Drew Gibson wrote: > 2. The customer must also pay for or buy out the contract with AT&T (as > they have contracted to do)
That goes back to my original point, and Reza expanded it, you aren't nailed on a contract with AT&T at the time of purchase, so there is no contract to buy out. > 3. Apple must honour its commitments to the telco vis-a-vis exclusivity (eg > lock you out of your own phone) I'm starting to see a pattern here with Apple, where they are only too happy to cry the sky is falling about lock-in and DRM and all those kinds of things when it's MS doing it, but the moment the tables are turned they have no problem accommodating for it, and then blaming someone else because they "had" to do it. Someone said it to me the other week and the more I think about it the more it seems to ring true, Apple want to be Microsoft, except Apple screwed up too many times in the past to be anywhere but where they are now. Now I know they have given safari code back to the internet community, but this can be attributed to the fact that they took GPL code and more or less have to release changes, and it's also convenient at this stage to engage others to help with writing code, and some business advantages in releasing zeroconf code to foster adoption. If the tables were turned and Apple was the new Microsoft and everything else being equal would they really do things any differently? -- Best regards, Duane http://www.freeauth.org - Enterprise Two Factor Authentication http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP "In the long run the pessimist may be proved right, but the optimist has a better time on the trip." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
