MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

This doesn't make me feel like AT&T;/Apple's ducks are in a row just weeks before - but that just doesn't sound very "Apple" to me.

I choose to believe that the text was determined to take away from the clean look of the ads and therefore removed.

me agrees with me

Looks like legal said it wasn't needed.

AT&Ts;best cell/data plans tend to have the 2-year agreement requirement. I wouldn't look for it to not be present in the iPhone plans.

MDN consistently criticizes Apple (when they deserve it).

MDN Take is spot on.

The 2-year-plan is required for AT&T;wireless and/or special price. Not for wi-fi or just to use the thing.
Since the ad's don't mention price, the disclaimer is not necessary.

GABBO is coming.

Since the AT&T;has locked in a deal with Apple, you wouldn't be able to use any other company for phone service anyway, so why put the text there? It just gives people an excuse not to buy an iPhone.

Since Apple does not mention the price tag in the ads yet it might not be necessary to mention the 2-year contract in the ads. If they said "from$499,-*" with an asterix they would need to mention the 2-year contract. We'll see...

Who, other that we Apple obsessive types, will notice, much less care about this change?
Is this much ado about nothing?
I think so.

Well it's a $600 phone, so that pretty much pays for it, so there isn't a need for a 2 year contract to subsidize it.

What Apple is getting is a kickback from AT&T;from our monthly subscribtions, this is to cover new feature and content advances, hosting, software upgrades and the like.

I think the flexability of not requiring a contract would appeal to a lot of people.

Also the more Apple improves the iPhone with content, the more bandwidth customers will use thus the more of a kickback Apple gets.

The customer can choose every month how much to throttle their content/bandwidth use according to their own budget.

this is very strange, and stupid, whatever it means.

Well when you think about it, you don't have to sign a contract to buy a phone from a cell phone company. If you just wanted to buy the phone you could (granted it wouldn't do much without service), but maybe this is the thing AT&T;and Apple have been discussing since january. Perhaps apple won this fight. I can think of plenty of people who would buy the damn thing even if it didn't have the phone option. I mean the thing has wifi built in, and you won't have to pay to connect to just a normal wifi network. Hell I know i'd buy it just to have a new 'video ipod', mac os x, and safari in my pocket. Then maybe later i'll pay at&t;to give me some cell service. Just a thought.

This (hopefully) means those of us who recently signed a 2 year agreement with AT&T;will be able to buy the iphone outright...

I heard the same thing, but the guy was missing a foot.

There has also been a rumor recently that, since Apple is not using the subscription plan to subsidize the end-user cost of the phone, that AT&T;will allow prepaid/pay-as-you-go usage of the phone.

Robert: people who want an iPhone but don't want to lock into a contract will probably care, because it raises the question about whether or not a contract will be required or not. It's just speculation of course, so people shouldn't get their hopes up too hight.

I just saw an ad on CNN (11:30am 6/7/2007) and it had the 2-year agreement required tag on it. It was small at the bottom, but it was there.

The iPhone will be $499 and $599 retail but from a recent phone conversation I had with an at&t;rep, the iPhone may be discounted if you sign on with a 2 year contract (I can see a rebate in the mail scenario, pay retail up front). How much of a discount is still unknown. Imagine if the iPhone was $299 and $399 with a 2 year contract? Verizon stores would be empty and going out of business. =)

I always thought it was the full retail price yet Apple stated "with 2 year contract" from the very beginning. Maybe they were confused on how the game works or the terms weren't set, so they went with the worst case scenario.

$499-$599 would sound a lot better if it meant full retail without being locked to AT&T;for 2 years. That's how I buy all of my cell phones. I HATE contracts.

If the commercials don't say how much the iPhone costs ($399, $499, or whatever), I don't see why they need to say that a 2-year agreement is necessary. I don't see any false or deceptive advertising with regards to pricing.

Why would his Steve-ness want an AT&T;disclaimer on his ad along with all of the negative publicity?

My take? Sir Steve saw or heard about the disclaimer and nixed it personally. Doesn't mean that the 2 year agreement still won't apply. Just cleans up the ad a bit.

In the ten years I've been a cellphone user (digital-only, no AMPS), I went through AT&T;(the original one, on TDMA), Sprint (CDMA), T-Mobile and Cingular (GSM). Not once did I pay a dime for a phone. On T-Mobile, I got three free phones during three years I was with them - every year, I would call up and demand a new free phone. Most recent free phone I got (Cingular) was Sony-Ericsson W600i (actually, two of them on family plan).

Having said all that, iPhone will be the first phone I will pay for.

The point of this story is, I may represent a chunky segment of today's cell phone market.

If the announced price does NOT require any up-front contract, then the only reason AT&T;would not offer (mail-in) discounts or rebates would be if Apple didn't let them do it.

Right on IONLYUSEOSX
I Talked to Cingular (AT&T;) last night. I'm with Cingular/AT&T;and have a month-to-month plan. I was told that I won't have to enter into a 2-year contract to purchase one, although I would probably be paying full price for the phone. (Which I was expecting to anyway.)
Nothing to see here. Move on.

I don't think we should read too much into it. Maybe it's been removed just so people don't get scared, but end up in the store anyway.

I would like payasyougo, personally, however.

I just wish it was determined it wasn't legally necessary befor they aired. It made the black space very cluttered, and it was not Apple-like to have that on the screen. It took the eye away from the ATT message for a moment as one was trying to read the disclaimer...

Perhaps that IS was Apple wanted, to distract from the ATT logo? Ohhh conspriacy theory's abound!

The two year agreement thing is such a scam. I'm hoping Steve Jobs had a fit and called those idiots at AT&T;and told them they are absolutely insane in requiring NEW activations.

This is a phone that Apple agreed to give them. Verizon is not getting it. It will generate sales and customers on it's own.

I hope there'll be some sort of break for loyal Cingular/AT&T;customers...or at least loyal till Verizon or others get an iPhone deal of their own... lol

Taking that off of the commercial doesn't mean that the terms have changed, it just means that Apple and AT&T;got too much guff by having that on the back of the commercial. Just look at all the comments that were posted on MDN about that! Like Big Al said, the legal department felt that it wasn't needed, so they took it off. No one will miss it. Frankly, they won't be surprised when they find out the terms anyway.

I believe that you pay the price of the phone and then the two-year contract with AT&T;. Does anyone know what the price of the mobile service is for this?

With most Cell phone companies, you usually have to sign a contract when you get a phone that's discounted, but if you buy a phone at the retail price, you don't have to get into a contract. that is not to say that new customers won't have to sign a 2-year agreement. but if I'm going to pay $499-$599 for a phone at the retail price, you better be sure that I'm going to make the terms...