Apple Doesn't Want Your Cash (Credit Only, Please)
from the cash-not-wanted-here dept
With reports of huge numbers of iPhones being purchased to be unlocked and resold, it looks like Apple trying to clamp down a bit on the process by changing the rules for purchasers: requiring credit cards for purchases and limiting order to only 2 iPhones at a time. This is similar to what the original "launch day" limitations were. The credit cards let Apple track purchases more carefully (though, you have to wonder what good that really does) and the two person limit makes life harder for unlocker/resellers -- but also makes it more likely that parents will be able to pick up iPhones for their kids this holiday season. As for whether or not it's legal to turn down someone handing over the requisite amount of cash, we'll just let the US Treasury Department explain that it's perfectly fine. The whole "legal tender" bit doesn't mean anyone has to accept your cash.A bigger question, though, is why Apple would bother? The resellers are likely to figure out ways around these limitations anyway, and it just seems more likely to cause problems for legitimate purchasers (especially younger ones who might not have a credit card yet). And, while it is true that Apple makes money from every iPhone with AT&T service, it's silly to completely shut off unlockers, who still are giving Apple plenty of money that they might not hand over if they were forced to go with AT&T service (especially those from foreign countries where iPhone service is not offered). This really seems like an unnecessary restriction that isn't likely to help Apple very much.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cash, credit, iphone, unlocking
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pre-paid card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This really seems like an unnecessary restriction that isn't likely to help Apple very much.
The only truly unnecessary restriction in all this was signing that exlusive deal with AT&T. Apple had to have realized that making an exlusive deal with any carrier for the iPhone would have led to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extent
I, at first, had doubts. But now it really looks like they are on a mission.
Maybe due to pressure from AT&T?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iPhone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw Apple and Steve Jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw Apple and Steve Jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw Apple and Steve Jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screw Apple and Steve Jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM for retail sales!
These guys have some big b@lls.
I bet this is greed, because they know all those iPhones are going into foreign markets, where Apple has yet to muscle the local wireless provider into giving them a piece of the action. Its tough to argue the exclusivity benefit to the carrier if everyone in the country already has an unlocked one from the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But
I honestly think that Apple MUST do everything to maintain the contract it has, whether or not customers like it.
An exclusive deal means that every cutomer gets hooked up with AT&T. Thats th end of it. If AT&T ever got wind of Apple, even turning a blind eye to the unlocking issue, they will sue Apple, for a whole lot of money. So the fact that people complain that 'whoas-me.. Apple is so unfeeling', that somehow they might be missing out on some customers that won't buy now. '
Even if that is 1% lost sales, it is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions that they would be on the hook for.
And that is the plain and simple truth.
How would you feel if your contract with your employer said that you were the programmer for the project, and you discover that they had off-shored it all? Do you you still not think that you should be entitled to your money regardless of the reasons, because they signed it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But
That's not the way contract law works. Only terms that are legal may be enforced in a contract. The courts, as I understand it, have ruled that it is legal to use a purchased phone with a different carrier despite what the contract might say.
How would you feel if your contract with your employer said that you were the programmer for the project, and you discover that they had off-shored it all?
What do feelings have to do with it?
Do you you still not think that you should be entitled to your money regardless of the reasons, because they signed it?
That would depend on the contract and the law. Not what you think you should be entitled to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
smurfing for fun and profit
in order to crackdown on the sales of materials to make crystal meth, many american drugstores (under pressure from the DEA) restrict how much over the counter sinus and allergy medication you can purchase at one time.
naturally, they limit how much you can buy while you are at the register, but they don't record how much you have bought previously and the records are not shared with other stores.
to get around the restriction, you have a group of people (usually meth heads) go in and buy small amounts a few times. if the staff get suspicious or say something, you just pack up the team and move them to another store.
you see this also with console and game releases where a person in limited to purchasing one or two consoles, so they get a few people to stand in line with them and buy the additional consoles for them.
any time you try to restrict what people can do, your restrictions only work on the least dedicated and least resourceful. it's that way for DRM, it's that way for modders, and it's that way for pretty much anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this news?
One cannot rent a car without a credit card.
Many companies require a credit card to secure a account. Almost every cell phone carrier, AOL, MSN, XBox Live (prefers and pressure user to do so) are just a few examples.
--
Then there is other retail stores policy.
GameStop to this day has a 1 Wii per customer per day policy. With payment credit card only.
---
Apple is trying to secure a number of things. One, trying to stop some bozo coming in, buy every iPhone in the place, then sell them 2.5 times over list on eBay.
The other, they believe this is the best policy to help reduce any Christmas shortage. On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving last year; as I stood in line at Toys R Us Times Square, we were told, repeatedly, one Wii per party and only credit card payment would be accepted. So, someone could not, for example pick up a Wii for themselves and 5 more for friends and/or neighbors.
Lastly, placing a credit card restriction reduces minors from buying a iPhone and signing up for a cell phone contract without parents permission.
---
Apple is a private company. You don't like the way they do business. Do not do business with them. I believe these restrictions do show a certain corporate responsibility. They are a multi-international billion dollar company. One policy is not going to bring them down. Apple is not doomed keeping some guy from buy 6 iPhones, and selling 5 of them on eBay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is this news?
So what? Just because they are public does not mean they still are not a business. Your argument is silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is this news?
So it wasn't true. I suppose you see nothing wrong with that.
Just because they are public does not mean they still are not a business.
Who said otherwise?
Your argument is silly.
Your implication that the poster said they were not a business is intellectually dishonest, not just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is this news?
But what does Apple being a public or private company have anything to do with them selling their product anyway they see fit? I must have missed that memo.
Your implication that the poster said they were not a business is intellectually dishonest, not just silly.
Maybe the original poster should have been more clear with their statement if they did not want to receive any backlash for saying something pretty intellectually deprived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is this news?
> They are very public! appl on nasdaq!
You're mixing the terms "public" and "private" in two different contexts. In terms of company ownership and shareholders, Apple is a publicly-traded company but it's still a private business in the sense that it's not a government entity. For example, even though Apple is a public company, it's headquarters is private property, not public (i.e., governmental) property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is this news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this news?
Apple is trying to secure a number of things. One, trying to stop some bozo coming in, buy every iPhone in the place, then sell them 2.5 times over list on eBay.
That would make sense if you could actually sell your iPhone for 2.5x on eBay... but you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 Reasons...
They're not doing it to be evil or to track how many Joe Consumer can buy. They're doing it so that if a serial number comes back to them as defective/unlocked, they know who to go to. It's really pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's simple really
1. They lose out of the cut of the monthly bill. They make more money if you sign up for AT&T than they do if you unlock and go to T-Mobile.
2. There is probably a clause or ten in their contract with AT&T that stipulates that Apple should make reasonable efforts to ensure that the phones aren't used with carriers who didn't pay for the right of exclusivity.
3. When negotiating exclusive contracts with carriers in other countries, the ability to unlock the phones and use them with any carrier lessens the value of that exclusivity deal to the carrier, which means that Apple will get less money for those rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's simple really
That's only true if the people would have gone with AT&T service originally. Yet, many of the unlocked phones are being used by people who never would be on AT&T (esp. those in foreign countries). In other words, blocking those sales is clear lost revenue to Apple. That is, they're NOT losing money from the AT&T deal, because there never would have been usage on AT&T's network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No big deal...
Beside, most of the children Mike claims are too young for credit cards who have enough money to buy an iPhone already have a credit card, probably supplied as a supplement off of their parent's account. I mean, I've had a credit card since I was 13, but my it was linked to my parent's account.
I don't think this is an extravagant way to deal with the situation. There are plenty of ways Apple could have handled this that would have been more hassle for customers than simply requiring a credit card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No big deal...
They MUST? Is this another of their contract terms to which you're privy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limiting Purchases
Restricting sales of a product can always be circumvented by the public as chris #11 mentioned.
I agree with Danny #2 that everything is blowing up in Apple's face and AT&T is not too happy what has happened. Somehow Apple is in trouble with it's deal with AT&T and they are tying to appease AT&T anyway they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best advice I've seen on it yet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rule of Unintended Consequences
Consumers will find ways to circumvent artificial marketplace restrictions, whether by keeping one step ahead of Apple's firmware developers or finding ways to acquire the Chinese I-Clone which is sure to make it's way to these shores sooner rather than later. Apple is run by leftists and no matter how many MBA'S they may count in their ranks, they just don't have a gut level grasp of what makes a free market economy tick; hint, it's the consumers, stupid.
God bless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T
They see how many phones are sold and how many activations there are and the numbers don't add up and they are PISSED!
They were stupid to think that this wouldn't happen. No wonder America is so far behind in wireless. It's a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]