, , ,

I am of course referring to this article:

A New York woman is so angry at Apple Inc. for lopping $200 off the price of the iPhone that she’s filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million in damages.

So, what you’re attempting to say is, you wouldn’t be angry if it was $200 more then? and who’s ass did you pluck the $1 million figure out from? My amusement is piqued to read further.

Dongmei Li of Queens, New York, claimed the company violated price discrimination laws when it slashed the price of the 8-gigabyte iPhone by a third, from $599 to $399, within two months of the gadget’s June debut.

Well, no, they didn’t violate the laws, what they did was, cut the price to something more affordable and (admittedly belatedly) offer up some redemption credit. The quickness of the price reduction seems to be blinding people, by pasting big red dollar signs over the eyeballs.

...the price reduction injured early purchasers like herself because they cannot resell the product for the same profit as those who bought the cell phone following the price cut.

Aha! so I see a little of where this is going now. You’re pissed because you wanted to snap up an iPhone and sell, what was assumed to be a possible must-have, hard-to-get tech item for some idiotic markup on EBay (PS3 anyone?) and now of course, you won’t be able to. I don’t agree with these ludicrous kinds of lawsuits from people, who are too stupid to work out the commonly known direction of such markets. Suffering life and death issues, need be right up the front of these compensation cases, without this bullshit in the way and fuckwits like this, should be paying the courts for the pointless waste of time. While they’re at it, I’d like some CO2 credits for the air they’re using up; maybe I can sue them for using too much.

All is not lost in this shambles though, with the closing statement that relates:

The lawsuit also named AT&T Inc., the exclusive carrier in the U.S. for the iPhone, and alleged the two companies’ required two-year service contract for the iPhone constituted unfair business practices.

This is something I can agree with in principle (although it should be resolved without even having to reach the courts). Nobody should be forced to be locked into any contracts with phone companies, period. I understand the fact, that these companies have so little faith in their service, they want to desparately make sure you can’t leave, when you find out how awful they are. There is the precise point; why should we, as wise consumers, have to put up with second-rate service and not have the option to say ‘Fuck this, I’m off to someone who has better reception and customer service, without charging me for leaving.’ This would force these companies to sit up and deliver, to which they’ll find that your average consumer, won’t wander across the street to greener pastures, because they’re already being provided with rich lands.

Here’s a model I’d like to see enforced for fair use of phones:

1. All phones unlocked, to work with any company that can use the frequency and datastream it operates on.

2. No minimum contract over one month should be allowed, meaning you can sample carriers, select the one that best suits your needs, and easily switch if the service/quality drops without resolution.

3. Offer ‘anytime’ longer-term contracts with an upgrade carrot that means, after you’ve played with several carriers and settled on one, you can take advantages of phone upgrades and cheaper services that a long-term option may offer.

Number three, would likely win me most of the time. I’d love to find a carrier I’m happy with, check out the quality for a few months, then decide I’d like to upgrade my phone and tie myself into a longer contract with more benefits, from a company that’s earned my trust.