iPhones: 2 per person and no cash, please

I think it is an control of their sales, so if you don't activate your iphone within a certain lapse of time you will have a 2 years subscription penalty from at¬t that will be booked from the credit card which you used to buy the phone...

greets from luxemburg(eu) a country that will not see the iphone available before 2010 or where you will pay a 1000€ for an iphone that has no simlock (simlock is against laws of my country)

Dear conspiracy-theorist hippie credit-phobes: According to the Department of the Treasury, companies most certainly can refuse cash for transactions. I quote (at length) from http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml#q1
---
...the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

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. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
---
So, yeah, Apple's not doing anything more illegal than the local Starbucks refusing to crack a $100 bill for your Frappuccino.

Good lord, some of the people who post here are retarded muppets.

Apple are evil, this is totalitarian, this is a gross violation of human rights on a scale not seen since Tiananmen Square, Apple Took My Baby, oh-my-god-Steve-Jobs-is-at-the-door-demanding-my-welfare-cheque.

For crying out loud. If you don't like what Apple does, don't buy its gear; certainly don't read tuaw.com! I don't like Microsoft, and don't read a single blog/news site/etc. dedicated to their products. I just don't understand the people loitering here. Are you bored? Get a hobby. Jealous? Get a life. Just plain sad? Ah, yeah, that sounds likely.

In case you hadn't realised: Apple (AAPL) is a company. They exist to make money. They are legally *obliged* to make money. With all these caveats comes an inbuilt imperfection: that's right, Apple are not perfect. No company is. So if you don't like it, don't buy their stuff, and don't bitch to me about it.

Personally, I just love their gear while recognising that they're not going to please all the people, all the time. That's why these tedious comments - on E-V-E-R-Y bloody forum - get on my nerves so much.

Hahaha. This is funny. Too bad I sold 40 iPhones to a gentleman when
I used to work at Apple over the summer. Guess I forgot about the
limit. Or was it that my manager didn't give a rat's *** when I told him we had a big buyer. Whoops. Screw Apple policy. It's why I left damnit. Lol...

@40 . . .

"This is JUST like the measures put in place to stop ticket scalping."

Yes, except for a couple of salient differences: these are phones, not tickets, and while there is a limited number of seats/ tickets for an event, there is no limited number of iPhones--Apple can make millions more of them. Be careful of false analogies.

"The problem is, NOT ONLY are the eventual buyers of exported/unlocked phones getting gouged out the ass for something they could probably get legitimately in a few months, but more often than not, they're gonna be totally mis-informed about the dangers of bricking it."

Two words for all would-be purchasers of anything: Caveat fuckin' emptor.


"Apple wants a direct relationship with their customers so that they can be there for you when you need help."

I never realized that this was all about what Apple wants. I though this might be about what the people who are paying want. My mistake.


"Treating the customer right is exactly how they build 'promoters.'"

Refusing my money is considered treating me right? Promoters?? I'm buying a phone, not enlisting in cheerleading school.

"When some two-bit middleman starts peddling iPhones in foreign countries, and phones start getting bricked, do you really think the end-user is gonna blame the middle-man? No, they're gonna blame Apple."

And they'd be wrong (see caveat fuckin' emptor, above).

"Apple is well within their rights to enact measures to stop the dilution of their brand. Anyone with half a brain would side with them on this."

As a blanket statement, one can't argue with this. It's when you get into the details that the devil emerges.

"And to the dude who drove from Toronto to Buffalo to buy a bunch of 'em...did it not occur to you pick up a freakin' phone before you started driving? "

And ask what? Do you have any iPhones in stock? Are they for sale? Do I need a special dispensation from the iPope to acquire one for my family members?

"Even if you were paying with a credit card, all Apple Store employees are REQUIRED to check your ID at point of sale. Did you really not think they'd notice the Canadian ID?

a) they don't have to check your ID if you're paying with cash.
b) the Canadian ID is irrelevant, it's not like this is an immigration issue. I bought my iPhone with my Canadian ID (and a credit card) because I travel and work in the States regularly. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't sell products to Foreign nationals? Maybe iPhone purchasers should require a SS#? Oops, they already do that with the activation.

Further, how I choose to define my experience with a product is my choice, if I've paid for it.

And finally, if I can go into the same store and purchase $399 worth of a gift card with cash (as one poster has already suggested), then what's the point of the policy? To provide me with an "it just works" experience? Or to illustrate that Apple just hasn't thought this one through because this is actually AT&T thinking? That's a rhetorical question.

A business is entitled to stay in business as long as it is ethical. A profit can not be made at all cost, by shoving unwanted services (i.e. AT&T) into ppl's throat who actually wants its products (the iPhone).

Anyone who consciously buys an unlocked iPhone should know that the product is not supported by Apple and I can assure you that all resellers will have disclaimer of the same. There is no issue of reputation here.

By the way, if there is a case of breaching of contract with AT&T, then Apple deserves it because they have dug a hole for itself by writing such agreement, due to its own greed.

Could people please drop the nonsensical claim that merchants cannot refuse to accept cash for some merchandise? There's no there there. Heck, merchants are free to refuse to sell an item to someone, period.

The point of being in business is to remain in business, which means turning a consistent profit. Allowing dilution of a company's brand or ruin of its reputation by third parties (who damage products and resell them) is bad for business. It also could be a breach of Apple's contract with AT&T. So, Apple's response is rational.

I also suggest that some commenters Google at least AP's article about the new iPhone purchase policy so that they have a basic understanding of what is going on.

What seems really bizarre to me, which I have seen no one mention, is that Apple is denying sales of their device to people paying cash? (That was a statement/question).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the entire point of a business is to make money in any way, shape, or form of tender.

And I thought that they do that by selling their device. It seems bizarre to me that Apple would try to ban people from buying their device, whether or not they're being unlocked. Are they losing a significant cut from AT&T for every phone not activated?

@52,@53. iPhone is not subsidized by AT&T so there is no reason to lock it. Yes, we have a choice but we are talking about principles here. This is not the proper way of doing business. Apple and AT&T are screwing their customers.

@Punkassjim

I agree, besides all those who are not satisfied with the Iphone being locked, go buy another brand, there's enough of them.