Activating an iPhone - Made SIMPLE by Apple.

In article <[email protected]>,
"ed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jun 26, 4:35 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> > Leave it to Apple to finally make ACTIVATING a cell phone simple.
> >>> >
> >>> > This is huge, and will leave Verizon, Nokia, T-Mobile in the dust. The
> >>> > era of the painful activation process is now over, that is, if you
> >>> > have
> >>> > an iPhone. Congrats to Apple for solving another major hassle in life!
> >>>
> >>> Indeed - way to go Apple! No more dealing with arrogant sales punks,
> >>> yay!
> >>
> >> yes! i've never understood why they have so many phone stores and
> >> "punks" in the first place. sounds like they are making too much money
> >> for no good reason. apple will put a stop to that in a hurry.
> >>
> >> getting rid of the "go into a store" for activation concept is long over
> >> due, and now the iPhone will make it standard across the industry for
> >> every cell phone buyer. great!
> >
> > Having never owned a personal cell phone (only work phones) I didn't even
> > know that was the case. Definitely a good move by Apple.
>
> well, the thing is, it's not the case. verizon phones can self activate
> over the cell network without going into the store.

Everyone can do this. It's standard procedure if you buy a phone +
service online, from Amazon or whoever. When you buy one in a store,
though, they seem to want to activate it there, probably so they can try
to up-sell you on plans or something.

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

---

› See More: Activating an iPhone - Made SIMPLE by Apple.

"Al" <[email protected]> wrote in news:UnEgi.5832$nE2.3892@newsfe3-
win.ntli.net:

> So you wouldn't mind a few dozen iPhone users connecting? ;^)
>
>
>

Not at all. Help yourself if you're within, on its minimal antenna,
probably within 500 ft of the house.

How many can that be??

Iphone users are going to appreciate it right after they find out
everything on the internet on their iPhones are forbidden by ATT except
webpage spam and emails.

Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP

What's going to happen with the limits imposed by AT&T once apple starts the
software, hardware updates, patches, etc ? That alone is going to put people
over there limits.

I like them as a cell phone company so far. But apple on the other hand has
problems. After all the problems I had with my macbook, I'll never buy
another apple product again.

Let's look at the list here.

White plastic case turns brown. (due to heat)
Battery recalled.
Cracks on the case. (Heat caused)
Random shutdowns.
Wi-Fi quit working. 2 times for this problem.
Bluetooth went south.

Total of 7 things went bad with it.
Apple wanted to replace it only after I said court time.

Went to court as they would not refund me in full.
They never showed.

Case won.

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Al" <[email protected]> wrote in news:UnEgi.5832$nE2.3892@newsfe3-
> win.ntli.net:
>
>> So you wouldn't mind a few dozen iPhone users connecting? ;^)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not at all. Help yourself if you're within, on its minimal antenna,
> probably within 500 ft of the house.
>
> How many can that be??
>
> Iphone users are going to appreciate it right after they find out
> everything on the internet on their iPhones are forbidden by ATT except
> webpage spam and emails.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.spp.gov/
> The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
>

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.t-mobile.]
On 2007-06-28, ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:

> Everyone can do this. It's standard procedure if you buy a phone +
> service online, from Amazon or whoever. When you buy one in a store,
> though, they seem to want to activate it there, probably so they can try
> to up-sell you on plans or something.

Minor correction. Most carriers can do this, but when I've ordered online,
the phones have arrived *already activated* (only did it twice, don't like
the idea of my brand-new phone in someone else's hands before I get it,
already able to make calls billable to me).

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What's going to happen with the limits imposed by AT&T once apple starts the
> software, hardware updates, patches, etc ? That alone is going to put people
> over there limits.

what? all the plans are unlimited bandwidth for the internet / email

http://www.apple.com/iphone/easysetup/rateplans.html

> I like them as a cell phone company so far. But apple on the other hand has
> problems. After all the problems I had with my macbook, I'll never buy
> another apple product again.

don't lie.

> Let's look at the list here.
>
> White plastic case turns brown. (due to heat)

no, it was due to dirty people, apple will replace it for free.

> Battery recalled.

no they weren't

> Cracks on the case. (Heat caused)

no, it wasn't heat related, it was to tight of tolerance.

> Random shutdowns.

apple fixed that long ago.

> Wi-Fi quit working. 2 times for this problem.

doubtful.

> Bluetooth went south.

doubtful

> Total of 7 things went bad with it.

yes, and only 2 actually happened.

> Apple wanted to replace it only after I said court time.

incorrect. if they tried to fix it 3 times and failed, you get a new
machine.

> Went to court as they would not refund me in full.
> They never showed.
>
> Case won.

total liar.

