Yes, Original iPhone Owners, I Am Sympathetic
By Harry McCracken | Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 11:14 am
Wow. My post contending that AT&T’s upgrade pricing for iPhone 3G owners who want to buy an iPhone 3G S is fair has prompted dozens of comments, pro and con. Some of the feedback is from people who bought the original iPhone, which reminds me that they’re in an entirely different situation than 3G owners like me.
The first iPhone was sold under unique and unreasonable policies: The first folks who bought it paid the extremely unsubsidized price of $599, yet were required to sign up for a two-year AT&T contract, just as if they’d gotten a price break. That’s one of the most consumer-unfriendly moves in the history of the cell phone business, which is saying something.
AT&T did at least acknowledge the unique situation by letting owners of first-generation iPhones buy the 3G at the fully-subsidized price. But the fact that those folks were under any contractual obligation to AT&T at all remains pretty darn ridiculous.
It’s one of a number of examples of policies relating to the iPhone being less reasonable than those for garden-variety phones. Another one: I’ve repeatedly bought cell phones from AT&T at unsubsidized prices and found that the company would cheerfully unlock them for me. But it took months before it offered a contract-free iPhone at all, and as far as I know, there are no circumstances under which it will unlock an iPhone for you.
The iPhone is an exceptional product–probably the most important cell phone in the history of cell phones, and an amazing gadget in spite of some significant flaws. But at the end of the day, it’s just a phone. And carrier policies relating to it should be the same as for any other phone they sell.
6 Comments
Read more:
6 Comments For This Post
June 10th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“The iPhone is an exceptional product–probably the most important cell phone in the history of cell phones, and an amazing gadget in spite of some significant flaws. But at the end of the day, it’s just a phone. And carrier policies relating to it should be the same as for any other phone they sell.”
^There’s one reason as to why it took so long to find a contract-free iPhone. Another reason being AT&T knew they would get exclusivity for at least five years, so there was no incentive to offer an unlocked phone. Something for the anti-competition crowd to chew on there.
I know that some countries require cell-phone manufacturers to provide an unlocked option to help spur competition. I don’t see that coming any time soon under this administration, however.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“The iPhone is an exceptional product–probably the most important cell phone in the history of cell phones … ”
More important than the Motorola StarTac (or for that matter the MicroTAC; check the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_MicroTAC)? More important than the Blackberry or the Handspring (both of which pioneered the smartphone market that Apple entered)? The iPhone *is* exceptional, but there are many other contenders for the “most important cell phone in history” title … including many that haven’t been built yet* ;-).
(* The future!)
June 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
@Sherif I’m very willing to accept counterarguments on which phone gets the honor of being the most important one ever (and hey, if you caught me on a different day I might change my mind).
The points in favor of the iPhone: The interface (perhaps the first one that’s better in many respects than those of traditional PCs) and the app store. And the fact that it has a real browser. And, of course, how incredibly influential it’s proving to be.
Oddly enough, the PHONE part of the iPhone has nothing to do with its importance as a phone…
–Harry
June 10th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“That’s one of the most consumer-unfriendly moves in the history of the cell phone business”
^OK, but it was also one of the most successful launches in the history of the cell phone business. Though it did make me wait.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I’m sorry but being exclusive is not anti competitive at all.
Sprint and Verizon could of easily out bid AT&T for iPhone rights.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:25 am
“But at the end of the day, it’s just a phone.”
I disagree. It does a LOT more than that, and just because it can also make calls I wouldn’t even call that its primary function. This new breed of smartphones is a completely different animal and our old ways of classifying phones ain’t gonna cut it here.
But you’re right about the carrier policies. If it’s going to be tied to a carrier, it should get the same inlocking deal as anything else tied to them. Lets hope next year really is the end of the exclusivity and things will get more relaxed and competitive.