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 - Page 2

post #41 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

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.

 

if I remember correctly Apple didnt offer anything to the carriers in the US when it launch the iphone because it had a 3 years deal with AT&T. I dont hate Apple at all, but they way they deal with carriers is just wrong.

post #42 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

 

We should stop derailing this thread.

Then do that. Thanks.

post #43 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

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.

When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?

 

Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?

post #44 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

if I remember correctly Apple didnt offer anything to the carriers in the US when it launch the iphone because it had a 3 years deal with AT&T. I dont hate Apple at all, but they way they deal with carriers is just wrong.

1) Why do you think they did that?

 

2) What law did they violate?

 

3) What exactly do you mean by "wrong"? What kind of weird characterization is that? Wrong for whom?

post #45 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?

The EU indeed have more important things to do. And they are doing it. First thing that popped into my mind is the fact that they do not like it that when a consumer buys a 4G/LTE iPhone it won't work on that speed, and it defaults to 3G. Brussels is pushing hard to have the telco's support that band. And they're pushing for 5G concurrently as well.

I could throw a whole bunch of links in here but for some reason I think your post just is a misfortunate one, that reads like you're simply uninformed and narrow minded. I hope I'm wrong on that.

OK, 1 link:
http://gigaom.com/2013/02/26/eu-digital-chief-throws-e50m-in-5gs-direction-to-help-continent-regain-mobile-lead/
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #46 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post

... Apple wants deals that are often favorable to them, at the expense of its partners.
And that's a problem? What company doesn't want better terms for itself. Not sure how the EU can level antitrust as we hear from Fandroids all day that Apple's market share is "tiny" outside the US.
post #47 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?

 

Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?

Did you completely miss his point about the agency model?  That's referring to the ebooks debacle.  They "pulled back" by terminating it:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/19/3359210/apple-publishers-terminate-agency-sales-model-europe

post #48 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
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.

Do you read what you write?

 

In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked. It's mostly America where the phone is locked into a single carrier because America's cellphone companies are too scared to compete properly with each other. Do you seriously think Apple wants to sell a locked phone? No. They want as many people buying their phones as possible and locked phones DO NOT allow that. This locking is imposed by the cellphone providers not Apple.

 

ALL iPhones that have ever been sold in New Zealand outside of TradeMe (i.e. over the counter sales not auctions) have all been unlocked. In fact I laughed at people buying iPhones on TradeMe because they all were imported from the States and were all locked and people came to me to ask how to unlock them. I then tell them had they bought an iPhone from Vodafone they would have already got an unlocked phone... especially funny is that they ended up paying more for the iPhone in a TradeMe auction than they would have getting it over the counter.

 

You can't look at what goes on in America and apply it to the rest of the world because the rest of the world doesn't play by America's rules.

post #49 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

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.

But it's okay for carriers to try and tell suppliers how to run their businesses?

 

Suppliers really do have the power. Carriers don't like it then they leave it and miss out on all the profits as a result.

 

Today I still have never purchased an iPhone with crap I never use or want. However the Sony Xperias that work purchased over the past two years have all had crap on them that I can't remove. I mean why the hell would I want the All Blacks app on my phone when I don't even care about rugby. I mean I'm a New Zealander and I think the All Blacks are rubbish so I'm not going to go out of my way to follow what they are doing.

 

Apple is protecting consumers more than carriers are protecting consumers. Go Apple.

post #50 of 74

I'll just never understand why Apple didn't become a carrier when it had the chance (screw their damn internet cloud server farms). They could have "owned" that 2008 wireless spectrum auction, if they had wanted to. Man... I'd have signed up for "Apple Mobile" in a nano second.

post #51 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


And that's a problem? What company doesn't want better terms for itself. Not sure how the EU can level antitrust as we hear from Fandroids all day that Apple's market share is "tiny" outside the US.

The EU has managed to investigate Motorola, an even tinier influence than Apple, under supposed anti-trust rules.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

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.

 

So how come Apple's marketshare is falling, while Android's marketshare is growing in the EU?

 

It seems like business as usual in an openly competitive marketplace.

 

Name one carrier that is blocked from selling other handsets?

 

I wonder if any of this is about Nokia or any of the other European handset manufacturers who have failed?

 

If only European handset companies would make what people want, they wouldn't be in such a bad way compared to American, Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese companies.

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 #53 of 74
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.
The usual nonsensical garbage, care to tell us where you invented that the EU carriers were making "most of the profit" from the iPhone, whatever that's supposed to mean? I won't hold my breath, as they are most probably losing money upfront from any iPhone subsidy, then making money from the sole service contract like they would do with any other device...
post #54 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?

 

Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?

 

Previous encounters have taught me the value of trying to carry on a civil discourse with you.

 

The irony of disingenuous posturing and poking people with a stick through a fence while yelling "troll!" is lost on you, isn't it?

post #55 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

Do you read what you write?

 

In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked. It's mostly America where the phone is locked into a single carrier because America's cellphone companies are too scared to compete properly with each other. Do you seriously think Apple wants to sell a locked phone? No. They want as many people buying their phones as possible and locked phones DO NOT allow that. This locking is imposed by the cellphone providers not Apple.

 

ALL iPhones that have ever been sold in New Zealand outside of TradeMe (i.e. over the counter sales not auctions) have all been unlocked. In fact I laughed at people buying iPhones on TradeMe because they all were imported from the States and were all locked and people came to me to ask how to unlock them. I then tell them had they bought an iPhone from Vodafone they would have already got an unlocked phone... especially funny is that they ended up paying more for the iPhone in a TradeMe auction than they would have getting it over the counter.

 

You can't look at what goes on in America and apply it to the rest of the world because the rest of the world doesn't play by America's rules.

 

All of Vodafone Australia's iPhones are now sold unlocked, iPhones sold before they started selling them unlocked will be automatically unlocked when restored in iTunes.

 

The carriers decide this.

 

Handsets sold in Europe have been sold locked long before Apple came on the scene, particularly PAYG ones, Nokia, Phillips, Siemens, Ericsson, Sagem doesn't matter which brand, carriers define which handsets are locked depending on the laws in the country they sell them in.

 

Handset locking is a way to subsidise PAYG handsets which is why locked handsets generally cost less than unlocked handsets.

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 #56 of 74
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post
The usual nonsensical garbage, care to tell us where you invented that the EU carriers were making "most of the profit" from the iPhone, whatever that's supposed to mean?

 

If you're not smart enough to know what that means, why not figure out the what before asking about the where?

 


Originally Posted by v5v View Post
The irony of disingenuous posturing and poking people with a stick through a fence while yelling "troll!" is lost on you, isn't it?


It would be if that were the case, but really it's more like we're having a pool party, you weren't invited, and when you break and enter into our backyard you have the gall to act like you have anything remotely close to the right to be here.

post #57 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

Did you completely miss his point about the agency model?  That's referring to the ebooks debacle.  They "pulled back" by terminating it:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/19/3359210/apple-publishers-terminate-agency-sales-model-europe

Ah, if wishes were horses....

Apple's profits from selling books is not even a rounding error. The company likely decided that it was not worth the hassle. Last I checked, Apple was not backing down from DoJ's apparent bullying on this issue. Lets see how it plays out, assuming that it even matters.

In any event, this one incident is not the same as v5v implying that such legal envelope-pushing was Apple's MO. Which is what I was responding to.
post #58 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

And that's a problem? What company doesn't want better terms for itself. Not sure how the EU can level antitrust as we hear from Fandroids all day that Apple's market share is "tiny" outside the US.
The EU has managed to investigate Motorola, an even tinier influence than Apple, under supposed anti-trust rules.

At one time, Motorola was far from tiny. They were the global powerhouse in mobile (an industry that they practically created). Moreover, the EU went after them over their stance on FRAND, if I recall correctly. That's pretty serious and basic stuff, as you'll no doubt agree.
post #59 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post


Previous encounters have taught me the value of trying to carry on a civil discourse with you.

The irony of disingenuous posturing and poking people with a stick through a fence while yelling "troll!" is lost on you, isn't it?

It is. Especially with drive-bys.
post #60 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post

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?

 

It might be referring to cases where the iPhone was sold with LTE, but Apple refused to turn it on until they did their own testing.

 

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.

 

Need a source for the claim that the iPhone makes up most of their profit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked. 

 

Actually, the last time (a year ago) that I looked at Apple's own list of iPhone carriers around the world, about half of them do not offer unlocked iPhones.   Seems to really depend on the region.

post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

 

if I remember correctly Apple didnt offer anything to the carriers in the US when it launch the iphone because it had a 3 years deal with AT&T. I dont hate Apple at all, but they way they deal with carriers is just wrong.

What choice did Apple have? They had to honor their deal with AT&T.

post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It would be if that were the case, but really it's more like we're having a pool party, you weren't invited, and when you break and enter into our backyard you have the gall to act like you have anything remotely close to the right to be here.

 

Okay, first, get the hell over yourself. This is not some exclusive club and you're not some kind of special cognoscenti. It's a public forum that exists to expose advertising.

 

Second, I didn't write anything that indicted Apple. In fact, I was SUPPORTIVE of Apple's actions. Honestly, you guys are getting so bloody knee-jerk defensive that ANY comment that isn't effusive praise is viewed as condemnation. Lighten UP!

 

Yeesh.

post #63 of 74
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
This is not some exclusive club…

 

Private forum. You don't like it, you either leave or are made to leave. The analogy holds.

post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In any event, this one incident is not the same as v5v implying that such legal envelope-pushing was Apple's MO. Which is what I was responding to.

 

See? No reading comprehension whatsoever. Go back and read what I wrote again. I said Apple tries to negotiate deals that are well outside generally accepted boundaries, like for example, asking the music industry for a streaming rate that's half the lowest current rate, or changing the way books are traditionally sold. I also clearly stated that it's (obviously) what Apple SHOULD do. There was no value judgement whatsoever, neither positive nor negative. Purely observational. The only way you could get your nose out of joint is if you hit it with a fanboy apologist knee-jerk.

 

It's pointless to get into what constitutes "tends to" because no matter how many examples I cite, you'll just do what you did last time: ignore the specifics I cited and restate your original objection as if I'd never replied.

post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Private forum. You don't like it, you either leave or are made to leave. The analogy holds.

 

Whatever. It's here to sell ad space. Your being here sooner doesn't make you better, smarter or "righter." Or for that matter, even consistent. Sometimes your responses to me are agreeable and pleasant, then the moment you think I've been critical of Apple (even if I actually haven't) you circle the wagons and do that hand-waving, "Oh, it's just v5v" thing again. Insulting strangers on the internet from a position of anonymity is hardly what one expects from those presuming a position of superiority.

post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

See? No reading comprehension whatsoever. Go back and read what I wrote again. I said Apple tries to negotiate deals that are well outside generally accepted boundaries, like for example, asking the music industry for a streaming rate that's half the lowest current rate, or changing the way books are traditionally sold. I also clearly stated that it's (obviously) what Apple SHOULD do. There was no value judgement whatsoever, neither positive nor negative. Purely observational. The only way you could get your nose out of joint is if you hit it with a fanboy apologist knee-jerk.

It's pointless to get into what constitutes "tends to" because no matter how many examples I cite, you'll just do what you did last time: ignore the specifics I cited and restate your original objection as if I'd never replied.

Every person or company on earth tries to negotiate deals that are favourable to their own interests, some do it better than others, that's just the way things are.

encyclopaedias were sold using an agency model, dating back at least a hundred years, "traditional" enough for you?

There is nothing new under the sun.
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 #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Whatever. It's here to sell ad space. Your being here sooner doesn't make you better, smarter or "righter." Or for that matter, even consistent. Sometimes your responses to me are agreeable and pleasant, then the moment you think I've been critical of Apple (even if I actually haven't) you circle the wagons and do that hand-waving, "Oh, it's just v5v" thing again. Insulting strangers on the internet from a position of anonymity is hardly what one expects from those presuming a position of superiority.
It's a losing battle dude, you're up against the force of irrational blind devotion. TS thinks he was "invited" here for some greater purpose.

I've blocked him, for my own sanity, I suggest you do the same. Outside of TS, and a couple like him, this can be a good forum.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

I'll just never understand why Apple didn't become a carrier when it had the chance (screw their damn internet cloud server farms). They could have "owned" that 2008 wireless spectrum auction, if they had wanted to. Man... I'd have signed up for "Apple Mobile" in a nano second.

I think that's because it's impossible to create a network that lives up to their high standards. Just like haven't created a search engine. To be fair to Google, they have to work with what's available, meaning their results would be way better if all sites where based on a database template. Instead Google uses PageRank, most pointers to a website gets higher up in the search results list, which isn't the way to go, to me, but I digress.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

I'll just never understand why Apple didn't become a carrier when it had the chance (screw their damn internet cloud server farms). 

 

"Early on, both sides determined it would be a bad idea for Apple to offer its own cellphone service, leasing access to Cingular's network.

 

"Even though Virgin Mobile USA and other startup cellphone operators were using that method with some success, Mr. Jobs was cautious. He viewed the cellphone business as an unforgiving one, where carriers are blamed for network problems and overwhelmed by customer complaints.

 

"Instead, he wanted to focus on building a good handset."

 

- "How Steve Jobs Played Hardball In iPhone Birth", Wall Street Journal, Feb 17, 2007

post #70 of 74
Well, having read the comments I can't make any sense. So I'm guessing that the real joke is that the EU has to stand aside while the talking heads stop us from making sense.
post #71 of 74
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
Whatever.

 

So you lose. 


Your being here sooner doesn't make you better, smarter or "righter." 

 

Nice strawman.

post #72 of 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So you lose. 

 

Conversations are win/lose?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Nice strawman.

 

I really don't wanna get into a debate, but I wasn't changing the subject to claim victory. I was responding specifically to what you wrote:

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It would be if that were the case, but really it's more like we're having a pool party, you weren't invited, and when you break and enter into our backyard you have the gall to act like you have anything remotely close to the right to be here.

 

My response is that being here sooner doesn't bestow you with special privilege or status. My opinion matters as much as anyone's, including yours. You made a statement, I countered it. No scarecrows anywhere.

post #73 of 74
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
I was responding specifically to what you wrote:

 

Dear mother of humanity, that's what you took away from the analogy?! 1oyvey.gif

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

 

Dear mother of humanity, that's what you took away from the analogy?! 1oyvey.gif

 

Yeah. Did I misunderstand? Fer cryin' out loud, I keep TELLING you I'm about a sharp as a sock full of pudding! Dumb, that is. Stoooopid as a stump.

 

Spell it out boy! Subtle doesn't work on the terminally thick.

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