-

"ZnU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "ed" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>> well, the thing is, it's not the case. verizon phones can self activate
>> over the cell network without going into the store.
>
> Everyone can do this. It's standard procedure if you buy a phone +
> service online, from Amazon or whoever. When you buy one in a store,
> though, they seem to want to activate it there, probably so they can try
> to up-sell you on plans or something.

um, that, and so you have a working phone when you step out of the store...
;D

"ed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Even if they are open it does not mean it is legal to use them just
> >> because you can get away with it.
> >
> > it's perfectly "legal" to use an open access point, no law or no lawsuit
> > has ever been won concerning this.
>
> you ever get tired of being wrong?
> http://www.pcworld.com/printable/art...printable.html
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm

typical ed... forgets to read the article:

"Though there aren't many precedents from which to judge, lacking any
other evidence, it's unlikely someone with an unprotected Wi-Fi network
would be convicted just because a crime was committed from that network,
both Hunter and Bankston said."

just as I said. poor ed, loses again.

"Bill Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What's going to happen with the limits imposed by AT&T once apple starts
>> the
>> software, hardware updates, patches, etc ? That alone is going to put
>> people
>> over there limits.
>
> what? all the plans are unlimited bandwidth for the internet / email
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/easysetup/rateplans.html
>
>> I like them as a cell phone company so far. But apple on the other hand
>> has
>> problems. After all the problems I had with my macbook, I'll never buy
>> another apple product again.
>
> don't lie.
> I won't. My mac sucked. There were so many problems with them.
>> Let's look at the list here.
>>
>> White plastic case turns brown. (due to heat)
>
> no, it was due to dirty people, apple will replace it for free.
> Oh, Then why did it say heat was the cause on the warr repair ?
>> Battery recalled.
>
> no they weren't
> Google is your freind.
>> Cracks on the case. (Heat caused)
>
> no, it wasn't heat related, it was to tight of tolerance.
> And what about the gaps that appered on other's ? You can't have it both
> ways. So which is it ? Tight or heat caused cracks ?

The local mac place said heat and battery swell were the cause.
>> Random shutdowns.
>
> apple fixed that long ago.
> Not when I had mine. Yes they fixed it. After 3 trys.
What about my fan not being able to keep everything cool ? Oh, apple just
speeds up the fan rpm and sooner then normal. There goes 10% of your
battery.

>> Wi-Fi quit working. 2 times for this problem.
>
> doubtful.
> Read the fixes on the apple site.
>> Bluetooth went south.
>
> doubtful
>
Your a funny guy. If something goes wrong it's doubtful ?

>> Total of 7 things went bad with it.
>
> yes, and only 2 actually happened.
>
>> Apple wanted to replace it only after I said court time.
>
> incorrect. if they tried to fix it 3 times and failed, you get a new
> machine.

Wrong. Only if it's the same part "Under the lemon law"

>> Went to court as they would not refund me in full.
>> They never showed.
>>
>> Case won.
>
> total liar.
>
> Is that why apple had class action cases pending for the POS ?

No need. I got the refund and I'm done.

Spend some time and Google battery, main board, heat, case cracks, white
plastic turning brown and class action it all =apple...

When it ran before total shutdown due to heat problems it was a nice
machine. But leave to do something and come back and it had shutdown.

I expected this from the apple people.

You should read more into it. There are limits.

"Bill Gates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What's going to happen with the limits imposed by AT&T once apple starts
>> the
>> software, hardware updates, patches, etc ? That alone is going to put
>> people
>> over there limits.
>
> what? all the plans are unlimited bandwidth for the internet / email
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/easysetup/rateplans.html
>
>> I like them as a cell phone company so far. But apple on the other hand
>> has
>> problems. After all the problems I had with my macbook, I'll never buy
>> another apple product again.
>
> don't lie.
>
>> Let's look at the list here.
>>
>> White plastic case turns brown. (due to heat)
>
> no, it was due to dirty people, apple will replace it for free.
>
>> Battery recalled.
>
> no they weren't
>
>> Cracks on the case. (Heat caused)
>
> no, it wasn't heat related, it was to tight of tolerance.
>
>> Random shutdowns.
>
> apple fixed that long ago.
>
>> Wi-Fi quit working. 2 times for this problem.
>
> doubtful.
>
>> Bluetooth went south.
>
> doubtful
>
>> Total of 7 things went bad with it.
>
> yes, and only 2 actually happened.
>
>> Apple wanted to replace it only after I said court time.
>
> incorrect. if they tried to fix it 3 times and failed, you get a new
> machine.
>
>> Went to court as they would not refund me in full.
>> They never showed.
>>
>> Case won.
>
> total liar.
>
> -

