There appears to be a major misunderstanding of the legal meaning in U.S. English of the phrase "exclusive carrier arrangement"; however the discussion is far to irrelevant and boring to encourage. What's REALLY interesting is going to be watching how Apple moves into the global CDMA markets; I've always assumed that they would only do a Verizon phone if they intended it to be a first step on their way to scooping up the profits available in similar markets in India and China. The really fun one will be to see if its worth it to them to create a unique TD-SCDMA iPhone for the vast market of China Mobile subscribers.
The FCC showed last May the iPhone 4 is pentaband and contains the UMTS band for Japan?s largest carrier, NTT docomo. Obviously a deal hasn?t been struck with them, but why?
Exclusive in this situation can have two meanings.
One is that Apple has contracted with the carrier to provide the iPhone exclusively through that carrier for some period of time. This was the situation with ATT until recently. I don't know about the Softbank contract.
The second interpretation is that the iPhone is currently available through only a single carrier even though there is no (longer) any contractual obligation preventing Apple from offering it to other carriers. This is the current case with Softbank which enjoys 'exclusive' distribution of the iPhone due in large part to network incompatibilities with the other major carriers in Japan. Now that a CDMA iPhone exist, expect to see KDDI to have the iPhone on offer in the not-too-distant future.
Yes, Softbank is the 'Only' carrier in Japan with the iPhone.
But it's not becasue no other carrier is interested.
It's not that Softbank 'just happens to be the only carrier' in Japan...
Apple has an "agreement" with Softbank. The iPhone in Japan is SIM locked making it impossible for other carriers to offer it.
That agreement may be ended by Apple at anytime.
But as of now, the iPhone is "Exclusive" to Softbank. No other carrier is allowed to offer it.
You keep missing the point which is that the iPhone is no longer contractually exclusive to Softbank. Other parts of the contract may have stipulated that any iPhones sold through Softbank be locked to Softbank's network whether or not Softbank has exclusive distribution.
Since no other network currently offers the iPhone, the iPhone is available exclusively through Softbank (note, that I did not say that Softbank has the exclusive rights to sell iPhones.
This conversation has been played out. You can believe what an Apple executive has said in an official capacity during an earnings report or you can continue to hold on to your own delusionsand whatever props them up.
You keep missing the point which is that the iPhone is no longer contractually exclusive to Softbank. Other parts of the contract may have stipulated that any iPhones sold through Softbank be locked to Softbank's network whether or not Softbank has exclusive distribution.
Since no other network currently offers the iPhone, the iPhone is available exclusively through Softbank (note, that I did not say that Softbank has the exclusive rights to sell iPhones.
This conversation has been played out. You can believe what an Apple executive has said in an official capacity during an earnings report or you can continue to hold on to your own delusionsand whatever props them up.
Dude, you don't read well or something. I already stated that Mr. Cook was technically correct.
The iPhone was NEVER contractually exclusive to Softbank.
Apple agreed to SIM lock the iPhone so that only Softbank can handle it.
No matter how you slice it, it's exclusive, not by chance but by agreement, although not part of the carrier contract.
Except he's not getting paid just $1. His earnings come though a bonus rather than salary, which I understand is taxed lower.
Justify your statement. Please refer to publicly available SEC documents whenever possible.
You do not know what the f*ck you have written.
Apple reimburses Steve for company travel on the Gulfstream V. He has medical coverage, just like every other full-time Apple employee. After that, he gets nothing more than what any other Apple employee gets.
Dude, you don't read well or something. I already stated that Mr. Cook was technically correct.
The iPhone was NEVER contractually exclusive to Softbank.
Apple agreed to SIM lock the iPhone so that only Softbank can handle it.
No matter how you slice it, it's exclusive, not by chance but by agreement, although not part of the carrier contract.
What is the delusion here?
You make it sound as if SIM-locking is unusual. It is not:
Quote:
In most countries, most mobile phones are shipped with country and/or network provider locks.
Most mobile phones can be unlocked to work with any GSM, such as O2 or Orange (in the UK), but the phone may still display the original branding and may not support features of the new carrier; besides the locking, phones may also have firmware installed on them which is specific to the network provider. For example, if you have a Vodafone or Telstra branded phone in Australia, it displays the relevant logo and may only support features provided by that network (e.g. Vodafone Live!). This firmware is installed by the service provider and is separate from the locking mechanism. Most phones can be unbranded by reflashing a different firmware version, a procedure recommended for advanced users only.
The reason many network providers SIM lock their phones is that they offer phones at a discount to customers in exchange for a contract to pay for the use of the network for a specified time period, usually one or two years. This business model allows the company to recoup the cost of the phone over the life of the contract. Such discounts are worth up to several hundred US dollars. If the phones were not locked, users might sign a contract with one company, get the discounted phone, then stop paying the monthly bill (thus breaking the contract) and start using the phone on another network or even sell the phone for a profit. SIM locking makes it more difficult to do this.
As a practical matter, are there other networks in Japan that the iPhone would work on? KDDI is CDMA and NTT Docomo uses a different frequency I think.
Read the original article and quotes again and it should be obvious. Contractional exclusivity is not the same as voluntary exclusivity and has nothing to do with carrier locks.
what all of us in japan can agree is that we look forward to being able to buy an iPhone in Japan which isnt locked to Softbank.
some people may want to buy their iPhone and use it on Docomo.
in my case i actually dont mind buying an iPhone through Softbank and having it locked to Softbank IN JAPAN. but while roaming overseas i want to be able to use the same handset with a different, local SIM.
FYI: the iPad is exactly like the above arrangement (locked to Softbank in Japan, but carrier free outside of Japan)
for most of us KDDI au being able to offer a CDMA iPhone is moot. we want a carrier free GMS iPhone in Japan.
its getting close to the above, witness the iPad and being able to use an unlocked iPhone bought outside of Japan on b-mobile/docomo. but i want to stay with Softbank and have lower roaming charges outside of Japan.
That is a great question. Somehow I doubt it though. I think this means you don't have to get stuck with AT&T, but once you choose your carrier your stuck with them for the duration. This does bode well for Sprint and T-Mobile coming soon though.
Comments
The FCC showed last May the iPhone 4 is pentaband and contains the UMTS band for Japan?s largest carrier, NTT docomo. Obviously a deal hasn?t been struck with them, but why?
Rhetorical question?
The contract with AT&T in the US was carrier exclusive. The contract with Softbank is not.
And what do you call it if no other carrier is allowed to offer the iPhone except Softbank?
Most other reports use the word "Exclusive" for this arrangement with Softbank.
(e.g.: http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/onebeats-...tm?id=63020412)
Enlighten us. What expression should we be using?
The word means a number of things. Apple's meaning mentioned during the call, is that they will no longer offer exclusive contracts to companies.
Exclusive also means that at this time, one company offers something that others do not, but might in the future.
Exclusive to one company doesn't now mean that Apple isn't negotiating with the others. They may also have to wait for the contract to end.
Per Cook's statement on the conference call, they are out of all exclusivity agreements with carriers.
The contract with AT&T in the US was carrier exclusive. The contract with Softbank is not.
And what do you call it if no other carrier is allowed to offer the iPhone except Softbank?
Most other reports use the word "Exclusive" for this arrangement with Softbank.
(e.g.: http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/onebeats-...tm?id=63020412)
Enlighten us. What expression should we be using?
Exclusive in this situation can have two meanings.
One is that Apple has contracted with the carrier to provide the iPhone exclusively through that carrier for some period of time. This was the situation with ATT until recently. I don't know about the Softbank contract.
The second interpretation is that the iPhone is currently available through only a single carrier even though there is no (longer) any contractual obligation preventing Apple from offering it to other carriers. This is the current case with Softbank which enjoys 'exclusive' distribution of the iPhone due in large part to network incompatibilities with the other major carriers in Japan. Now that a CDMA iPhone exist, expect to see KDDI to have the iPhone on offer in the not-too-distant future.
The word means a number of things. Apple's meaning mentioned during the call, is that they will no longer offer exclusive contracts to companies.
Exclusive also means that at this time, one company offers something that others do not, but might in the future.
Yes, Softbank is the 'Only' carrier in Japan with the iPhone.
But it's not becasue no other carrier is interested.
It's not that Softbank 'just happens to be the only carrier' in Japan...
Apple has an "agreement" with Softbank. The iPhone in Japan is SIM locked making it impossible for other carriers to offer it.
That agreement may be ended by Apple at anytime.
But as of now, the iPhone is "Exclusive" to Softbank. No other carrier is allowed to offer it.
Yes, Softbank is the 'Only' carrier in Japan with the iPhone.
But it's not becasue no other carrier is interested.
It's not that Softbank 'just happens to be the only carrier' in Japan...
Apple has an "agreement" with Softbank. The iPhone in Japan is SIM locked making it impossible for other carriers to offer it.
That agreement may be ended by Apple at anytime.
But as of now, the iPhone is "Exclusive" to Softbank. No other carrier is allowed to offer it.
You keep missing the point which is that the iPhone is no longer contractually exclusive to Softbank. Other parts of the contract may have stipulated that any iPhones sold through Softbank be locked to Softbank's network whether or not Softbank has exclusive distribution.
Since no other network currently offers the iPhone, the iPhone is available exclusively through Softbank (note, that I did not say that Softbank has the exclusive rights to sell iPhones.
This conversation has been played out. You can believe what an Apple executive has said in an official capacity during an earnings report or you can continue to hold on to your own delusionsand whatever props them up.
Gulfstream.
I stand corrected, thank you.
You keep missing the point which is that the iPhone is no longer contractually exclusive to Softbank. Other parts of the contract may have stipulated that any iPhones sold through Softbank be locked to Softbank's network whether or not Softbank has exclusive distribution.
Since no other network currently offers the iPhone, the iPhone is available exclusively through Softbank (note, that I did not say that Softbank has the exclusive rights to sell iPhones.
This conversation has been played out. You can believe what an Apple executive has said in an official capacity during an earnings report or you can continue to hold on to your own delusionsand whatever props them up.
Dude, you don't read well or something. I already stated that Mr. Cook was technically correct.
The iPhone was NEVER contractually exclusive to Softbank.
Apple agreed to SIM lock the iPhone so that only Softbank can handle it.
No matter how you slice it, it's exclusive, not by chance but by agreement, although not part of the carrier contract.
What is the delusion here?
Except he's not getting paid just $1. His earnings come though a bonus rather than salary, which I understand is taxed lower.
Justify your statement. Please refer to publicly available SEC documents whenever possible.
You do not know what the f*ck you have written.
Apple reimburses Steve for company travel on the Gulfstream V. He has medical coverage, just like every other full-time Apple employee. After that, he gets nothing more than what any other Apple employee gets.
Dude, you don't read well or something. I already stated that Mr. Cook was technically correct.
The iPhone was NEVER contractually exclusive to Softbank.
Apple agreed to SIM lock the iPhone so that only Softbank can handle it.
No matter how you slice it, it's exclusive, not by chance but by agreement, although not part of the carrier contract.
What is the delusion here?
You make it sound as if SIM-locking is unusual. It is not:
In most countries, most mobile phones are shipped with country and/or network provider locks.
Most mobile phones can be unlocked to work with any GSM, such as O2 or Orange (in the UK), but the phone may still display the original branding and may not support features of the new carrier; besides the locking, phones may also have firmware installed on them which is specific to the network provider. For example, if you have a Vodafone or Telstra branded phone in Australia, it displays the relevant logo and may only support features provided by that network (e.g. Vodafone Live!). This firmware is installed by the service provider and is separate from the locking mechanism. Most phones can be unbranded by reflashing a different firmware version, a procedure recommended for advanced users only.
The reason many network providers SIM lock their phones is that they offer phones at a discount to customers in exchange for a contract to pay for the use of the network for a specified time period, usually one or two years. This business model allows the company to recoup the cost of the phone over the life of the contract. Such discounts are worth up to several hundred US dollars. If the phones were not locked, users might sign a contract with one company, get the discounted phone, then stop paying the monthly bill (thus breaking the contract) and start using the phone on another network or even sell the phone for a profit. SIM locking makes it more difficult to do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock
As a practical matter, are there other networks in Japan that the iPhone would work on? KDDI is CDMA and NTT Docomo uses a different frequency I think.
The contract with AT&T in the US was carrier exclusive. The contract with Softbank is not.
And what do you call it if no other carrier is allowed to offer the iPhone except Softbank?
Most other reports use the word "Exclusive" for this arrangement with Softbank.
(e.g.: http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/onebeats-...tm?id=63020412)
Enlighten us. What expression should we be using?
Read the original article and quotes again and it should be obvious. Contractional exclusivity is not the same as voluntary exclusivity and has nothing to do with carrier locks.
some people may want to buy their iPhone and use it on Docomo.
in my case i actually dont mind buying an iPhone through Softbank and having it locked to Softbank IN JAPAN. but while roaming overseas i want to be able to use the same handset with a different, local SIM.
FYI: the iPad is exactly like the above arrangement (locked to Softbank in Japan, but carrier free outside of Japan)
for most of us KDDI au being able to offer a CDMA iPhone is moot. we want a carrier free GMS iPhone in Japan.
its getting close to the above, witness the iPad and being able to use an unlocked iPhone bought outside of Japan on b-mobile/docomo. but i want to stay with Softbank and have lower roaming charges outside of Japan.
Yes he is.
Since Steve has not collected a bonus since 2001 (Lear jet)), tax rate is irrelevant.
Some clarity - as long as this article is accurate.
http://crenk.com/how-does-steve-jobs...-income-helps/
Steve Jobs' annual salary is $1.
Salary != total compensation. He is paid hundreds of millions of dollars per year to be CEO.
Salary != total compensation. He is paid hundreds of millions of dollars per year to be CEO.
That would be in awarded shares of stock. He does still get to say that he only makes $1 per year b/c if he doesn't sell any stock it's quite true.
I guess Japan in not a "country in the world" because the iPhone is still exclusive to Softbank here.... He's the COO right? Shouldn't he know that!
Perhaps Softbank is the only carrier with the iPhone but the agreement might not be legally *exclusive*.
That is a great question. Somehow I doubt it though. I think this means you don't have to get stuck with AT&T, but once you choose your carrier your stuck with them for the duration. This does bode well for Sprint and T-Mobile coming soon though.
I hope so!
I guess Japan in not a "country in the world" because the iPhone is still exclusive to Softbank here.... He's the COO right? Shouldn't he know that!
Unless he accidently let the cat out of the bag! Dun dun dun!!
If you believe in the wrong information, does that make you a liar?
No, a politician.