

    • Lawrence Cunningham on The Skeptical Principal

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Berkshire's Dividend Policy: Part II

    • Lawrence Cunningham on The Many Audiences of Buffett's Letters

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Deals without Bankers: Salomon and Benjamin Moore

    • Brett Bellmore on National Referenda

    • Gerard Magliocca on National Referenda
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

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

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ryan Calo
Claire Hill
Jay Kesten
William McGeveran
Meredith Render
Aaron Saiger
David L. Schwartz
Olivier Sylvain
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

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

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
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
Just Books
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
Privacy and Security Training
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
TeachPrivacy 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