Print 76 comment(s) - last by ira176.. on Oct 31 at 4:48 AM

If you want to purchase an iPhone from an Apple Store, forget about using cash or a gift card.

Apple is stepping up its efforts to limits resellers from getting their hands on the popular iPhone. Apple wants to crack down on those who buy, unlock and then resell iPhones to consumers.

Of the roughly 1.4 million iPhones that have been sold since its introduction in late June, Apple COO Tim Cook estimates that 250,000 iPhones have been purchased by customers who have the intention of unlocking the phones.

"Customer response to the iPhone has been off the charts, and limiting iPhone sales to two per customer helps us ensure that there are enough iPhones for people who are shopping for themselves or buying a gift," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris. "We're requiring a credit or debit card for payment to discourage unauthorized resellers."

Cash will no longer be an acceptable form of payment for iPhones and Apple has also reduced the purchase limit from five iPhones per person to two.

Today, however, Engadget is reporting that Apple has gone one step further than just denying cash customers. Apple is also denying the use of Apple Gift Cards to purchase iPhones. For those looking to get a stack of Apple Gift Cards for Christmas to put towards the purchase of an iPhone; you may want to rethink that idea.

Apple recorded 67 percent higher profits for Q3 2007 thanks in part to the iPhone. Apple's crackdown on resellers and those who wish to unlock the iPhone is no doubt a measure to protect the steady cash flow from AT&T.

According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, AT&T is paying Apple an average of $18 a month for each iPhone customer. In other words, Apple receives $399 for each iPhone sold plus an additional $432 over the course of a two-year contract thanks to AT&T's exclusivity arrangement.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why Apple Why?
By JasonMick on 10/29/2007 10:12:30 AM , Rating: 3
Must you continue to shoot yourself in the foot?

You have innovative products, that with a little refinement could be great.

You had a "cool" image as the hip outsider.

You had great sales.

So why would you want to do something silly like this or iBricking to jeopardize it?

Honestly it astounds me.

To me, it seems Apple is being its own worse enemy. For every step forward they take (ie. opening their phone up to third party devs), they seem to take two steps back.

Its a shame because they do have some innovative products.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 1
Because people will buy iPhone's, unlock them, sell them to people and the person that ends up with it will throw a fit because their brand new iPhone that they purchased through a third party is no longer under warranty.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By therealnickdanger on 10/29/2007 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 1
While I'm certain that's not Apple's primary concern, that's an excellent point. Any fool can hack a phone, but when it breaks... there will be anger.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By spluurfg on 10/29/2007 1:51:52 PM , Rating: 3
The one thing I don't get though.... why ban people from using gift cards totally? Wouldn't it be rather straightforward (and obvious...) to allow them to use their gift cards so long as they used their credit card to pay for, say, $1 of the cost? That way there'd be an e-trail?

RE: Why Apple Why?
By UNCjigga on 10/29/2007 2:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Let's put it this way. 250,000 is a conservative estimate. Looking at AT&T and Apple's own numbers, there are about 400,000 iPhones sold that are "unaccounted for" by AT&T (i.e. they were jailbreaked and sold.) If AT&T is paying Apple a fee for every iPhone activated at AT&T, then Apple better make damn sure they're not letting their phones slip through the cracks. Its all just part of revenue assurance.

They must be denying gift cards to close a loophole in their system, i.e. dealers are buying bulk giftcards using one credit card and then getting around the "2-per-customer" or whatever rule is in place.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By spluurfg on 10/29/2007 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but if you make sure that at least $1 or even $0.01 of every iPhone sold was paid for with CC (and you can make up whatever of the rest of the balance with gift cards), then they can still enforce the 2-per-person limit while allowing customers to use their gift card value. They can split the balance between different payment methods at cash registers... it isn't rocket science.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Tsuwamono on 10/29/2007 8:46:01 PM , Rating: 1
Ya, most of us get what you are saying but Apple users tend to be a little bit slower then the rest of us... have patience.

It's like dealing with a retarded child.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By CascadingDarkness on 10/30/2007 5:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bit low, and uncalled for I'd say.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By novacthall on 10/29/2007 11:21:05 AM , Rating: 5
Apple is control. Get on board or get off, but they're doing their thing with or without you.

It's exactly this mentality (and abysmal customer service) that drove me away from the company in 1997. I haven't looked back, and seeing their behavior under Jobs, I haven't regretted it one bit.

The man's brilliant, don't get me wrong. He's a business man unlike just about any other on Earth. He's also a complete and total control freak, and that just doesn't fly with me.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By omnicronx on 10/29/2007 12:19:51 PM , Rating: 5
Get on board or get off
And this is exactly why apple users are out of their minds. We are the consumer, we should be in control. Its beyond me that people are willing to pay 600$ for a phone, but you are limited in the way they can pay, use, and or modify it. Any other company would be running for the hills right now. Amazingly this is why apple will remain a niche market on the desktop/laptop market. Only 10% of the population is dumb enough to take their BS!

P.S not allowing gift certificates is the dumbest idea ever, and people should be outraged. I guess I have to look at it from apples perspective though, all those iphone unlocker dealers buying iphones in bulk with their fancy giftcards... give me a break..

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Chris Peredun on 10/29/2007 12:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
We are the consumer, we should be in control.

As a consumer, I am in control. I can choose to take the $400 that would be spent on an iPhone and take it to a rival vendor or carrier. No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By omnicronx on 10/29/2007 12:57:00 PM , Rating: 3
I have heard this argument many times before, but my point had nothing to do with apple 'forcing' anyone to buy their products. The point is, it will eventually be the end of them. Consumers like to be in control, period.. theres nothing you can say that will budge me on this matter. Even if they really are not in control, people like to at least think they are in control.

Apple does not even try to give the illusion that we have some say in any matter. It was the reason they fell the first time, and it will be the reason they fall the second time. You can only piggyback on ipod sales so long, and the iphone is a long ways away from getting any considerable market share. I will even go out on a limb here and say, if not for the ipod, Apple would no longer be selling computers.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By djcameron on 10/29/2007 3:27:33 PM , Rating: 5
Consumers like to be in control, period..

Hah! You're funny. Consumers are sheep. They are led around by companies like Apple. They walk around with their underwear showing and with the latest gadgets stuck to their head. Why? Because they want to feel special and unique! In the process, they end up looking just like everyone else. Also, because the marketing folks have learned how to control them. Consumers are anything but in control!!

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 1:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
I chose to buy a $400 iPhone and I'm quite content with it. It works great as a phone with a web browser and e-mail client. The onscreen keyboard takes a few minutes to get used to but it isn't too bad. I no longer have a need for a full tactile QWERTY keyboard since I don't have to reply to emails 24/7, since I've stepped down from my position at DT.

And like everyone else I know with an iPhone, I love it. It's simple, small, thin and looks pretty. It also plugs into my car's head unit nicely, with full iPod control and no noise interference. The iPod also pauses music and rings through the car speakers as well.

As a consumer, I chose to buy the iPhone because the other companies didn't offer what I was looking for, for an all-around day-to-day phone, not just a business phone.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By omnicronx on 10/29/2007 1:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
The iPhone is easy, has great features, and as a product is a really cool phone. But the contracts offered are terrible, and the price is too high for having to sign a contract of 2 years. What is going to happen when other companies start making phones with the exact same capabilities, but you get it for 0$ because you signed a 3 year, not so evasive contract?

Apple is not dominating the phone industry, and although i don't know the real numbers, i doubt they have even have 1% market yet.If Apple expects to continue to go country to country with exclusive contracts, and thinks this plan will work in the long term, they are kidding themselves..

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 1:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
I pay $85 a month, thats no worse than what I was paying for my Cingular 8525 with essentially the same plan. The $85 I paid for the Cingular 8525 was with a Student/Employee discount, without it, I'd have to pay close to $100. So the plans are quite fair for what they are.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By omnicronx on 10/29/2007 1:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, and i pay 75$ Canadian a month, have a data plan, and i got an e6800 for 100$, but it had a 100$ mail in, so it came to $0. Now of course our plans our about the same, but i got my phone for free. When iPhone clones start popping up, apple is going to have to change their business strategy, or they risk slipping into an even smaller niche market than they are already in.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By KingViper on 10/29/2007 2:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't compare. I'm with sprint and pay $41 a month for unlimited data, free sprint to sprint, unlimited texts, free nights and weekends, etc. That includes the insurance costs.

Plus my phone was free.

You can't tell me $85 a month isn't any worse than what other companies have to offer.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 3:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
But isn't that the SERO plan?

RE: Why Apple Why?
By KingViper on 10/29/2007 4:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but he was using a student discount before?

I can use any phone I want with this plan, so I don't think that should matter. Also, anyone can get the SERO plan.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Oregonian2 on 10/29/2007 2:51:42 PM , Rating: 1
As a consumer, I am in control. I can choose to take the $400 that would be spent on an iPhone and take it to a rival vendor or carrier. No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone.

Just a comment that Microsoft gets absolutely nowhere using that argument about people being free to spend their money on other company's products. Nowhere at all. Zilch.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By wordsworm on 10/29/2007 11:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
Look, Jason, you're saying all this as if this kind of behaviour is new to Apple. Fact is this is the attitude from Apple as far back as I can remember. It's a part of their preppy image. I'm wondering when they'll realize that they should lock their Apple computers to an ISP and lock out any 3rd party developers.

Apple kicked butt when Steve Jobs started the company, and it's kicking butt once again now that Jobs is back. Apple is a prep company. People who try to become a rebel and get burned aren't going to tarnish Apple's overall image or its core, and growing, customer base.

You're assuming everyone is like you, or close to it. The fact is that Apple is making a fortune off of folks with too much cash to spend. These are the same people who probably don't really care if their phone bricks or not. They'll just buy a new one. That's what Apple suggested, because they know their customer base. $500 is chump change to these people.

I don't like Apple. I'll never buy one of their products. I rebel against Apple and all those other brands as best I can. I've never bought a product from Apple: not so much as an iTune. Really, the funny thing is that my hatred for their products started with the MacIntosh II that were in the journalism labs at my old high school. Those stupid, tiny monitors killed me. I know they've come a long way since then, but somehow I've never really changed my opinion of them. My biological donor, aka 'dad', despite strong warnings, decided to go for an Apple laptop, and he consistently dealt with severe problems and paid through the nose for fixes. I've never had those problems with any product I've ever purchased *knock* *knock*. But just because I have these feelings doesn't mean I'm going to think that Apple would be better off suiting my own needs and wants. They have their customer base. I have the companies I 'trust.' In your opinion they may have degraded themselves, but really, what they've done recently is nothing different from anything they've ever done.

It used to be that there was a point to owning a Mac. Its ability to do graphics, and its impressive software suites from Adobe, Quark Xpress, not to mention audio recording software, was always superior to what PC offered. I think there's still some stuff that just won't run on PC. For the most part, most of that has changed and all that pro software can be purchased for PCs too. But the fact that I had to pay for both the expensive hardware and software always kept me away. With PC, at least I could get pirated software. When I was in high school living off of welfare, that old 486 running MS Office helped me develop many skills that have helped me advance to a fairly 'middle class' career and lifestyle. With Mac, there was never that pirate community. Anyways, I digress. My point was that I'm not saying all this stuff because I'm an Apple twink.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By msheredy on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why Apple Why?
By chick0n on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 1:20:29 PM , Rating: 1
I'll agree with you. My Apple products work. I'm still content with my PowerBook G4 12" (last of the G4). Despite its minor blemishes and quirks with aluminum, the whole notebook has held together very well after two years, unlike my old Compaq Presario 1720US, which fell apart after 2 years, and I rarely took it anywhere.

My PowerBook has been to China and back, and I toss it around. It'd cost me just as much to get a PC of similar durability. Yes, ThinkPad's are awesome, but Windows Vista is still lacking.

I can run Leopard on my PB just as fast as Tiger was, no slowdowns, no lagging. Every new OS runs slightly better than the previous for Apple. Microsoft on the other hand....every new OS requires more resources and power to accomplish the same tasks.

The Mac OS X user interface is also worlds ahead of Vista. Vista was a step in the right direction with animations and such, but its far from useful. Sure you have the Windows key + Tab, but how often are you going to hit that key stroke?

On my Mac, I can drag the mouse cursor to any of the four corners of my screen to bring up Expose, Spaces or even Dashboard. With my little 1024x768 display, the OS X window manager is far superior.

Microsoft simply doesn't get it. Vista is nice, but without dual monitors, usability kinda sucks. </end rant>

RE: Why Apple Why?
By omnicronx on 10/29/2007 2:43:50 PM , Rating: 3
On my Mac, I can drag the mouse cursor to any of the four corners of my screen to bring up Expose, Spaces or even Dashboard. With my little 1024x768 display, the OS X window manager is far superior.
ObjectDock by stardock ( does the same thing, I am using it with vista right now. Of course its not native to vista, but there are so many windows enhancements out there if you really want to customize windows.

Mac's are nice for day to day use, but you can do so much more with windows, or even a linux OS... and for half of the cost.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 3:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like installing any extra for customization. I accomplish just as much in OS X as I can on my dual-monitor desktop.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By omnicronx on 10/29/2007 4:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
Not having to install something extra just makes things easier, it does not necessarily make things better. As i said, my Windows and Nix setups far surpass the basic install.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By essjae on 10/29/2007 9:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
I can run Leopard on my PB just as fast as Tiger was, no slowdowns, no lagging. Every new OS runs slightly better than the previous for Apple.....every new OS requires more resources and power to accomplish the same tasks.

Then why is the minimum req for Leopard an 867MHz G4? Try running Leopard on a G4 Cube and make the same statement.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 9:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
The G4 Cube was released like what....6 years ago? Do you honestly think it should still be supported? The oldest PowerMac G4 Quicksilver was introduced in 2001, to think the Apple still provides support for a system that old is just amazing in itself.

My PB is 2.5 years old, and the design was introduced nearly 3 years ago. Only upgrade I did to it was add 1GB of ram, for a total of 1.25GB. Now let's see you try to run Vista on a system that's 2.5-3 years old, and see how it fairs.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By DandDAddict on 10/30/2007 5:30:23 AM , Rating: 1
Its running very nicely on this duron 900 with 256 megs of ram and a 16 meg geforce4 igp, no aero but other than that its fine and very responsive, hell you can even play older games on it for that generation of gpu/cpu/ram just fine. Tho honestly the machines mainly a test/ide hd holder but its still a living case that Vista is completely usable on older hardware.

Lets see the socket 754 laptop Im using to type this is fairly old and running Vista Ultimate with all of the bells and wistles maxed out, even manages to play Rise of Legends, Fear, so on just dandily on the higher settings. So ya Vista works fine on older hardware.

Mac Ive had more trouble with and pissed me off to the point of all my mac ppc machines now run linux. What really ticked me off was the whole bombarding me with ads for OSX every couple of seconds when I went to update OS9 , I mean come on I should only have to click once or twice to tell you to screw off and I dont want your product when Im trying to get updates for your previous product, god knows MS and no other companies have pulled this shit on me. I actualy did check to see if I could run OSX and well apprently OSX requires a firewire port according to the website if I recall correctly, so I cant run it anyway and they still were shoving that crap at me.

Also MS is providing support still for OSes more than 6 years old both free and extended. Ive sent in hardware with lifetime warrenties for replacement and its been honored in the form of upgrades, so id say long term support is fairly normal, not to mention i didnt have to pay out the nose for it.

Anyway ye it annoys me to no end that I must own and learn about macs cause god they are extreamly annoying and inconviant, but thats business for ya. Tho the swap to intel makes it easier, now I can just run the Mac OSes on my main x86 rig which is handy for the few times I need to use it.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Inkjammer on 10/30/2007 1:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well said!

Myself, I started with an Apple iPod 20GB 4th Gen, and recently went to a 80GB 5th Gen. I bought the iPod for one of several reasons, the manufacturer was the least them.

I'm a PC fan through and throughout, but when I shop, I go for the product that appeals to me most in terms of looks, functionality, usability and more. People seem to argue left and right that Apple's fanboys only buy the product for the looks or the "status" it brings. I've seen the competition's offerings, and short of the Zune, the mobile MP3 market is full of a lot of fugly products with little to no market support (e.g. docks, external players).

I chose the iPod because it had the best periphial support, the best drive space and the best tools to suit my needs. I can't stand using Mac OS, and I really don't like Macs, especially for work (and I'm a freelance graphic designer/animator!). Everybody has their preference, and their needs vary.

Kudos for bringing a solid argument to the table. It's refreshing, though rare.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By FITCamaro on 10/29/2007 12:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
For every step forward they take (ie. opening their phone up to third party devs), they seem to take two steps back.

Yes but the thing with Apple is that almost all the bad stuff with Apple almost never makes it to the mainstream media. So their image never really gets tarnished.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By maverick85wd on 10/29/2007 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 3
Quite... but also, most people don't care. One of my friends has an iPhone and I was telling him about the whole third-party software debate, the whole AT&T upset, and basically why I don't own one. His response was basically that his iPhone worked fine, that he didn't mind AT&T, and that he loved it, even after I tried to explain what his iPhone was capable of if Apple would allow others to unlock it's potential. Basically, he didn't understand that the ability to install third-party software could open up new functionality that he had never thought of... most people don't really know what it's all about so they don't care. Apple wins. :-/

on a side note, I would love an iPhone but refuse to put up with their over proprietary mind-set. Apple has wonderful products that are very innovative, but they are a little over-priced and they don't allow the user the freedom to do what they want with their products. Too bad to, they have such potential.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 3:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone I know with an iPhone is happy with theirs.

Third-party apps are nice, but for the most people, me included, the wow factor doesn't last that long. I installed apps, didn't use anything besides the default iPhone apps. A lot of my friends are the same.

The third party apps are nice to have but not necessary a necessity. Not to mention the apps crash the iPhone like hell.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By maverick85wd on 10/29/2007 4:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
it should still be up to the user whether or not they are used... bricking someone's phone because they have third-party software installed is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

but I see where you're coming from

RE: Why Apple Why?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 4:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but if they "officially" allow it, users will turn to them for repair, warranty when the third party applications kill their iPhone.

Users will not blame the application, they will blame Apple.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By maverick85wd on 10/29/2007 4:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
there is quite a difference between saying the warranty is void if third party applications are installed and releasing an update that renders your phone permenantly disabled if you use third party software.

and if they didn't brick phones with third party software you may actually have legit software companies produce some useful applications that are well written and actually do NOT harm your phone

RE: Why Apple Why?
By crystal clear on 10/29/2007 12:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
Now look at this from another point of view-

The iPhone makes its debut in France on November 29.

The iPhone makes its debut in the UK on November 9.

The iPhone makes its debut in Germany on November 9.

Add to this local demand in the USA,which is already very high & expected to increase in the major buying season.

Read this survey report about consumer satisfactions (USA) -

According to ChangeWave's latest consumer cell phone survey, completed Oct. 2, the Apple (AAPL) iPhone continued to enjoy solid growth while it raced to a huge lead in terms of customer satisfaction.

The survey of 3,654 Alliance consumers looked at key market share changes among the major cell phone manufacturers and service providers and found that, while the iPhone has been on the shelf just three months, its impact is already being felt industry-wide.

iPhone Ups Its Share

Apple's current cell phone market share showed solid growth that was in line with previous expectations. Among respondents, market share has doubled since our previous cell phone survey in July, rising to 2%.

The top cell phone manufacturer, Motorola (MOT), maintained its No. 1 spot in terms of current market share with 30%; however, that figure has fallen one percentage point since our July survey to its lowest level in more than a year.

Add to this huge demand in Asia/Mid East/China/India for iPhones & a low $ makes it even more attractive a bargain.
exclusively for unlocking purposes.

There is huge traffic/trade of iPhones moving into the above regions(Asia)
through 3rd parties/businesses/gifting/reselling/tourist etc.

Apple could be having a serious supply problem from its hardware manufacturers to meet demand for iPhones-
in USA/Europe/Asia all put together

It cannot afford for AT&T sake be running out of iPhones in the major buying season.

Even Apples hardware/components manufacturers could be having their own supply problems.

All this when we are entering a major buying season......think.

RE: Why Apple Why?
By rudy on 10/29/2007 4:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe apple is losing money on the iphone and only the kick back from ATT and iTunes sales make it profitable.

Apple will have a problem...
By Murst on 10/29/2007 10:43:58 AM , Rating: 5
Although Apple certainly can choose not to accept cash for certain purchases (since the payment is not repayment of debt), they will most likely run into issues when they decline to accept gift cards.

A gift card is like a contract between you and the company that issues the card. Although they certainly can have limitations, Apple would not be able to add additional limitations after the purchase of the card (they would need to honor the contract at the time of purchase).

According to apple's own terms and conditions located at , the following exclusions apply to the purchases made by a gift card:

You can purchase just about anything sold by Apple (except another Apple Gift Card, an iTunes Gift Certificate or purchases at the iTunes Music Store), including products from both Apple and third-party makers.

Nowhere does it say you are not allowed to purchase the iPhone, and this is where I think Apple may run into some issues.

Anyways, IANAL.

RE: Apple will have a problem...
By crystal clear on 10/29/2007 11:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry they catch you in the small print-All your arguments become useless.

Apple reserves the right to change any of these terms and conditions from time to time without notice.

Refer to you link & see the fine print below.

RE: Apple will have a problem...
By Murst on 10/29/2007 11:21:48 AM , Rating: 3
Just because Apple puts something like this doesn't mean that it is valid.

On July 18th, 2007, in Douglas vs. Talk America, the judge ruled that a company simply cannot change its terms of service (by posting an updated version on their website).


Although this was not about gift cards, it wouldn't be a stretch to consider this as a precedent for all similar wording in contracts.

In any case, Apple still has NOT changed their terms and conditions, and according to Apple's latest terms and conditions, you can use the gift card to purchase the iPhone.

By crystal clear on 10/29/2007 8:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has the $$$$$ to fight you in court with those high priced lawyers who certainly know "How to get their way around-& get what they want".

For them both lawsuits & courts are part of daily routine,nothing new that would upset them.

For the ordinary buyer LAWYERS are an expensive affairs-they certainly dont come cheap.

Nor do these ordinary buyers have the TIME for such things & look for a PRACTICAL & CONVIENIENT solution for such things.

The example you gave even though relevant doesnt always hold in every court/state-interpretations by judges/jury vary or differ.

Gift card holder/s dont hold cards worth 10s of thousand dollars per person.
Indivisual claims are very small indeed..

Yes a class action suit started by some lawyer out to make a big buck is possible,but the outcome is ....wait & see....
certainly a long & time consuming process....the results unknown.

RE: Apple will have a problem...
By timmiser on 10/29/2007 12:52:57 PM , Rating: 4
That statement is only there to stop gullable people from persuing legal action! A catch all statement to cover everything possible under the sun does not stand up in court.

RE: Apple will have a problem...
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 1:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, but the average consumer don't know that. It's like writing VOID on a check, legally its not going to void it, but people will think it is.

RE: Apple will have a problem...
By theapparition on 10/30/2007 7:32:49 AM , Rating: 2
Although Apple certainly can choose not to accept cash for certain purchases (since the payment is not repayment of debt)

Are you sure about this? I'm no expert, but was of the opinion that it was illegal for anyone in the US to refuse payment in cash, even if you paid for it all in pennies.

RE: Apple will have a problem...
By emboss on 10/30/2007 12:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
Any transaction is, essentially, a contract. The details of which can be pretty much anything, including "payment only accepted in the form of ...". If you don't like the agreement, don't proceed (ie: don't buy the iPhone).

It's different in the case when money is owed - if you owe an entity money, they cannot (in a contractual sense) refuse cash to settle the debt. This is why restaurants, for example, pretty much have to accept cash. If they don't you can simply walk off - you still owe them for the meal of course, but since it is they who have refused legal tender for the debt, they can't hit you for anything other that the debt owed at that point in time (ie: no interest, "administration costs", etc). Essentially the debt is frozen at the time they refused payment.

This does create a slight loophole, in that you can make a contract and then simply refuse to pay in anything but cash. If the seller then sues you for breach of contract, the decision will almost certainly go against you, and you will legally be in debt to the seller, a debt for which the seller must then accept cash for. Of course, you'd have to be stupid to do so since you'd probably get hit up for costs as well, but the option is always there.

