It time to retalliate! If France is going to essentially outlaw a United States product to protect a market, then they can drink their wine-all of it.
I think your interpretation is off the mark, and a prejudiced one at that. In this case, it doesn't look like it is oulawing a US product to outlaw a US product, it's just outlawing certain practices. The fact that Apple doesn't want to deal with that is Apple's choice.
Requiring unlocked phones to cost the same is kind of bizarre to me though, I didn't know about that part.
Right, because the extra cost is justified by the amount of work it takes them to unlock it. That makes sense.
That wasn't the point though, it's not the cost to unlock. Rightly or wrongly, Apple seems to consider the subscriber revenue as part of the price of the product. From figures I've heard, $200 should cover that part, but then, it sounds like charging any extra for an unlocked version is illegal there.
Apple might as well offer unlocked phones in Europe and just charge more for them. Locked: $399, unlocked: $599. The Nokia N-95 is unlocked but it costs $700.
France might as well be written off by Apple, though, since they have such screwed up laws. Look at all the crap Apple had to go through with iTunes. Beaucoup de merde.
The "problem" with the laws in France in regard to things like cell phones and digital music is that they're more pro-consumer instead of pro-big-business.
The airwaves the carriers use, and that cell phones transmit on, are a public commodity. The use of those airwaves should be licensed out in terms favorable to consumers, not favorable to big businesses attempting to maximize profit through artificially-imposed restrictions and artificially-imposed lack of service mobility.
I wish more countries had the guts to tell the lobbyists for the big carriers to go screw themselves, to enforce consumer-friendly terms on them in exchange for their use of the airwaves which belong to the public.
That wasn't the point though, it's not the cost to unlock. Rightly or wrongly, Apple seems to consider the subscriber revenue as part of the price of the product. From figures I've heard, $200 should cover that part, but then, it sounds like charging any extra for an unlocked version is illegal there.
I admit, that's a bit strange deciding how much companies can charge for their products. I'd think that a bit of healthy competition from the OpenMoko phone when it comes out should solve any price gouging issues (the market will take care of itself in that case).
But I do support the law which forces phones to be unlocked. I think that it's a step in the right direction for consumers.
I think your interpretation is off the mark, and a prejudiced one at that. In this case, it doesn't look like it is oulawing a US product to outlaw a US product, it's just outlawing certain practices. The fact that Apple doesn't want to deal with that is Apple's choice.
Requiring unlocked phones to cost the same is kind of bizarre to me though, I didn't know about that part.
Fine they can sell wine in the U.S., but they can only use grape varities and names otherwise available in the U.S. Let's also require srew off caps.
The dilemma for Apple is that allowing unlocked phones in France jeopardizes their exclusivity deals elsewhere, particularly for Europe. Why lock yourself into a 2-year contract with O2 or T-Mobile (in the UK and Germany, respectively) when you can head to France (for some a short drive/flight/rail trip) and buy the unlocked version and use a cheapo prepaid SIM from the corner store. And you know there will be heavy international eBay trade in officially unlocked iPhones from France if this happens.
You would have thought that Apple's lawyers would have looked into this early on. Another poster from Belgium previously said that it was illegal to sell locked phones there also. Seems strange for this to rear its head so late in the day. Perhaps Apple were just getting too greedy in the end. They certainly seem to be getting more and more that way, much the same as Microsoft.
You would think this would be one of the first things their marketing people investigated.
American Lawyer using Google to translate the French Law, may had misunderstood what it said.
I wish more countries had the guts to tell the lobbyists for the big carriers to go screw themselves, to enforce consumer-friendly terms on them in exchange for their use of the airwaves which belong to the public.
While I support your main idea (laws which are favorable to consumers), I am not blind to the fact that it costs money to build and maintain cellular towers.
So while the "air" might belong to everyone, the cell towers (and maintenance of them) are funded by service providers, and so they need to recoup that operating expense.
Regardless though, it's simply because cellular companies have developed their revenue/profit models based on the current system, and their shareholders are banking their money on that system (ie. for revenue streams to stay the same), that there is a lot of resistance to change. The market will not take care of itself in this case, and so governments must step in to regulate things if anything is to change.
Fine they can sell wine in the U.S., but they can only use grape varities and names otherwise available in the U.S. Let's also require srew off caps.
Your bizarre arguments don't even make sense. Kind of like those mathematical proofs where half the steps are missing. While we're at that, I might as well suggest that you want a system where Apple will only sell you a computer if you sign up for two years of AOL.
How is that analogy even relevant? Let's see: Mac = iPhone ... ok, that works ... Mac OS X = exclusive carrier ... huh?
Based on the reply to his comment... "Not all of the member states of the EU are as affluent as France, so France's 53 million customers are disproportionately valuable as potential iPhone users. You'd walk away from a customer base that is nearly a quarter of the size as your domestic base (233 million)? You're an idiot!"
He responded by saying... "Perhaps Apple should start selling Mac's with Windows installed, too. Just drop OS X all together"
I believe the analogy that he was going for is Mac OS = One Quarter market share and MS OS = Three Quater market share. Switch to MS OS to the Mac and have a greater base to sell to. Or in other words, why stay with a customer base that is only one quater in size versus a three quater marketshare that's out there.
The dilemma for Apple is that allowing unlocked phones in France jeopardizes their exclusivity deals elsewhere, particularly for Europe. Why lock yourself into a 2-year contract with O2 or T-Mobile (in the UK and Germany, respectively) when you can head to France (for some a short drive/flight/rail trip) and buy the unlocked version and use a cheapo prepaid SIM from the corner store. And you know there will be heavy international eBay trade in officially unlocked iPhones from France if this happens.
Yup, we all understand the bed that Apple has made for themselves by inking an exclusivity deal. I have a feeling that it might very well be the undoing of the iPhone if/when other open phones catch up technology-wise. Multitouch isn't all that hard to implement -- I'm guessing 2 years tops for other phone manufacturers.
While I love the Mac OS experience, for me, it just doesn't justify being locked in to a contract. Even if there isn't much choice out there for service providers, I'd still like the option of different plans based on my usage.
So while the "air" might belong to everyone, the cell towers (and maintenance of them) are funded by service providers, and so they need to recoup that operating expense.
That's certainly true. I don't expect carriers to operate cellphone networks as a charitable public service. But it's not like their isn't enough profit margin here for governments, on behalf of the majority of their citizens, and not based on cronyism and the relative size of campaign contributions, to strike a better deal on behalf of consumers, while still providing terms good enough for the carriers to be able to build profitable business enterprises around their use of the public airwaves.
Your bizarre arguments don't even make sense. Kind of like those mathematical proofs where half the steps are missing. While we're at that, I might as well suggest that you want a system where Apple will only sell you a computer if you sign up for two years of AOL.
You jest, but here in the UK you can get a free Dell laptop if you sign up for two years of AOL.
Because macFanDave believes the size of the potential customer base should dictate the decisions a company makes. With that defining the parameters around a decision, Apple should abandon OS X for it's hardware products because the customer base for Windows is much larger.
Oh, and it's not really relevant, it's the logical conclusion one would come to if they allowed the potential customer base to dictate decisions. It's pretty obvious that Apple doesn't feel the size of the potential customer base has as much importance as macFanDave feels it should, or else they'd be a Windows vendor.
Apple seems quite happy delivering products to a select few who share their philosophical approach to technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
There are a couple simple problems with that logic.
Western Europe is the prime market for the iPhone as it stands today. Language support is too limited for it to make it commercially viable in most of Asia, and price is likely to cause it to fail in much of eastern Europe from a mass-market perspective.
Suddenly, out of the 1B phones sold a year, Apple's market penetration drops significantly to the point that they would need an impossible share in the US, UK, and Germany to pull it off. Commercially, their current strategy is bound to fail at some point. They will have to sell them unlocked in enough of the world that they might as well just charge an extra $200 for an unlocked version now and be done with it. The initial uptake is really what they need to grab in a country, but 5-year exclusivity is stupid.
Perhaps, but it depends on how valuable Apple feels it's exclusivity for the device is, as well as what they perceive is really the product. If it's JUST the iPhone, then I'd agree with you. If, though, they feel that the communication experience that the iPhone delivers is an important part of the product, then they could feel that their ownership of that part of the product is compromised if they allow outside influences.
Apple's an odd company. It's both a software company and a hardware design company. They think different.
While I support your main idea (laws which are favorable to consumers), I am not blind to the fact that it costs money to build and maintain cellular towers.
So while the "air" might belong to everyone, the cell towers (and maintenance of them) are funded by service providers, and so they need to recoup that operating expense.
So? Network building and maintenance costs something, and people transfer bits over that network. From that you can count what is the price for one bit. Very simple. That bit costs the same regardless of the phone set it was consumed on, does it not? Now, building a phone costs something, and those costs are the same, regardless of operator who will provide the service for that phone? No one is saying that operators aren't allowed to set the price for the bit, but why should they be allowed to set the price for the phone, or dictate to what network that phone can connect to? Apparently it takes government to draw the lines for greed. On markets where huge initial investments are needed and/or existing players actually are monetizing government built architecture, new players just can't enter to market and free market just can sort things out.
You jest, but here in the UK you can get a free Dell laptop if you sign up for two years of AOL.
Amorya
The key is "get" -- there is a big difference between "getting something" (reduced product or service cost, free item, or other bonus) for signing up for a contract, and being forced to accept a contract (with no subsidy) when it is not the standard practice for that industry (in this case cell phones).
Comments
It time to retalliate! If France is going to essentially outlaw a United States product to protect a market, then they can drink their wine-all of it.
I think your interpretation is off the mark, and a prejudiced one at that. In this case, it doesn't look like it is oulawing a US product to outlaw a US product, it's just outlawing certain practices. The fact that Apple doesn't want to deal with that is Apple's choice.
Requiring unlocked phones to cost the same is kind of bizarre to me though, I didn't know about that part.
Right, because the extra cost is justified by the amount of work it takes them to unlock it. That makes sense.
That wasn't the point though, it's not the cost to unlock. Rightly or wrongly, Apple seems to consider the subscriber revenue as part of the price of the product. From figures I've heard, $200 should cover that part, but then, it sounds like charging any extra for an unlocked version is illegal there.
Apple might as well offer unlocked phones in Europe and just charge more for them. Locked: $399, unlocked: $599. The Nokia N-95 is unlocked but it costs $700.
France might as well be written off by Apple, though, since they have such screwed up laws. Look at all the crap Apple had to go through with iTunes. Beaucoup de merde.
The "problem" with the laws in France in regard to things like cell phones and digital music is that they're more pro-consumer instead of pro-big-business.
The airwaves the carriers use, and that cell phones transmit on, are a public commodity. The use of those airwaves should be licensed out in terms favorable to consumers, not favorable to big businesses attempting to maximize profit through artificially-imposed restrictions and artificially-imposed lack of service mobility.
I wish more countries had the guts to tell the lobbyists for the big carriers to go screw themselves, to enforce consumer-friendly terms on them in exchange for their use of the airwaves which belong to the public.
That wasn't the point though, it's not the cost to unlock. Rightly or wrongly, Apple seems to consider the subscriber revenue as part of the price of the product. From figures I've heard, $200 should cover that part, but then, it sounds like charging any extra for an unlocked version is illegal there.
I admit, that's a bit strange deciding how much companies can charge for their products. I'd think that a bit of healthy competition from the OpenMoko phone when it comes out should solve any price gouging issues (the market will take care of itself in that case).
But I do support the law which forces phones to be unlocked. I think that it's a step in the right direction for consumers.
I think your interpretation is off the mark, and a prejudiced one at that. In this case, it doesn't look like it is oulawing a US product to outlaw a US product, it's just outlawing certain practices. The fact that Apple doesn't want to deal with that is Apple's choice.
Requiring unlocked phones to cost the same is kind of bizarre to me though, I didn't know about that part.
Fine they can sell wine in the U.S., but they can only use grape varities and names otherwise available in the U.S. Let's also require srew off caps.
Sometimes you have to amputate a leg to save the patient. While hard to swallow, I bet on no phone for France.
BTW ... Where that 30% number come from?
The dilemma for Apple is that allowing unlocked phones in France jeopardizes their exclusivity deals elsewhere, particularly for Europe. Why lock yourself into a 2-year contract with O2 or T-Mobile (in the UK and Germany, respectively) when you can head to France (for some a short drive/flight/rail trip) and buy the unlocked version and use a cheapo prepaid SIM from the corner store. And you know there will be heavy international eBay trade in officially unlocked iPhones from France if this happens.
100% with you on this.
You would have thought that Apple's lawyers would have looked into this early on. Another poster from Belgium previously said that it was illegal to sell locked phones there also. Seems strange for this to rear its head so late in the day. Perhaps Apple were just getting too greedy in the end. They certainly seem to be getting more and more that way, much the same as Microsoft.
You would think this would be one of the first things their marketing people investigated.
American Lawyer using Google to translate the French Law, may had misunderstood what it said.
I wish more countries had the guts to tell the lobbyists for the big carriers to go screw themselves, to enforce consumer-friendly terms on them in exchange for their use of the airwaves which belong to the public.
While I support your main idea (laws which are favorable to consumers), I am not blind to the fact that it costs money to build and maintain cellular towers.
So while the "air" might belong to everyone, the cell towers (and maintenance of them) are funded by service providers, and so they need to recoup that operating expense.
Regardless though, it's simply because cellular companies have developed their revenue/profit models based on the current system, and their shareholders are banking their money on that system (ie. for revenue streams to stay the same), that there is a lot of resistance to change. The market will not take care of itself in this case, and so governments must step in to regulate things if anything is to change.
Fine they can sell wine in the U.S., but they can only use grape varities and names otherwise available in the U.S. Let's also require srew off caps.
Your bizarre arguments don't even make sense. Kind of like those mathematical proofs where half the steps are missing. While we're at that, I might as well suggest that you want a system where Apple will only sell you a computer if you sign up for two years of AOL.
How is that analogy even relevant? Let's see: Mac = iPhone ... ok, that works ... Mac OS X = exclusive carrier ... huh?
Based on the reply to his comment... "Not all of the member states of the EU are as affluent as France, so France's 53 million customers are disproportionately valuable as potential iPhone users. You'd walk away from a customer base that is nearly a quarter of the size as your domestic base (233 million)? You're an idiot!"
He responded by saying... "Perhaps Apple should start selling Mac's with Windows installed, too. Just drop OS X all together"
I believe the analogy that he was going for is Mac OS = One Quarter market share and MS OS = Three Quater market share. Switch to MS OS to the Mac and have a greater base to sell to. Or in other words, why stay with a customer base that is only one quater in size versus a three quater marketshare that's out there.
The dilemma for Apple is that allowing unlocked phones in France jeopardizes their exclusivity deals elsewhere, particularly for Europe. Why lock yourself into a 2-year contract with O2 or T-Mobile (in the UK and Germany, respectively) when you can head to France (for some a short drive/flight/rail trip) and buy the unlocked version and use a cheapo prepaid SIM from the corner store. And you know there will be heavy international eBay trade in officially unlocked iPhones from France if this happens.
Yup, we all understand the bed that Apple has made for themselves by inking an exclusivity deal. I have a feeling that it might very well be the undoing of the iPhone if/when other open phones catch up technology-wise. Multitouch isn't all that hard to implement -- I'm guessing 2 years tops for other phone manufacturers.
While I love the Mac OS experience, for me, it just doesn't justify being locked in to a contract. Even if there isn't much choice out there for service providers, I'd still like the option of different plans based on my usage.
So while the "air" might belong to everyone, the cell towers (and maintenance of them) are funded by service providers, and so they need to recoup that operating expense.
That's certainly true. I don't expect carriers to operate cellphone networks as a charitable public service. But it's not like their isn't enough profit margin here for governments, on behalf of the majority of their citizens, and not based on cronyism and the relative size of campaign contributions, to strike a better deal on behalf of consumers, while still providing terms good enough for the carriers to be able to build profitable business enterprises around their use of the public airwaves.
Well either France gives O2 / Apple an exception to the law ...... or France will not get the iPhone.
Sometimes you have to amputate a leg to save the patient. While hard to swallow, I bet on no phone for France.
BTW ... Where that 30% number come from?
Then no Iphone for Denmark and many other european countries.
In Denmark, the law permits only 6 month forced locking.
Your bizarre arguments don't even make sense. Kind of like those mathematical proofs where half the steps are missing. While we're at that, I might as well suggest that you want a system where Apple will only sell you a computer if you sign up for two years of AOL.
You jest, but here in the UK you can get a free Dell laptop if you sign up for two years of AOL.
Amorya
How is that analogy even relevant?
Because macFanDave believes the size of the potential customer base should dictate the decisions a company makes. With that defining the parameters around a decision, Apple should abandon OS X for it's hardware products because the customer base for Windows is much larger.
Oh, and it's not really relevant, it's the logical conclusion one would come to if they allowed the potential customer base to dictate decisions. It's pretty obvious that Apple doesn't feel the size of the potential customer base has as much importance as macFanDave feels it should, or else they'd be a Windows vendor.
Apple seems quite happy delivering products to a select few who share their philosophical approach to technology.
There are a couple simple problems with that logic.
Western Europe is the prime market for the iPhone as it stands today. Language support is too limited for it to make it commercially viable in most of Asia, and price is likely to cause it to fail in much of eastern Europe from a mass-market perspective.
Suddenly, out of the 1B phones sold a year, Apple's market penetration drops significantly to the point that they would need an impossible share in the US, UK, and Germany to pull it off. Commercially, their current strategy is bound to fail at some point. They will have to sell them unlocked in enough of the world that they might as well just charge an extra $200 for an unlocked version now and be done with it. The initial uptake is really what they need to grab in a country, but 5-year exclusivity is stupid.
Perhaps, but it depends on how valuable Apple feels it's exclusivity for the device is, as well as what they perceive is really the product. If it's JUST the iPhone, then I'd agree with you. If, though, they feel that the communication experience that the iPhone delivers is an important part of the product, then they could feel that their ownership of that part of the product is compromised if they allow outside influences.
Apple's an odd company. It's both a software company and a hardware design company. They think different.
While I support your main idea (laws which are favorable to consumers), I am not blind to the fact that it costs money to build and maintain cellular towers.
So while the "air" might belong to everyone, the cell towers (and maintenance of them) are funded by service providers, and so they need to recoup that operating expense.
So? Network building and maintenance costs something, and people transfer bits over that network. From that you can count what is the price for one bit. Very simple. That bit costs the same regardless of the phone set it was consumed on, does it not? Now, building a phone costs something, and those costs are the same, regardless of operator who will provide the service for that phone? No one is saying that operators aren't allowed to set the price for the bit, but why should they be allowed to set the price for the phone, or dictate to what network that phone can connect to? Apparently it takes government to draw the lines for greed. On markets where huge initial investments are needed and/or existing players actually are monetizing government built architecture, new players just can't enter to market and free market just can sort things out.
You jest, but here in the UK you can get a free Dell laptop if you sign up for two years of AOL.
Amorya
The key is "get" -- there is a big difference between "getting something" (reduced product or service cost, free item, or other bonus) for signing up for a contract, and being forced to accept a contract (with no subsidy) when it is not the standard practice for that industry (in this case cell phones).
France may not see iPhone this year
Le boo, le hoo.
It time to retalliate! If France is going to essentially outlaw a United States product to protect a market, then they can drink their wine-all of it.
LOL! I'd take the French wine over the closed iPhone, thank you very much.