or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy - Page 2

post #41 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

And that is Apple's fault? Perhaps I am being dense, but I am not getting your point.

Did I say that it's Apple's fault?

I was merely responding to the comment that Apple "showing" respect to Italians by offering 3G iphones exclusively to Italy for several months.
post #42 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooped View Post

so if I buy gas for my car it is a contract too? I don't see how this is different:
I have a phone, I need credit to call -or- I have a car, I need gas to drive

if I pay for 60 mins and only get 45 mins I take it up with the seller,
just like when I buy 60 liters of gas and only get 45 liters.

I've posted several links to it. It's a bloody contract for the sale of goods.

Using a recent example: There were people who bought gas from a station only to have their cars sputter to a stop a few miles down the road. The gas was contaminated with water. The customer has a legal right to get compensated for the gas purchased and any damage that may have been caused by the water as they did not get the goods that were specified.

If you keep thinking of a contract as ONLY as a long form with small print and cryptic writing then we are going to continue to go in circles. The links I posted are above.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #43 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooped View Post

so if I buy gas for my car it is a contract too?

You bet it is. So is buying something at a garage sale.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #44 of 122
Quote:
if I pay for 60 mins and only get 45 mins I take it up with the seller,
just like when I buy 60 liters of gas and only get 45 liters.

A contract in its most basic is just a binding agreement between two parties.

So yes when one agrees to pay a certain amount of money for a certain product. Both the buyer and seller are entering a contract for a good or service. If the buyer does not pay or the seller does not provide the agreed upon good or service the contract in its simplest form has been breached.
post #45 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's still a contract, no matter what the actual deal is.

Okay, just so this can move along.

So what? I pay and get my minutes. I buy them online, or go to a shop. I get exactly what I pay for. Where is the problem?
post #46 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Okay, just so this can move along.

So what? I pay and get my minutes. I buy them online, or go to a shop. I get exactly what I pay for. Where is the problem?

There is no problem so long as you get what you paid for.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #47 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There is no problem so long as you get what you paid for.

????????????

Uhhhhh.... What kind of billing systems are you familiar with? Not once have I heard of a person with a prepaid subscription getting less than what he or she paid for. It looks like you are searching for problems where none exist.
post #48 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

????????????

Uhhhhh.... What kind of billing systems are you familiar with? Not once have I heard of a person with a prepaid subscription getting less than what he or she paid for. It looks like you are searching for problems where none exist.

Have you been following the thread? This is about what legally defines a contract, not the likelihood that the prepaid card won't be honored.

But if you want examples of customers not getting what they purchased you can scour the nets for many examples. I suggest looking up the fun ones that have consoles replaced by bricks and other items.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #49 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Have you been following the thread? This is about what legally defines a contract, not the likelihood that the prepaid card won't be honored.

But if you want examples of customers not getting what they purchased you can scour the nets for many examples. I suggest looking up the fun ones that have consoles replaced by bricks and other items.

Actually this thread is supposed to be about:

Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy

But okay contracts are now the flavor of the day.
post #50 of 122
This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe. People in the UK, France, and Germany will be free to buy an Italian phone and use it on which ever carrier they choose.

I don't see a problem with the partnerships. When launching a new product or entering a new market its a common business practice for companies partner. It helps give the product a supportive base as it gains brand recognition and market penetration.

The mobile phone market is completely new for Apple. Having partners in the short term gives them room to work out the bugs, develop, and grow the iPhone. As a brand it is in a much stronger position when it opens up to more networks.

From what I'm seeing the two biggest problems with Apple's strategy has been its secretiveness and the revenue sharing. Apple should have openly stated that they were entering exclusive agreements for a limited time. The first 24 months with AT&T and the first 18 months with the European carriers. After that time the iPhone could be offered on other carriers. That would have given people a clear direction in the future of their iPhone investment. As it was people did not know if the iPhone would be tied to one carrier over a short term or indefinitely.

Reversing the revenue sharing deals now means Apple should have never done revenue sharing. It didn't work. They should have just charged the carriers a premium for the exclusive sales of the iPhone and let that be at that.

It appears Apple is learning and adjusting. I imagine they are using this information and will reintroduce a stronger product in the near future.
post #51 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Actually this thread is supposed to be about:
Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy
But okay contracts are now the flavor of the day.

Someone read from the article, "Italians are the number one consumer of pre-paid wireless contracts worldwide each year," and thought it an oxymoron. From their it was explained that contract is more than one's John Hancock on a legal sized paper with very small print.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #52 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Did I say that it's Apple's fault?

I was merely responding to the comment that Apple "showing" respect to Italians by offering 3G iphones exclusively to Italy for several months.

No you did not. I was just getting that clarified.

Look, the fact that you seem to have some major issues with Apple's business methods and models is plainly obvious. I am certainly not judging that (actually, I even agree with you that is the case with Apple in many areas).

It is just that when you do proforma Apple-bashing, you detract from your own credibility: You were implying that there was no way that Apple could be capable of showing any "respect" to Italians (or whoever) since Apple is Apple and their way of doing business stinks. But to suggest that the Chinese could descend in droves (!), and that could, in turn, drive Apple to have a 2-per purchase w/CC-only policy, and that, in turn, cannot be consistent with Apple showing "respect" is a stretch.

C'mon....
post #53 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe.

Beginning to open the revenue sharing deals now means Apple should have never done revenue sharing. It didn't work. They should have just charged the carriers a premium for the exclusive sales of the iPhone and let that be at that.

It appears Apple is learning and adjusting. I imagine they are using this information and will reintroduce a stronger product in the near future.

You change your tune pretty quickly don't you?

Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui;

The iPhone failing in Europe so spectacularly has put a big on my face - love it!

To which you replied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell;

You are playing pretty fast and loose with the facts to prove this point. You highlight certain facts and completely ignore others that don’t support your assertion.

And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?

I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.

I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)
post #54 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

It is just that when you do proforma Apple-bashing, you detract from your own credibility: You were implying that there was no way that Apple could be capable of showing any "respect" to Italians (or whoever) since Apple is Apple and their way of doing business stinks. But to suggest that the Chinese could descend in droves (!), and that could, in turn, drive Apple to have a 2-per purchase w/CC-only policy, and that, in turn, cannot be consistent with Apple showing "respect" is a stretch.

C'mon....

There was absoutely no bashing of apple with that comment.

What has "respect to the Italians" got to do with providing a several months worldwide exclusive to a Italian carrier in the first place?

I was merely explaining the real life practical problem with such a worldwide exclusive --- which is that those iphones would be exported. Ask any AT&T employee and they will start using all kinds of curse words --- all the work and zero commissions because they never got connected to AT&T.

So the real life practical problem is that Italian employees don't get paid for commissions of all the iphones being exported worldwide. The Italian consumers don't get much iphones because organized businesses hire kids to buy the iphones off the stores to be exported worldwide. And Italians might get offended by Apple's strict rules to reduce exportation by basically treating all Italians like the Mafia and require photo ids, paid by credit cards.

I was merely showing the practical problems of such worldwide exclusive.

The only way to show respect --- is to not charge these people extra money. The US iphone plan is the same as a regular price voice plan plus a regular price wap plan. That's respect (also that's competitiveness of Verizon Wireless).
post #55 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's still a contract, no matter what the actual deal is.

Are you a professor in semantics?
post #56 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Are you a professor in semantics?

semantic |səˈmantik|

adjective
— relating to meaning in language or logic. The word semantic seems to have become somewhat pejorative over time. When you have so many from different cultures and different ages frequenting the same forum it is important that we define terms as best we can to make sure we are talking about the same things. As we've seen, when we have different definitions for the same words things get out of control very fast.

edit: I read that as "you are" not "are you". Mea culpa.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #57 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe. People in the UK, France, and Germany will be free to buy an Italian phone and use it on which ever carrier they choose.

I don't see a problem with the partnerships. When launching a new product or entering a new market its a common business practice for companies partner. It helps give the product a supportive base as it gains brand recognition and market penetration.

There is certainly no problem with these partnerships where they are beneficial for Apple and the customer. I do think though that Apple underestimated the greed of the carriers. Neither T-Mobile in Germany, nor Orange in France, nor O2 in Ireland did make any effort to come up with really attractive tariffs. O2 in the UK did better and the numbers reflect it clearly.

In Germany they may have sold around 100,000 - 150,000 iPhones officially (which is far below the iPhone's potential in a market that rich) and assumptions are that for every official iPhone there are at least 2 in-official ones in the country. Internet forums are crowded with people discussing problems with jailbroken/unlocked phones and multi-page instructions how to fix certain errors using Terminal, SSH and other tricks that will only scare away the average user and eat up Apple's reputation of delivering reliable products that simply work. People reading those will not care to differentiate between official and in-official problems. And now they have to lower prices to clear stock - this takes away from the "perceived value" of the product and does ultimately have an effect on future pricing and pricing in countries not even on the list yet. Even if the iPhone is and will certainly remain to be a well-deserved success overall, I think there is no denying that this strategy resulted in non-materialization of revenue and marketshare. Now having people still paying a lunatic tariff for another 23 months, while others get huge discounts, a new 3G model or simply enjoy their unlocked phone and third party apps... you do not really generate user satisfaction with such a mess and having x "classes" of users. No, Apple did not force a single individual into any of this, but if they would have just sold their device like any other phone maker and stood away from negotiating strange deals with providers, the overall reputation and adoption in Europe would be better. The iPod became the hottest selling player despite its premium price because it worked, looked good, and was hassle-free, you could buy music from iTunes or just use your own CDs or MP3s from other sources - no handcuffs. Whoever told Apple to change a working strategy has not done them a favour (IMHO).
post #58 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

You change your tune pretty quickly don't you?

Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.?



To which you replied:



And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?

I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.

I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)


NICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #59 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

There is certainly no problem with these partnerships where they are beneficial for Apple and the customer. I do think though that Apple underestimated the greed of the carriers. Neither T-Mobile in Germany, nor Orange in France, nor O2 in Ireland did make any effort to come up with really attractive tariffs. O2 in the UK did better and the numbers reflect it clearly.

It's not greed, it's just a function of the level of competition among the mobile carriers.

France has only 3 national carriers --- with Orange owning 46% of the mobile market.

Germany has 4 national carriers --- but it's very top heavy (by the 2 top carriers).

Ireland has 3 national carriers (plus 3 Ireland but they only have 1.5% market share).

UK has 4 big national carriers and 1 small national carrier (3 UK) --- the one with the most number of carriers have more competition --- therefore lower prices.

US has 4 national carriers --- 3 big ones and T-Mobile (even though Sprint Nextel is a basketcase --- it is still big). And Verizon Wireless is so competitive that they said no to Apple.
post #60 of 122
Quote:
You change your tune pretty quickly don't you? Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.? And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?

No I don't think I have. I never stated whether I thought Apple should or should not have revenue sharing. What I said is that its not entirely different from the mobile carriers traditionally subsidizes phones. The carrier is paying the manufacturer money for the phone and taking a loss either way.

Quote:
I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.

I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)

You were playing fast and loose with facts. You did HIGHLIGHT facts that proved your opinion and outright IGNORED other facts that disputed your opinion.
post #61 of 122
Quote:
It's not greed, it's just a function of the level of competition among the mobile carriers.

They had a hot potato on their hands and tried to charge as much as they could for it.

Quote:
And Verizon Wireless is so competitive that they said no to Apple.

I'm sure Verizon executives were appalled that Apple would propose a phone with so much functionality and would not allow Verizon to charge an individual fee for every function.
post #62 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by pooped View Post

so if I buy gas for my car it is a contract too? I don't see how this is different:
I have a phone, I need credit to call -or- I have a car, I need gas to drive

if I pay for 60 mins and only get 45 mins I take it up with the seller,
just like when I buy 60 liters of gas and only get 45 liters.

It is the same. They contract to sell you gas of a certain quality at a certain amount per gallon (or liter). You agree to pay them for that.

If their product doesn't meet the agreed upon standard, you can sue them. If it reaches the level of fraud, it can be a criminal action.

Anytime you buy, rent, lease a product, or pay for some service, you enter a contract.

I know people don't think this way, but that's what it is.
post #63 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Okay, just so this can move along.

So what? I pay and get my minutes. I buy them online, or go to a shop. I get exactly what I pay for. Where is the problem?

As Solipsism has said, as long as there is no problem, then there is no problem.

It's when there is a problem that it matters.

But, I'm sure you realize that.
post #64 of 122
Quote:
Even if the iPhone is and will certainly remain to be a well-deserved success overall, I think there is no denying that this strategy resulted in non-materialization of revenue and marketshare. Now having people still paying a lunatic tariff for another 23 months, while others get huge discounts, a new 3G model or simply enjoy their unlocked phone and third party apps... you do not really generate user satisfaction with such a mess and having x "classes" of users. No, Apple did not force a single individual into any of this, but if they would have just sold their device like any other phone maker and stood away from negotiating strange deals with providers, the overall reputation and adoption in Europe would be better.

I see your point and can agree. One key part of Apple's negotiations though are the data tarriffs. Much of the iPhones functionality lies in unlimited data. Through those negotiations Apple was able to get the price of unlimited data down to where more people are willing to use it.

Now consumers will actively seek out cheaper unlimited data plans for their iPhone's and carriers will be forced to offer it. This is unlikely to have happened had Apple simply released it as any other phone.
post #65 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

They had a hot potato on their hands and tried to charge as much as they could for it.

It's a function of national priorities.

People were all talking about how Europe has all kinds of simlocking laws. Turns out that those simlocking laws are practically useless (i.e. let's charge 750 euro for the unlocked iphone in France).

When is the French government going to auction the 4th 3G mobile license? You can't protect French consumers when there are only 3 national carriers and the top carrier owns 46% of the market.

The US has more competition and no simlocking laws --- yet AT&T and T-Mobile USA will give you unlocking codes (for all phones except the iphone) for FREE after 90 days.
post #66 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It's not greed, it's just a function of the level of competition among the mobile carriers.

France has only 3 national carriers --- with Orange owning 46% of the mobile market.

Germany has 4 national carriers --- but it's very top heavy (by the 2 top carriers).

Ireland has 3 national carriers (plus 3 Ireland but they only have 1.5% market share).

UK has 4 big national carriers and 1 small national carrier (3 UK) --- the one with the most number of carriers have more competition --- therefore lower prices.

US has 4 national carriers --- 3 big ones and T-Mobile (even though Sprint Nextel is a basketcase --- it is still big). And Verizon Wireless is so competitive that they said no to Apple.

Makes good sense, but is actually more a point for not making exclusive agreements. Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!
post #67 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

????????????

Uhhhhh.... What kind of billing systems are you familiar with? Not once have I heard of a person with a prepaid subscription getting less than what he or she paid for. It looks like you are searching for problems where none exist.

An older friend of mine who is technology shy, shall we say, bought a phone with a pay as you go contract. It seemed fine, until he got the contract in the mail. What he was told over the phone was just a subset of the actual contract. That had restrictions he didn't know about, or understand.

Even if you buy a card with 60 minutes, you may not be free and clear. I'm not saying it will happen, but what if you couldn't use those minutes during certain parts of the day or week? If you weren't told that up front, then all wouldn't be fine and dandy after all.
post #68 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Are you a professor in semantics?