"none" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "ed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Even if they are open it does not mean it is legal to use them just
>> >> because you can get away with it.
>> >
>> > it's perfectly "legal" to use an open access point, no law or no
>> > lawsuit
>> > has ever been won concerning this.
>>
>> you ever get tired of being wrong?
>> http://www.pcworld.com/printable/art...printable.html
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm
>
> typical ed... forgets to read the article:
>
> "Though there aren't many precedents from which to judge, lacking any
> other evidence, it's unlikely someone with an unprotected Wi-Fi network
> would be convicted just because a crime was committed from that network,
> both Hunter and Bankston said."

dude, every time you reply, i think you're dumber than i previously thought
you were.... you can't just pick and choose 1 quote from the articles-
specifically, to counter your pont that no lawsuit has ever been won
concerning it being illegal to use an open access point:
- "In July, a court in Isleworth convicted Straszkiewicz of using a laptop
to access the Internet over unprotected residential wireless LANs on several
occasions. He was fined $874 and got a 12-month conditional discharge."
- "A recent court case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced
to 12 months' conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband
connection"

> just as I said. poor ed, loses again.

no, you're just too dumb to know when you're wrong...

In article <[email protected]>,
none <[email protected]> wrote:

> "ed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Even if they are open it does not mean it is legal to use them just
> > >> because you can get away with it.
> > >
> > > it's perfectly "legal" to use an open access point, no law or no lawsuit
> > > has ever been won concerning this.
> >
> > you ever get tired of being wrong?
> > http://www.pcworld.com/printable/art...printable.html
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm
>
> typical ed... forgets to read the article:
>
> "Though there aren't many precedents from which to judge, lacking any
> other evidence, it's unlikely someone with an unprotected Wi-Fi network
> would be convicted just because a crime was committed from that network,
> both Hunter and Bankston said."
>
> just as I said. poor ed, loses again.

This says that the OWNER of the unprotected website wouldn't be
convicted because someone OTHER than the owner did something nasty. I am
not sure what that adds to this part of the conversation. Or did I miss
something?

Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:

> > typical ed... forgets to read the article:
> >
> > "Though there aren't many precedents from which to judge, lacking any
> > other evidence, it's unlikely someone with an unprotected Wi-Fi network
> > would be convicted just because a crime was committed from that network,
> > both Hunter and Bankston said."
> >
> > just as I said. poor ed, loses again.
>
> This says that the OWNER of the unprotected website wouldn't be
> convicted because someone OTHER than the owner did something nasty. I am
> not sure what that adds to this part of the conversation. Or did I miss
> something?

no you are reading it right, the owner has nothing to worry about by
having a nice, open network for anyone to use. that's how it should be
and there is no "law" on the books that makes you liable for having an
open access point.

"ed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> dude, every time you reply, i think you're dumber than i previously thought
> you were.... you can't just pick and choose 1 quote from the articles-
> specifically, to counter your pont that no lawsuit has ever been won
> concerning it being illegal to use an open access point:
> - "In July, a court in Isleworth convicted Straszkiewicz of using a laptop
> to access the Internet over unprotected residential wireless LANs on several
> occasions. He was fined $874 and got a 12-month conditional discharge."
> - "A recent court case, which saw a West London man fined £500 and sentenced
> to 12 months' conditional discharge for hijacking a wireless broadband
> connection"
>
> > just as I said. poor ed, loses again.
>
> no, you're just too dumb to know when you're wrong...

but the owner of the open access point wasn't charged, that's where you
seem to be confused.

"none" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "ed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Even if they are open it does not mean it is legal to use them just
>> >> because you can get away with it.
>> >
>> > it's perfectly "legal" to use an open access point, no law or no lawsuit
>> > has ever been won concerning this.
>>
>> you ever get tired of being wrong?
>> http://www.pcworld.com/printable/art...printable.html
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm

A few isolated cases where the defendant had ineffective legal representation.
--
John Richards

none <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > typical ed... forgets to read the article:
> > >
> > > "Though there aren't many precedents from which to judge, lacking any
> > > other evidence, it's unlikely someone with an unprotected Wi-Fi network
> > > would be convicted just because a crime was committed from that network,
> > > both Hunter and Bankston said."
> > >
> > > just as I said. poor ed, loses again.
> >
> > This says that the OWNER of the unprotected website wouldn't be
> > convicted because someone OTHER than the owner did something nasty. I am
> > not sure what that adds to this part of the conversation. Or did I miss
> > something?
>
> no you are reading it right, the owner has nothing to worry about by
> having a nice, open network for anyone to use. that's how it should be
> and there is no "law" on the books that makes you liable for having an
> open access point.

Which was exactly not the point.

Geez...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter