or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone sales tactics in Europe under antitrust investigation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone sales tactics in Europe under antitrust investigation

post #1 of 74
Thread Starter 
The executive body of the European Union is investigating whether Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices with its iPhone sales tactics across the continent.

Documents obtained by the Financial Times show that the European Commission has begun looking into whether Apple's agreements with carriers are illegal. The commission has expressed concern that the deals could ensure Apple's rivals cannot secure better sales agreements.

European Commission HQ


The investigation reportedly began after the commission received "private complaints from mobile operators." The commission's investigation remains preliminary, and no formal charges have been brought against Apple.

The investigation was brought to light by questionnaires sent by the commission to mobile operators across Europe. The nine-page document reportedly inquires whether carriers are being forced to buy a minimum number of iPhones, or if they are restricted on how to use their marketing budgets.

The document also asks whether Apple enforces any clauses on subsidies for handsets that compete with the iPhone, and it quizzes operators on whether contractual restrictions prevent the iPhone 5 from accessing high-speed 4G networks in Europe. Carriers have until June 17 to reply to the questionnaire.

Previous European Union investigations of Apple have taken a closer look at the company's warranty practices and the iPad maker's e-book deals with publishers. But those inquiries have not led to formal antitrust lawsuits.
post #2 of 74
Surely any manufacturer can set the terms of its own distribution agreement? If you don't like them don't sign up.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #3 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Surely any manufacturer can set the terms of its own distribution agreement?

 

As long as they don't violate any laws...

 

Competing with your products instead of distribution clauses is the way to go. 

post #4 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Surely any manufacturer can set the terms of its own distribution agreement? If you don't like them don't sign up.

 

Apple pretty much sets the contract from my understanding and if the carrier doesnt like it, they dont get the iPhone. It has already been made known that Sprint is losing money from carrying the iPhone because of the contract that Apple requires. For other carriers, they probably see it as, "If we dont have the iPhone, we will lose our customers to the competition who have been waiting for their contract to end so they can get the iPhone with someone else."

post #5 of 74

I don't see anything illegal in making a product that the market really really wants, then squeeze the balls on everyone who's trying to sell that product to extract maximum profit from it.

 

Yet legality away, Apple is a bitch when it comes to negotiation. Apple wants deals that are often favorable to them, at the expense of its partners. I wouldn't mind seeing Apple lower the bar a bit and make the phones available to more carriers to increase its customer base.

post #6 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post

 

Apple pretty much sets the contract from my understanding and if the carrier doesnt like it, they dont get the iPhone. It has already been made known that Sprint is losing money from carrying the iPhone because of the contract that Apple requires. For other carriers, they probably see it as, "If we dont have the iPhone, we will lose our customers to the competition who have been waiting for their contract to end so they can get the iPhone with someone else."

 

Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.

 

Because of the big market share in the US, the US carriers have no choice to accept Apple terms. I have seen numerous times Verizon and AT&T CEO's on CNBC complaining about subsidies and how they would loved to get rid of them, mainly because of Apple way of doing business with them.  If you are wondering why the carriers stores push anything but the iphone to the customers, its because they hate Apple.

 

Elsewhere in the world, lost of carriers are not offering the iphone because of unacceptable Apple terms. To a lot of internationnal carriers, Apple tiny market share in there countries make it difficult for Apple to strike deals because the carriers dont care if they dont offer the iphone.  So on top of not having there products being distributed, Apple is getting an anti-trust lawsuit. If there is one country where an anti-trust lawsuit should be made, its the US.

 

This is one the reasons Apple absolutly must deliver a sub $300, so it can be sold unlock by lots of internationnal carriers. I hope Apple gets to his sense and stop bullying the  people that sell there products.


Edited by herbapou - 5/27/13 at 6:48am
post #7 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Previous European Union investigations of Apple have taken a closer look at the company's warranty practices and the iPad maker's e-book deals with publishers. But those inquiries have not led to formal antitrust lawsuits.

'Nuff said.

Apple is a big target and gets investigated all the time. Big deal.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #8 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


'Nuff said.

Apple is a big target and gets investigated all the time. Big deal.

 

Actually, the warranty problem did trigger a lot of lawsuits in EU. The only reason those lawsuit were drop is because Apple made modifications to there warranties. They extended them to 2 years and made it clear AppleCare was only for the third year.

post #9 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid.

LOL. Another moronic post from our resident option-expert-turned-EU-commercial-law-expert.
post #10 of 74
Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post
Apple pretty much sets the contract from my understanding and if the carrier doesnt like it, they dont get the iPhone. 

 

Right, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that under any valid system of belief.


Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.

 

Oh, SHUT UP. Tell me, what magical "right" do the carriers have to the iPhone? Huh? Why do they "deserve" it? Why should Apple bow to the wishes of those who WILL give their users a worse experience than Apple wants?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #11 of 74
Does anyone know exactly what contract terms got the EU's attention and in what way those terms might be illegal??
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/27/13 at 8:04am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

 

Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.

 

Are these the same carriers who rip off European consumers with excessive roaming rates when travelling a few hundred kilometres takes you across a border?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #13 of 74
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Does anyone know exactly what contract terms got the EU's attention and in what way those terms might be illegal??

 

This is what we've been overlooking so far, I think. I'm sure that it's not a problem with the overarching way in which Apple sets its terms, but rather with a single subclause somewhere that the EU believes is monopolistic. 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #14 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, SHUT UP. Tell me, what magical "right" do the carriers have to the iPhone? Huh? Why do they "deserve" it? Why should Apple bow to the wishes of those who WILL give their users a worse experience than Apple wants?

 

Pretty hard to answer a question after you're shut up, so I'll take a crack at it.

 

EU law often takes the presupposition that all business dealings should be fair and reasonable, and non-exclusionist.  Basically FRAND, as far as it can go.  Big companies doing business in ways that aren't seen as fair, reasonable, or balanced, draw attention. THhe EU don't like bullies, basically.

 

If Apple is demanding pre-purchases of iPhones in the many millions of units, then that is discriminatory against smaller carriers.  And if they are making unreasonable demands on less directly related parts of the business, e.g. marketing, then that might also be interpreted as an unfair stipulation that aims to restricts the partners business.

 

So you may ask what the right is, why they deserve it, and why Apple should acquiesce, but the simple answer is that if the EU decide they should, then they'll have to (within the EU, of course).  You can console yourself with the knowledge that the EU moves at a glacial pace, so it'll likely take years for anything to come of this.

 

 

PS.  I don't necessarily agree with what the EU are doing, I don't think there's enough detail out there to call it either way.  I think it's probably worth them investigating if they've received complaints.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #15 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Does anyone know exactly what contract terms got the EU's attention and in what way those terms might be illegal??

 

According to Electronista, the questionnaire asks about what Apple requires of carriers, such as:

 

  • Minimum purchase requirement
  • Restrictions on marketing
  • Subsidy requirements
  • Technical restrictions

 

The questionnaire reportedly comments that, "If the existence of such behavior were to be confirmed, it might constitute an infringement of [antitrust law]".

 

Hmm.  Where have we heard this statement before?  Right... from the same European Commission when talking about Samsung and their possible infringement of antitrust law for their FRAND patents.  

 

Seems that the Commission is on a roll, trying to spread its influence.
 

post #16 of 74
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
EU law often takes the presupposition that all business dealings should be fair and reasonable, and non-exclusionist.  Basically FRAND, as far as it can go.

 

TOO BAD. There's no right to have a phone of any sort. If you can't afford it, you don't have it.


…if the EU decide they should, then they'll have to (within the EU, of course).

 

HA! Not likely.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #17 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

HA! Not likely.

 

You think the EU won't decide that?  Or you think Apple would withdraw from the EU if they did?

 

No idea about the former, depends what they find of course, but the chances of the latter are pretty close to zero.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #18 of 74
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Or you think Apple would withdraw from the EU if they did?

 

They dropped the Mac Pro.

 

"That's differ…" NO, IT REALLY ISN'T. It proves they're willing to actually drop products, not just threaten it.

 

And since the iPhone makes up most of the profit for European carriers, I'm pretty sure the EU will be just fine letting Apple do their own thing.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #19 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

They dropped the Mac Pro.

 

"That's differ…" NO, IT REALLY ISN'T. It proves they're willing to actually drop products, not just threaten it.

 

It's very different.  It's a low revenue turner, it would require redesigning the product outside of regular lifecycle.  The iPhone is a massive revenue turner, and we're talking about criteria for partnerships, not the product itself.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And since the iPhone makes up most of the profit for European carriers, I'm pretty sure the EU will be just fine letting Apple do their own thing.

 

 

You don't know the EU very well.  The iPhone sells contracts.  WIthout the iPhone, people will still need and want phones and contracts.  The EU likely won't pay any mind to that.

 

Apple have more to lose than the EU.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #20 of 74
Some interesting stuff. One question appears to ask whether some Iphones get more crippled than other iPhones. That would mean one network iPhone 5 is not the same as another networks iPhone 5. All fine and well but does the customer know?
post #21 of 74
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
It's very different.  It's a low revenue turner, it would require redesigning the product outside of regular lifecycle.  The iPhone is a massive revenue turner, and we're talking about criteria for partnerships, not the product itself.

 

Thanks for not paying attention.


The EU likely won't pay any mind to that.

 

Must be nice to live somewhere that lets its companies lose millions thanks to petty nonsense.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #22 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The questionnaire reportedly comments that, "If the existence of such behavior were to be confirmed, it might constitute an infringement of [antitrust law]".

Ah, you forgot the sentence that follows: 

.... as well as noting that the Commission has received information about distribution agreements "which may potentially lead to the foreclosure of other smartphone manufacturers from the markets." 

 

The para that follows appears to be pertinent as well:

While the issuing of a questionnaire from the Commission for anti-competitive practices is a serious matter, it is not yet a full investigation. [It]... is only a preliminary measure. In order to progress further, it needs to be sure that Apple has a dominant position in the European marketplace, something which is difficult to prove considering the popularity of some Android devices in the region. 

 

Basically, sounds like a typical EU-style fishing expedition. They have too damn many bureaucrats in Brussels with nothing much to do, shamelessly living off the backs of beleagured EU citizens. As though they don't have other serious problems to worry about.....

post #23 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

 

Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.

 

Because of the big market share in the US, the US carriers have no choice to accept Apple terms. I have seen numerous times Verizon and AT&T CEO's on CNBC complaining about subsidies and how they would loved to get rid of them, mainly because of Apple way of doing business with them.  If you are wondering why the carriers stores push anything but the iphone to the customers, its because they hate Apple.

 

Elsewhere in the world, lost of carriers are not offering the iphone because of unacceptable Apple terms. To a lot of internationnal carriers, Apple tiny market share in there countries make it difficult for Apple to strike deals because the carriers dont care if they dont offer the iphone.  So on top of not having there products being distributed, Apple is getting an anti-trust lawsuit. If there is one country where an anti-trust lawsuit should be made, its the US.

 

I fail to see how "take it or leave it" is any form of "bullying." Or a violation of US "antitrust laws." Please explain. Remember, you can't use "big market share" as some kind of half-assed hand-waving reason because when Apple began offering the carriers these terms, Apple had ZERO market share.

How is it that US carriers "have no choice to accept Apple terms"? Can't they choose not to offer the iPhone?

Either you haven't thought this issue through, or you simply hate Apple and you fantasize about governments punishing the target of your hate.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #24 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Thanks for not paying attention.

Explain it to me then.

 

Re-engineering the Mac Pro for the EU market may well have cost Apple more than the profit they'd receive from selling the new Mac Pro.  Plus it would disrupt existing engineering of new products (including, hopefully a new Mac Pro).

 

Withdrawing the iPhone over a petty squabble is a monster change that would have a massive impact to Apple's revenues and profits.  The EU is a very big market (maybe not as big as the US or China, but still big).

 

There's really no useful comparison.  This...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It proves they're willing to actually drop products, not just threaten it.

 

 

is really not inferable, as it is not provable that the Mac Pro was dropped out of any long term rejection of the EU principle, rather than just a short term withdrawal while they (Apple) sort it out.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #25 of 74

Actually, don't bother, this discussion is too blue sky speculation to be of any interest.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #26 of 74
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Actually, don't bother, this discussion is too blue sky speculation to be of any interest.

 

Thanks for running away again. At least it wasn't drawn out this time.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #27 of 74

Predictable.  When have I ever run away from you before?  I'm not going anywhere now, I just don't feel like I'm under any obligation to answer your spurious points or refute your absurd claims.  If you want to carry on, feel free.

 

And go ahead and think whatever you like.  Your penis is the biggest in the land, and the indignation that turns you on so much makes it even more magnificent.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #28 of 74
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
When have I ever run away from you before?


Last argument.


I just don't feel like I'm under any obligation to answer your spurious points or refute your absurd claims.

 

Same thing you said last time. Oh, well.


Your penis is the biggest in the land…

 

New signature, ho!

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #29 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Last argument.

 

The tax one?

 

You never made any substantive argument there, you just sniped while the big boys had grown up talk.  Try again.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Same thing you said last time. Oh, well.

 

Pretty sure I've never said that before, but if I did, it's a good indication of how tiresome you are.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #30 of 74
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
The tax one? You never made any substantive argument there, you just sniped while the big boys had grown up talk.  Try again.

 

Nah. Just about everyone else disagreed with you.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #31 of 74

The EU is a joke. They're like a big Mafia organization operating out of Brussels, and they're merely trying to shake down people and companies with money, and Apple certainly fits the criteria.

 

Doesn't the EU have more important things to do, like regulating the size of bananas and infringing upon the rights of it's citizens like they normally do?

post #32 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Nah. Just about everyone else disagreed with you.

 

And not one of them ever managed to state a single reason why anything I said was wrong.  That's the essence of winning an argument, I guess you're not familiar with it?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #33 of 74
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
And not one of them ever managed to state a single reason why anything I said was wrong.  That's the essence of winning an argument, I guess you're not familiar with it?

 

Hey, you gave up, remember? Both times. Just run along.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #34 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Thanks for running away again. At least it wasn't drawn out this time.

I'm still interested in your explanation. Don't let Crowley's submission stop you from enlightening the rest of us.
post #35 of 74

Didn't give up, just felt I'd said all I had to say, and no one else was saying anything worth responding to (apart from Marvin, but he was mostly agreeing with me anyway).  I stand by my arguments.  If you want to criticise them, they're still there, I'll see you in another thread.

 

We should stop derailing this thread.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #36 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

 

Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.

 

Because of the big market share in the US, the US carriers have no choice to accept Apple terms. I have seen numerous times Verizon and AT&T CEO's on CNBC complaining about subsidies and how they would loved to get rid of them, mainly because of Apple way of doing business with them.  If you are wondering why the carriers stores push anything but the iphone to the customers, its because they hate Apple.

 

Elsewhere in the world, lost of carriers are not offering the iphone because of unacceptable Apple terms. To a lot of internationnal carriers, Apple tiny market share in there countries make it difficult for Apple to strike deals because the carriers dont care if they dont offer the iphone.  So on top of not having there products being distributed, Apple is getting an anti-trust lawsuit. If there is one country where an anti-trust lawsuit should be made, its the US.

 

This is one the reasons Apple absolutly must deliver a sub $300, so it can be sold unlock by lots of internationnal carriers. I hope Apple gets to his sense and stop bullying the  people that sell there products.

What in the world are you pissing off about?  AT&T and Verizon's CEO have specifically said iPhone brought them lots of business.  AT&T grew for 5 years at Verizon's expense because of the iPhone.

 

Do you think the telco hate subsidies?  Do you really think so?  When it gains them an extra $1k/year over unsubsidized phones?  What in the world are you smoking?

 

The other cell companies that do not offer iPhone, like DoCoMo is because they want a slice of the app store revenue and because they want to load crapware on the iPhone.  You think DoCoMo deserves a slice of appstore revenue?  And please FOAD if you think they should be allowed to load crapware.

post #37 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

The EU is a joke. They're like a big Mafia organization operating out of Brussels, and they're merely trying to shake down people and companies with money, and Apple certainly fits the criteria.

 

Doesn't the EU have more important things to do, like regulating the size of bananas and infringing upon the rights of it's citizens like they normally do?

Exactly right!  The EU IS a JOKE always interfering where not wanted.  Vote UKIP to get out of this EU madness

post #38 of 74

Vote UKIP for single issue politics, irrational policy, and no interest in the overall effect of your actions!

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #39 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

[...] I'm sure that it's not a problem with the overarching way in which Apple sets its terms, but rather with a single subclause somewhere that the EU believes is monopolistic. 

 

I dunno. Apple tends to see how far they can push the envelope (think negotiations for streaming music) and only pull back when hit with a really big stick (think agency model). That's their job and is what they should do.

 

The role of regulators is to make sure consumers don't get screwed when one company gains enough influence to potentially shut out competition. According to the article, Apple is crossing the line on that front.

 

If only one carrier offers the iPhone, that carrier can dictate the terms under which a consumer may own and use one. That could be bad for consumers. By demanding that carriers pre-purchase a very large number of units, Apple is effectively shutting out some carriers. That reduces competition between CARRIERS, as opposed to between phone manufacturers, which may be part of the commission's concern.

 

Dictating marketing budgets is another point of potential conflict. That's an area that might reasonably be described as none of Apple's business. Suppliers should not be allowed to tell carriers how to run their business.

 

Obviously Apple will and should do everything they can to ensure they sell as many iPhones as they can. What the regulators are saying is that they have to play fair. Apple isn't allowed to say "If you want to sell our stuff, you're not allowed to sell theirs." That impinges on the freedom of the carrier to decide how to run their own business and ultimately limits consumer choice. What's good for Apple is not necessary what's best for consumers, and like it or not, looking out for consumers is (supposed to be) a fundamental part of the regulators' job.

post #40 of 74
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

If only one carrier offers the iPhone, that carrier can dictate the terms under which a consumer may own and use one. That could be bad for consumers.

 

Except in the US, all carriers have the iPhone and all carriers get to dictate the terms under which a consumer may use and own one.

 

This isn't anything new. This isn't anything special. This isn't anything illegal. Not on Apple's part, at least. Going after Apple instead of punishing the people actually responsible for the actions that harm consumers is the standard pathetic trick that governments do.


By demanding that carriers pre-purchase a very large number of units, Apple is effectively shutting out some carriers. That reduces competition between CARRIERS, as opposed to between phone manufacturers, which may be part of the commission's concern.

 

See above for why it doesn't matter that all carriers magically get access to the iPhone.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone sales tactics in Europe under antitrust investigation