In the case of a retail sale, the contract is the customer offering to buy an item. There's various implications to this, such as the price tag shown in the isle holding little legal weight. The seller can refuse the offer on pretty much any grounds - it's the last one left, the person is wearing a green shirt, it's raining, etc etc. They can also refuse it if they don't like what's being offered in exchange. Importantly, there is no contract until the seller accepts the offer, which is taken to be after they have accepted the payment (which is *after* you have handed over the form of payment, so if you hand over a fake bill and the seller spots it, there's still no contract yet). Until then, there is no contract to breach, so there's no loophole there.

The best you could do would be to get the seller to explicitly sign a bit of paper saying that they'll give you an iPhone for $400 (or whatever the price is now), take the iPhone, and then try to pay in cash. Note that it's important that you take the iPhone, otherwise you'll have to sue them for breach of contract, which probably won't work out so well ...

Banning Cash?
By povomi1 on 10/29/2007 10:06:21 AM , Rating: 5
How is this legal? As a consumer I don't understand how you can put a ban on using cash to purchase something. What if you don't have a credit card, there are still plenty of people that use cash only.

RE: Banning Cash?
By Cobra Commander on 10/29/2007 10:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. There were always urban legends at least of requiring people to accept cash but of course even if true there are certain stipulations, such as loan down payments, etc. may often force you to have a 'cashiers check' or its likeness so I don't know.

Regardless that has a fundamentally foul odor about itself.

RE: Banning Cash?
By BionicBigfoot on 10/29/2007 10:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
They can accept what they want. Check this out from the U.S. Treasury:
Or in Brief:
..."This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise."

RE: Banning Cash?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/29/2007 6:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
wow. you learn something new every day. It just seems wrong though not to accept cash at all. I can see restricting types of cash (toll booths, soda machines, etc) but to not accept ANY cash seems a bad precedent. I dread the day I can't buy anything with actual currency. Then it will truly have no value.

RE: Banning Cash?
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 7:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
I await the day where strip clubs will have a magnetic card swiper.

RE: Banning Cash?
By emboss on 10/30/2007 12:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Can I get stamps, too?"

RE: Banning Cash?
By rushfan2006 on 10/30/2007 2:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
I made my post before I saw yours -- good info, I'm with the other guy a little shocking....(in honesty I think this is stupid that you are allowed to NOT accept legal currency but of course I don't make the laws).

I guess my economics professor 10 years ago was right when he said half joking "to understand the laws of the US -- just know that they are written head to toe to benefit and protect business, if it protects the consumer that's just an extra bonus".

RE: Banning Cash?
By tspinning on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Banning Cash?
By Spineless on 10/29/2007 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 1
I agree... I don't see how prohibiting using cash is legal. Can we smell another lawsuit coming on? I would expect it if they stand firm on this policy.

Heck, I feel like giving it a try to see if they deny me, but then again if they don't deny me, I'll be stuck with an iPhone that I don't want.

RE: Banning Cash?
By MonkeyPaw on 10/29/2007 11:34:34 AM , Rating: 3
I think Apple stole the idea from those Visa commercials where paying cash throws a wrench in the business machine.

Also known as - Greed
By AlphaVirus on 10/29/2007 10:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
In other words, Apple receives $399 for each iPhone sold plus an additional $432 over the course of a two-year contract thanks to AT&T's exclusivity arrangement.

Apple is just trying to maxamize profit like any other company would but its too obvious on where its trying to make its profits.
If Apple makes $399 from iphone sells and $432 from contracts, they will be doing everything possible to get as many ATT contracts.

IMO, this is a little dirty and I think someone will find a way to sue sooner or later for this.

I also see Apple sending out credit to people who wanted to buy a 3rd for the inlaws but cant, so much for a Merry Christmas...

RE: Also known as - Greed
By murphyslabrat on 10/29/2007 12:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
I also see Apple sending out credit to people who wanted to buy a 3rd for the inlaws but cant, so much for a Merry Christmas...

But, you preimburse a friend to purchase it for you. No big deal.

All in all, I think this whole arrangement is a brilliant business tactic, aside from creating a lot of negative PR. You can definitely monetize customer relations, but not everyone cares. Many people will simply buy a product based on initial impressions, physical appearance, and advertisement (much the same principles as when dating ^^j).

For instance, when I got my cell-phone, I just browsed AT&T/Cingular's online catalogue, then picked a phone that met my criteria (camera, media-player, replacable memory cards, and cheap). I ended up settling for a Sony Erickson W300i, without doing any further research. I chose AT&T because my parents used it, again, doing no further research (ironically, they have the worst customer service set-ups I have ever encountered; probably due to the recent merger between AT&T and Cingular).

When it comes to computers, I am another beast entirely. I have spent countless hours researching different components, comparing customer feedback regarding service, warranty claims, and overall value; in addition to performance benchmarks (I care little for power, as my apartment has free electric ^^j), and cost of the component as well as affect on overall system cost.

Maybe people will care a little more when purchasing a $400 phone, but I think that the majority of prospective customers will behave as I did, since most people either don't care or don't know enough to care.

RE: Also known as - Greed
By Oregonian2 on 10/29/2007 2:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is just trying to maxamize profit like any other company would but its too obvious on where its trying to make its profits.

Which is also why the Touch is crippled as much as possible in order to push iPhone sales to anyone who was even possibly considering both.

By CRimer76 on 10/29/2007 11:55:32 AM , Rating: 5
How everyone seems to be hating Microsoft less and less, and hating Apple more and more.

I've never had feelings either way, but at least Microsoft screwed people in a "behind the scenes" kind of way. Apple is taking a crap on everyone's head and pretty much advertising it.

I think Microsoft's way was much smarter.

Apple is retarded
By wwwebsurfer on 10/29/2007 10:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
All I see is Apple, thinking their phone may tank, signed a super-exclusive contract with ATT. In said contract ATT kicks back almost the profit of the iPhone over 2 years.

However if Apple was sure their phone would succeed they should have just opened it up for any network, sold 5x as many and had so much profit from selling apps and 5 different chargers and FM transmitters that only fit the iPhone that they don't need ATT.

Oh yea, that's not how Apple does business. I forgot that they like to make everything proprietary, make sure it only works on their system with their software, gyp their customers with overpriced hardware, undercut their faithful with price drops and stifle creative use of their hardware by making sure they get bricked.

Screw you Apple and your uninnovative products.

RE: Apple is retarded
By joemoedee on 10/29/2007 11:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's quite the contrary as far as why they went with the exclusive deal.

If they felt they wouldn't sell many through an exclusive offer, they wouldn't have gone exclusive.

Apple knew they had a high demand product. Do I fully agree with all their tactics? No.

They shopped it around to the carriers, and ATT/Cingular put up the best deal. Any money Apple gets from contracts is pure profit, as there is no "cost" to them for it. Increase the sales of the phone twice as much, and they still made less money versus the exclusive deal. (I forget the cost numbers, but I know they certainly do not profit $400+ from each phone sold.) It would take a lot of Java apps and chargers to make up $400+ in free money per phone sold.

They never seem to be able to win in the minds of the tech-consumer with this phone. First its too expensive.. then they cut the price and they're creeps for doing so. Can't replace the battery... etc, etc.

My view? It's a novelty. I want a cell phone to be... a phone. If I need access to my email, I'll get on my computer. If something in that important... they'll call me. If I need the web, that's why I have my laptop and my desktop. I don't need a digital leash. :)

Cash Currency
By shraz on 10/29/2007 3:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
I thought cash must be accepted as a medium of exchange at any store, since technically it is the actual legal tender issued by the government.

RE: Cash Currency
By Anh Huynh on 10/29/2007 3:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you owe them money. They can legally choose not to service you, so you don't owe them anything.

iDon't understand apple
By muhahaaha on 10/29/2007 4:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
Man, this "i" in front of everything thing's out of control just like Apple. It's driving me nSane. Now EVERYONE's doing it! Stop it!!

RE: iDon't understand apple
By wordsworm on 10/29/2007 5:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
iDon't understand apple

iUmmm... you just did it. Ask yourself why you did it, and maybe you'll iUnderstand.

Look in your wallet:
By Alias1431 on 10/30/2007 12:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
Is it even legal to deny cash as a form of payment?

RE: Look in your wallet:
By ira176 on 10/31/2007 4:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
I was just going to mention what you posted. The U.S. dollar is the sanctioned currency to buy and to sell with. I understand the issues that Apple has, but limiting consumers on the form of payment may be illegal. Sure, they can choose not to sell their product to anyone, but to allow payment via credit card or debit, but not the dollar...that could be a problem.

Totally reasonable.
By gochichi on 10/29/2007 6:06:06 PM , Rating: 1
Doing reasonable things in order to meet your contract and partnership with a different company is hardly shooting yourself in the foot.

They are trying to shoot straight with AT&T and next time they're up for partnership companies will see this. AT&T is ultimately the biggest iPhone customer so it's reasonable to offer some customer service.

Apple users are blind sheep? Wow... there are no lines or distinctions, the numbers are increasing so fast is North America that a heck of a lot of Apple users have never been Mac users before. So I just don't know how you're able to judge us based upon what laptop we're using that day. So if I'm using my fast but unstable Dell laptop I'm a nice intelligent guy, but if I'm using my spectacularly awesome MacBook Pro (clearly the best laptop on this planet as of October 2007) it means I'm no longer able to offer tech support to Linux, Windows, and Mac users? You know this just based on what laptop I'm with that day? THat's amazing.

New Apple users are not anything, stop stereotyping. Apple nay-sayers say Apple is a control freak Apple is elitist Apple is for sheep... but just because Apple skips the geek middle man and let's regular people do what they want to do. That sounds to me like an egalitarian position actually.

You want elitist? Try FreeBSD with Beryl and some terminal windows... that's damn cool... and it may be free, but that is some elitist stuff. LINUX philosophy is if it doesn't work, fix it... which is extremely elitist in that the user is either good enough or not... and only geeks are good.

I am far stupider than some of the people that ask stupid questions about computers... be it writers, lawyers, designers... cute girls, seniors... whatever. Computer skills are one set of skills, and we're not the end all be all of human intelligence... I'm intelligent enough to at least know that much.

It's hypocritical to blame Apple for being on a high horse and then get on an even higher horse about not only controlling how you spend your money, but in effect trying to control and judge how others spend theirs.

Is Apple a good buy? I think it's certainly an understandable buy... I personally don't want to be tied to LINUX for my laptop and Windows is out of the question for my laptop. The screen on the MacBook Pro is second to none... period... and the price is high but not SO high. I think it certainly makes more sense than a gaming laptop with blue LEDs on it... but hey, however you want to spend your money is fine.

I'd like to close with this: An item doesn't define a person. No matter how big the item. No matter how cool the phone. If you're letting that happen to the way you see your world, you're probably either really poor, really jealous or really conceited in your own way. If I grab a BMW out of the garage... I'm someone else? If the back of my laptop ... which I seldom see by the way... looks like I'm trying to show off, Apple is trying to show off... I'm just using my laptop, it shows itself off automatically. Really think about what's making you upset about the pretty laptop? It's not like it has some sort of obscene thing on it... it's not like it's ruining the decor... it's not like it's blinding you. So what's the problem?

... Mac "convert"... I don't know about all that, it's trully not a religion for most. It's not like my hands fall off if I use my Vista machine... I enjoy using media center on my desktop... you want tidy little slots, as do the companies but there aren't any. Just because people feel confident using and trusting their computers, even though they don't know the details... shouldn't bother you. It pleases me to see relative newbs just making their thoughts come to life. Have you ever heard of a Honda or a Toyota? I highly doubt I'll ever change the oil in my car... but you'll find a slot for me based on that too. And I wear jeans... sometimes... oh dang, the curve balls just keep coming... and I'm male and hispanic... and own Valve's Orange Box... oh no, your stereotypes are crumbling and you don't know how to make sense of the world. But not to worry because I'm a mindless sheep and an "Apple Zealot".

Just answer this, is ignorance really bliss? I made it seem perhaps that because I work with Linux and Vista and XP and FreeBSD and Mac OS that you can't define me by my frequent use of my Mac laptop... but it would be just the same if I used nothing but Apple products and had an iPhone for each pocket... you'd still be faced with the fact that items do not define people, and products don't dictate your religion, your political affiliation... they're just things. Some things are cooler than others, and you judge the items in question more than the people..

RE: Totally reasonable.
By hiscross on 10/29/2007 10:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Nice statement and I totally agree with you.

Business considerations
By crystal clear on 10/29/2007 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
In other words, Apple receives $399 for each iPhone sold plus an additional $432 over the course of a two-year contract thanks to AT&T's exclusivity arrangement.

All this shows how much incentive Apple has to maintain its exclusive deal with AT&T rather than to sell unlocked phones or cut deals with multiple carriers.

I don't get this
By fsardis on 10/29/2007 5:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
Where I come from a seller cannot deny cash for a sale.
I am not sure if it is a law (probably is) but the idea is that if i get the sum of money in coins (they can deny notes) then the seller has to accept my money and sell me the item.

I am not too educated in economics so maybe I just made a few people slap their foreheads but thats what i remember from my basic high school economics.

you dont get the business guys
By cwb4tx on 10/29/2007 11:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Apple gave ATT exclusivity for 2 reasons:

1) ATT agreed to help insure the CELL PHONE software was STABLE. Apple is not a cell phone company and had to rely on a primary cell network + software to be a good product. If Apple had just went their own way with an independant product it would likely have had many more problems on all networks, each unique to that networks supplimentary services. In other words it may easily have been a complete failure and everyone here would be gossiping at what a mistake it was for apple to get into the cell phone arena. Motorla STILL make sutter fools of themselves with a lot of cell phone projects. Trust me, I worked for them and then with them for a lot of years on this stuff..

2) the ATT deal enabled Apple to account for the cost of the project with intent to order from ATT. It costs a HUGE amount of money to develope a cell phone. It's more complicated than a desktop because it has to have 20X the processing power (per pound) AND have much better battery life than the most efficient laptops (again per weight) It also has to perform ALMOST all the functions of a laptop.

If I were a stock holder of Apple and I saw that they were losing millions on subscription fees to ATT via hacked phones making it outside the ATT network I'd be upset. You would be to. Stockholders and net profits are the endgame here, how many or you work simply because you like it and dont care if you get paid or get a rasie. Apple deserves to be applauded for their sucess and the rants here are whining for the most part (I DO agreee the gift card contract issue is pretty valid though..)

Nuff Said..

By rushfan2006 on 10/30/2007 2:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not being a smart ass with this I'm dead serious and I genuinely did not realize a company could do such a thing. For whatever reason I thought bargaining instrument that is legalized and backed by legitimate national government (in my case the federal government of the United States and the US dollar as the instrument) - I though a company HAD to accept that as form of payment if that's what the customer presents. I mean right on the "paper" it states "This note is legal tender for ALL debts public and private". How can a company refuse legal currency?

Outside of that interest - this story means nothing to mean because I think the I phone is ridiculous overkill for a "phone" and the price is insane.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki