or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › U.S. senators ask FCC to examine exclusive cell phone deals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

U.S. senators ask FCC to examine exclusive cell phone deals - Page 2

post #41 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

Or maybe it's because people are waiting for the new iphone to launch?

My prediction: iPhone will be over 50% for the third quarter, then back to upper 40% for the fourth, then down to 30ish% for the remaining quarters while people wait for the next new iphone.

That seems most likely. Weve seen constant ebbs and flows around the iPhones release cycles.
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 #42 of 104
Congress is perfectly within it rights to look at the Apple/AT&T tie-up.

Article I, Section 8, clause 3.

Congress has the enumerated power to regulate interstate trade. In fact, Congress has been shirking its duty when all manner of consumer abuses have gone on for years.

It is undebatable that Congress has the right and duty to regulate interstate commerce. What we can debate is what Congress can and ought to do regarding the exclusivity between Apple and AT&T.

Personally, I think a brief exclusivity should be permissible, but long-term tie-ups should be forbidden. AT&T has had enough time as the exclusive dealer of iPhones and now they should have to compete with other carriers on its merits.
post #43 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

They may not, but at least some of their staff do. Never underestimate the influence of congressional staff.

Yes, I'll agree on that one. The congressman and women really don't know squat about any kind of advanced technology unless they came from the industry (have any of them??) so they ask for input from their staff who give their own POVs on the subject. It's crazy to think but most of everything that gets passed or failed isn't coming from the person you voted for but from the people they chose to get their info from - what a long long way we've come since 1776... Mr. Jefferson is probably rolling over in his grave...
post #44 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

The very purpose of government is to force life to be as fair as it can be

Bed-wetter. The very purpose of government is to protect FREEDOM, NOT 'FAIRNESS'!!!
post #45 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

You're right. I'm tendering my resignation now and divorcing my wife. I must have an iPhone!

Damn, is that all it takes??

Stop by and pick me up on the way to the store.
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #46 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

The issue is that it's still not an essential service - Apple makes over 30% profit on everything they sell and this is much, much higher than their competition but nobody is going to take them to court for excessive profiteering because you are choosing the buy their product (oil's in trouble because you really don't have much of a choice even if their margins are less than 10%).

Not sure what you are getting at... This is an att issue and not apple. All carriers overcharge for texts, its price fixing.

The other problem is that if i choose not to buy into a text plan and people, spammers etc start sending me texts, i get charged. there is no way to turn the function off...
post #47 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

Life is not always fair.

BTW you do have a choice.

Where to live
Where to work

If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move!

People! Think they are entitled to EVERYHTING!!!

That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.

In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.

Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.
post #48 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exponent View Post

The very purpose of government is to protect FREEDOM, NOT 'FAIRNESS'!!!

In the context of the social contract, freedom does not exist in the absence of fairness.
post #49 of 104
A brief lesson on how Congress works: Corporation desiring more favorable laws or regulations complains to their congressional representatives. Congressional representatives write letters to regulators, promise to hold hearings. Corporations on other side of argument complain about the complaints to their congressional representatives, fighting changes in laws and regulations. Most of the time, the larger and more powerful corporations win, and nothing changes.

Moral of the story: Some will weep gallons of tears into barrels of beers at the drop of a hat.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #50 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeny View Post

Not sure what you are getting at... This is an att issue and not apple. All carriers overcharge for texts, its price fixing.

The other problem is that if i choose not to buy into a text plan and people, spammers etc start sending me texts, i get charged. there is no way to turn the function off...

There is an opt out of text messaging option when you sign up for service (at least w/ AT&T). Carriers don't charge the same for texting and many don't charge a thing (Boost Mobile, Metro PCS, etc) so it throws a bit of a wrench into the price fixing argument. Also, you'd have to prove that all the companies got together and said "ok, let's overcharge the snot out of people to text."

I'd surmise the reason that text rates are so high is because, as is often the case for me, I use text instead of making a phone call so those are, essentially "alternate" mins they are charging you for. At least that will probably be their argument - if texting was next to nothing people would stop talking on the phone so much (again, that has certainly been the case for me).
post #51 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

In the context of the social contract, freedom does not exist in the absence of fairness.

well, I would add freedom and fairness are two very different things. (Bartender! Another round please!)
post #52 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seahawk Fan 2 View Post

... Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.

Actually, I wouldn't EVER watch the news in it's current form - it's nothing but sensationalism (on all networks). Your best bet is to visit a multitude of sites to get the real picture. I'd recommend at least 1 left leaning site (CNN for example) and one right leaning site (Fox News) and then you might actually get the whole picture. Without both sides you're really just insulting your brain IMO.
post #53 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

The very purpose of government is to force life to be as fair as it can be.

While I agree with some of your "theory", your "purpose of government" statement is whacked.

The market will dictate what is needed by whom and when. Maybe not in the time frame you desire.

Maybe you need to be forced by the government to drive to the next town to sell your Koolaid to the three people who want it - cause they don't have the ability to buy your product without getting off their lazy asses and driving to your stand... now I think that's fair!
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #54 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeny View Post

Completely left out of this article, and the even more important note brought up by this commity, was the fact of text message gouging. The want an enquirery on why service providers charge 20 cents per text when the service only costs them 1/3 of 1 cent to provide it...

Out effin' ragious!

well lookie here....
http://www.electronista.com/articles...n.deny.fixing/
post #55 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exponent View Post

In the "current political landscape", take nothing for granted.

Let me go off-topic for a minute to show just how upside-down things are: Just a few weeks ago, pensioners who thought they were making safe investments with a car company (because their investment was backed by secured assets) got hosed over.

For young-uns out there that don't know what a "secured asset" is, let me give you an example. You want to buy your first car, or maybe your first home, but you don't have all the money right now? Simple - get a loan. The reason that people are willing to loan you money for something like that is that a) if all goes well and you pay it all off, they make a profit on the loan interest, and b) worst comes to worst and you can't pay off the loan, they have rights that will enable them to get their money back.

In this example they'd probably direct that the item be sold (and you get whatever excess money is made from the sale). In other situations, they might use their rights instead to force management changes at a company. In any event, they have rights - a "bundle of rights" - that were negotiated up front as terms of the loan.

That's what a "secured asset" is. This is the kind of thing that made the economy tick - people putting their money to work for them. They put their money at risk, but not TOO much risk. If the money was at too much risk, the money would be stuffed away in a mattress instead. You wouldn't be buying your first car, your first home, and companies wouldn't be making capital investments. It's those investments, by the way, that give shmucks like you, me, and the schmoe down the street a job.

All that is out the window now. We, as a nation, are on crack.

Yep, and if you monkey with this relationship, the risk return calculation goes right out the window. And what do you get? Loans turned down to more marginal applicants or higher rates for those accepted. (both corporate and retail)
post #56 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

I don't think Apple has any great love of AT&T. Apple wanted to sell a single iPhone model with worldwide compatibility. By being by far the largest GSM carrier in the US, AT&T got the iPhone almost by default. If Verizon was GSM, Verizon would have got it. To get it while being CDMA Verizon would have had to make it worth Apple's while to change their single-technology plan and they couldn't do that.

That seems most likely to me, too. The talks with Verizon were just part of the negotiations to put Cingular on the ropes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Seahawk Fan 2 View Post

That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.

In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.

When you move out of your parents house you'll have a better understanding of what you read on the Internet. Better Yet, try watching CNN or CNBC to hear the story and the debate behind what they want.

Speaking of having a better understanding of what you read on the internet…. stopping excluvise deals between mobile network operators and handset vendors will not make the iPhone work on Verizon and will not the Pre work on AT&T. They are discussing exclusivity contracts, not the forcing of mobile handset vendors to make different hardware versions.
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 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

In the context of the social contract, freedom does not exist in the absence of fairness.

What in the hell is "The social contract"?!? The only contract I live under as a citizen of the United States is the U.S. Constitution.

"Social contract"... guffaw! The only good commie is a dead commie - may you all go die off soon.
post #58 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmage View Post

well lookie here....
http://www.electronista.com/articles...n.deny.fixing/

Its about time. I crunched the numbers a long time ago it just seem right. Not that a company cant charge a premium for a service, but since all the carriers have raised their prices on text messaging it seems a little like an oligopoly was in effect.
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 #59 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exponent View Post

What in the hell is "The social contract"?!? The only contract I live under as a citizen of the United States is the U.S. Constitution.

"Social contract"... guffaw! The only good commie is a dead commie - may you all go die off soon.

You are mistaken. You can start educating yourself here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

and here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States
post #60 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You are mistaken. You can start educating yourself here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

and here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States

The first link is all fluff as described by the first sentence "Social contract describes a broad class of theories..." (emphasis on the word "theories") and the second link says all the power starts with the Constitution and flows downward - don't really think that undermines anything he said...
post #61 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exponent View Post

What in the hell is "The social contract"?!? The only contract I live under as a citizen of the United States is the U.S. Constitution.

"Social contract"... guffaw! The only good commie is a dead commie - may you all go die off soon.

Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.

Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me
post #62 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Its about time. I crunched the numbers a long time ago it just seem right. Not that a company cant charge a premium for a service, but since all the carriers have raised their prices on text messaging it seems a little like an oligopoly was in effect.

With only a handful of major carriers it's certainly not a perfect market, but I would ask what the solution would be. A regulation regime, similar to the one we had before the AT&T breakup?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #63 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You are mistaken. You can start educating yourself here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

and here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States

You seem to have a sad misunderstanding of what you're FREE to follow as a personal philosophy, and what you're FORCING people to follow as a function of governmental authority.

You may think it unfair that Apple and AT&T have an exclusivity arrangement on the iPhone. Fine. You're FREE to think that. Steve Jobs & Co. are FREE to think that this is the best way Apple can recoup their investment and make a return for the shareholders.

What you can do with your FREEDOM is a) use a carrier and/or phone provider that doesn't have any exclusivity arrangement (e.g.: Android), or you're b) FREE to start up your OWN cell phone design or alternative communication system company. Or you can go a third route and write software for a platform (Android, Symbian, Blackberry, WinCE, etc.) to make it more to your liking.

What you DON'T have is the right to FORCE us to conform to your idea of FAIRNESS. That's TYRANNY. And I'm getting damn sick and tired of those that think themselves little tyrants.
post #64 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.

Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me

Klassy...
post #65 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

that seems most likely to me, too. The talks with verizon were just part of the negotiations to put cingular on the ropes.



Speaking of having a better understanding of what you read on the internet. Stopping excluvise deals between mobile network operators and handset vendors will not make the iphone work on verizon and will not the pre work on at&t. They are discussing exclusivity contracts, not the forcing of mobile handset vendors to make different hardware versions.

Ps: If you worked on reading comprehension and not being an insufferable ass all the time you might actually make a valid point one of these days.

troll.
post #66 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seahawk Fan 2 View Post

troll.

Quick troll check (let's just be honest here...)

solipsism - joined Apr 2006, 9674 posts
SeahawkFan2 - joined Jun 2009, 31 posts

If anybody is more likely to be a troll it's you (although teckstud has a lot of posts and annoys the crap out of me!).
post #67 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

With only a handful of major carriers it's certainly not a perfect market, but I would ask what the solution would be. A regulation regime, similar to the one we had before the AT&T breakup?

A breakup or government committee pricing of SMS or a refund to the ~250M SMS users in the US just isn’t feasible. I think the best action —one I personally employee— is to not use these services. If enough people do that then the free market will adjust. If enough people are happy with the costs then I can’t see anything but a lot of wasted tax payers money if the government gets involved.

Full disclosure: I did test MMS on the iPhone when v3.0 was first released. I sent one image and received one image, but that ended up not costing me anything.
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 #68 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Quick troll check (let's just be honest here...)

solipsism - joined Apr 2006, 9674 posts
SeahawkFan2 - joined Jun 2009, 31 posts

If anybody is more likely to be a troll it's you (although teckstud has a lot of posts and annoys the crap out of me!).

And, you might have added, 9674 usually knowledgeable posts, versus 31 random/angry/inane posts.
post #69 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.

Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me

Dear sick turd:

A) You're not going to do any of that, because I and my loved ones have the INALIENABLE right granted by our Creator to bear arms, and will turn you into a good commie faster than you can say "boo".

B) If you choose to do any of that to someone else, a good society will put your ass in jail or to death. Only a bed-wetter comes up with convoluted phrases like "This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive." in response to battery and rape.

But I'm sure that's all lost on you, as you're a sick turd that likes to talk in the internet about battery, rape, and other people's wives. But I'm still spelling it out for any young impressionable kids reading this.
post #70 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roos24 View Post

Even though the request sounds fair, are those smaller providers riding piggy back on the main networks that the big ones spent billions on to put in place during the last decade, or did they install their own towers etc.?

I believe they lease tower access, so that's fair. I don't believe anyone can just "piggyback" off a cell tower. I can be right next to a tower Verizon doesn't lease or own and have a crappy signal.

As far as exclusitivity, I believe it's a double edge sword. Yes, it would be nice to use the carrier of my choice, but then again, if you just commoditize carrier service, they'll probably run the small carriers out of business as the big boys drop prices low enough to squeeze them out, only to raise them even higher soon after, as there is less competition.

Also, do you really want Verizon, or any other carrier for that matter, pushing it's VCast on you on an iPhone? No thanks... If I want an iPhone, I'll gladly switch carriers to do it.
post #71 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

The first link is all fluff as described by the first sentence "Social contract describes a broad class of theories..." (emphasis on the word "theories")

Oh dear, if it involves theories it can't be of any relevance, can it? I thought it obvious, but this is "background reading", you know, to help you have an understanding of the subject?

Social contract also means: "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection." -- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...ial%20contract

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

and the second link says all the power starts with the Constitution and flows downward - don't really think that undermines anything he said...

Apparently you didn't read far enough, as the second paragraph begins:

"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)."

I said you could start your education at those resources, but, you might have to read past the first paragraph(s) and even look into some of the references to complete it. Maybe even do some independent reading.

Yeesh!
post #72 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What a waste of time. ATT decided to go along with Apple's requests. Verizon did not (wanting as it did, greater control, apparently). And, on top of that, it's GSM versus CDMA.

There should simply be a "fully unlocked" option at full price (a la countries such as France), and this issue would be moot.

Completely agree -- simply mandate an unlocked version. Also mandate official unlocking for iPhones whose 2 year contracts have expired -- users should not be stuck with a carrier for the life of the device.
post #73 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There should simply be a "fully unlocked" option at full price (a la countries such as France), and this issue would be moot.

That would be fair. And an unlocking after your contract is up.



PS: Dev Team should have the v3.0 unlock coming later today after Apples official release. If you update to v3.0 before using Dev Teams Ultrasn0w your baseband will get updated and no known holes have been discovered, which may mean youll never get an unlock in the future. So if you plan to travel to other countries or even plan to sell your iPhone you may want to think about this unlock option.
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 #74 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Oh dear, if it involves theories it can't be of any relevance, can it? I thought it obvious, but this is "background reading", you know, to help you have an understanding of the subject?

Social contract also means: "an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection." -- http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...ial%20contract



Apparently you didn't read far enough, as the second paragraph begins:

"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law)."

I said you could start your education at those resources, but, you might have to read past the first paragraph(s) and even look into some of the references to complete it. Maybe even do some independent reading.

Yeesh!

There's a reason theories aren't called facts and the second still doesn't use your choice verbiage of "Social Contract." Still fluff, you can read it however you want but it's still fluffy. Stay Puff - is that you?!?!?!
post #75 of 104
John Kerry doing something useful?? Wow I'm not totally ashamed of my Massachusetts government.

There is no reason why cell phones should have exclusivity contracts. For a truly competitive market, all cell phones should be unlocked, it benefits the consumer and in the end it benefits cell phone providers (customers are more willing to switch to the better service if they don't need to buy new phones, so it would be easier for someone like sprint and t-mobile to gain customers back by lowering prices and improving service, like introducing 4G like sprint is doing in Baltimore).

The big cell phone companies really do screw over rural providers. Prepaid and rural providers have a shit selection of phones that would be pathetic 5 years ago.
post #76 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Dumb ass! The Constitution IS a social contract! We agree to obey a government and live by its laws to live in our civil society. You don't have to fear that I am going to come over and beat the shit out of you, have sex with your wife and take all your possessions if I can physically do it. This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive.

Although I still like the beating part because a lot of you loud-mouthed right-wingers are actually weak, scrawny bastards. Please post a photo of your wife so I can see if that part still appeals to me

you are a real class act
post #77 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't see any reason to expect this at all. If anything, availability from multiple carriers will lead to an increase in the subsidy and decreases in the rate plans, as carriers compete to provide the lowest entry point and TCO.

You can just go to Italy and Australia to check the iphone prices --- both countries have multiple carriers selling the iphone.

Both countries have a much more expensive iphone data plans than Americans.

The FIRST thing that would happen if the exclusivity end is the lowering of handset subsidies.

http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/arti..._lower_subsid/
post #78 of 104
Please. There is a huge list of things that are unavailable to people in rural areas. It is a fact of life. You can't force businesses to pursue markets that won't make money. There are so many things in small towns that are not competitive - one movie theater, on fast food restaurant, one ISP ...

Before I read this article, I thought John Kerry must have been stuck in a Sprint contract and wanted an iPhone, but didn't want to pay contract breaking fees ... now THAT would be worthwhile! :>D
post #79 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

A breakup or government committee pricing of SMS or a refund to the ~250M SMS users in the US just isnt feasible. I think the best action one I personally employee is to not use these services. If enough people do that then the free market will adjust. If enough people are happy with the costs then I cant see anything but a lot of wasted tax payers money if the government gets involved.

Yes, people often forget that they have the option of not buying. I wonder though from those who wail and moan about the cost of these services what kind of government intervention they'd like to see. I'm not ideologically opposed to regulation I just wonder how you fix problems of imperfect competition (in this industry anyway), without making the problem even worse. I mean, do you force handset manufacturers to break their exclusive contracts with providers and offer their products to other providers? That's no small step. I'd think antitrust law violations would have to be proven before the government could go there -- and good luck with that.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #80 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Take a look at this article why RIM is the king of market share in the US.



Looks like iPhone is losing market share, because it's a consumer oriented device most likely. In tough times people buy the device that's going to make them money, and in business that's the serious looking Blackberry.

Also another important thing:



Pisses me off, Apple had a second chance to rule a market and they screw it up by ignoring the business market and catering only to consumers.


http://www.crn.com/retail/218000045;...PCKH0CJUNN2JVN

MacTriper - You hit the nail in the head. Apple has restricted its excellent phone to just one carrier. Their justifications is the hi margins and subsidies they can get from ATT. Apple figures that anybody who wants the iPone will switch carriers. The problem is that people are tied to their carriers by contracts, family plans and even corporate plans.

Some valid arguments have been that only ATT was willing to give Apple control of the iPhones with no carrier logo, 100% of iTunes revenues, etc. Personally I would prefer market share and letting the carriers compete with each other on subsidies by retaining control over the brand and iTunes.

I have hedged my bets by investing in AAPL and RIMM... with RIMM being a side bet. RIMM is a one trick pony and risky but since I bought the stock a few months ago, it has outperformed AAPL.

The current distribution model has allowed Palm with Pre to play in a protected field with a moat. They could go into the CDMA market that is 20% of the world wide market. In the US, VZ and Sprint combined dominate the wireless market with CDMA. In some countries like Korea, CDMA is universal. The virtual keyboard is ideal for languages like Chinese, Japanese, that use the Kanji characters.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › U.S. senators ask FCC to examine exclusive cell phone deals