It isn't semantics. It's pretty straight forward.

Most people commenting on it seem to understand it.
post #69 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Makes good sense, but is actually more a point for not making exclusive agreements. Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!

They CANNOT damage each other because Orange owns 46% of the French market. And the frecnh mobile carriers were charged with price fixing a few years back.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ing/2005-08-25

It's never going to be competitive in the first place.
post #70 of 122
Quote:
Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!

I'm sure the partnerships did not work out the way Apple intended or expected.

As much as Europeans like to bemoan US business policies. In this case part of the reason the iPhone has worked well for AT&T is because they didn't charge an outrageous contract and attempt to profiteer from it.
post #71 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

They CANNOT damage each other because Orange owns 46% of the French market. And the frecnh mobile carriers were charged with price fixing a few years back.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ing/2005-08-25

It's never going to be competitive in the first place.

I see (do not know the French situation too well). In Germany the competition is actually showing some results, people changing providers is becoming more and more common, and especially voice flats and data tariffs are coming down quite rapidly (not far enough, but still...). In this climate (everybody is aware of that trend) people are even more unwilling to sign up for long-term contracts. In my very case the difference between the offical iPhone tariff and what I pay for my unlocked iPhone is roughly 5,100 EUR in 24 months (that is approx. 8,100 USD) - or the equivalent of a 17" MacBook Pro and a quite decent Mac Pro. And I am even using T-Mobile, just not the official iPhone tariff.
post #72 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It isn't semantics. It's pretty straight forward.

Most people commenting on it seem to understand it.

Right and all the responses questioning your contract comments are fanmail. Dream on.
However I commend you for holding everybody word for word accountable for the exact meaning of their words- a lawyer perhaps?
post #73 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm sure the partnerships did not work out the way Apple intended or expected.

As much as Europeans like to bemoan US business policies. In this case part of the reason the iPhone has worked well for AT&T is because they didn't charge an outrageous contract and attempt to profiteer from it.

And what AT&T is able to charge is directly related to how well Verizon Wireless is attracting postpaid subscribers. AT&T got 1.2 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter vs. VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.

AT&T didn't charge an outrageous iphone plan because they can't.
post #74 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.

I thought Verizon lost more subscribers than it gained.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #75 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I thought Verizon lost more subscribers than it gained.

Nope. You might be thinking about landline --- which both Verizon and AT&T are losing subscribers.

Verizon Wireless gained 1.65 million postpaid subscribers, 250K prepaid subscribers and 100K wholesale subscribers (i.e. GM OnStar) in the christmas quarter.

AT&T Wireless gained 1.2 million postpaid subscribers, 750K prepaid subscribers and 750K wholesale subscribers (Tracfone) in the christmas quarter.
post #76 of 122
Quote:
And what AT&T is able to charge is directly related to how well Verizon Wireless is attracting postpaid subscribers. AT&T got 1.2 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter vs. VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.

AT&T didn't charge an outrageous iphone plan because they can't.


Sounds like healthy open market competition to me.
post #77 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's still a contract, no matter what the actual deal is.

Jesus, i actually feel dumber having to read this bs.
post #78 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Sounds like healthy open market competition to me.

Which is why no matter how you structure the iphone in Europe --- it would still be a bad deal for Europeans.

There is no magic solution when their market is non-competitive to begin with.
post #79 of 122
Quote:
Which is why no matter how you structure the iphone in Europe --- it would still be a bad deal for Europeans. There is no magic solution when their market is non-competitive to begin with.

Interesting I didn't know that.

Europe is generally stereotyped as being a fair place to do business.
post #80 of 122
Quote:
Jesus, i actually feel dumber having to read this bs.

Its not BS.

If you bought something that did not perform the way you and the seller agreed it would. You have the right to take that person to court and force them to either give your money back or to satisfy the obligation of the product or service you payed for.

The reason you can do this is because the buyer and seller entered an agreement, which is a contract. Even if no paperwork was signed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy