It is a similar world in the PC business currently. All the OEMs are designing essentially identical items and then trying to differentiate in very minor ways. This creates very little chance for differentiation, and thus very little chance to make much profit. This is the way Microsoft wants it. They don't want the OEMs making the money - they want Microsoft making the money.
The same thing applies here. If mobile devices become commoditized, the phone market profit share will actually lie squarely with the mobile companies. Its the way that its been before, and every cell network provider at the moment is clawing to try and get the market back to that way. They're scared.
Microsoft wants undifferentiated junk on the market? How does that help them again? Step by step?
And the same thing with the telcos and the OEMs?
Keep in mind that the more boxes that get sold, the more M$ makes.
Keep in mind that M$ sells TO the OEMs, and the telcos buy FROM the OEMs.
And please explain how undifferentiated junk hardware helps either M$ or the telcos. I absolutely don't understand how it would help either one of them, or how M$ and the telcos are in the same camp.
How is it detrimental to the public interest to uphold intellectual property laws?
You seem to be begging the question, and the wrong question at that.
The issue is a preliminary injunction. You've gone all the way to the ultimate verdict, and made assumptions about what it will be.
Not only that, but you've put words in TM's mouth. They never said it would be detrimental to the public interest to do that. Such a statement makes no sense, which is likely why they never said it.
Microsoft wants undifferentiated junk on the market? How does that help them again? Step by step?
And the same thing with the telcos and the OEMs?
Keep in mind that the more boxes that get sold, the more M$ makes.
Keep in mind that M$ sells TO the OEMs, and the telcos buy FROM the OEMs.
And please explain how undifferentiated junk hardware helps either M$ or the telcos. I absolutely don't understand how it would help either one of them, or how M$ and the telcos are in the same camp.
If Microsoft end up with undifferentiated PC OEMS, the prices drop as the OEMs have nothing to differentiate their product except price. And that pushes more computers, and thus more Windows copies, out into the market. The lower the prices drop due to a lack of differentiation, the better it is for microsoft. It turns a PC into a commoditized piece of hardware where no one is really making any money except the one company that won't budge on its prices: Microsoft. Microsoft wins when more computers are on the market, full stop, and the way for them to make that happen is to make them all compete with each other till the prices drop.
Telcos too also want the prices to drop on these devices. If the phones cost less they have more money to spend on calling. If phones cost less they have more money to make when they sell you a bundled plan: "Get this phone for $25 on a 2 year plan with us" - if the phone costs 25 dollars, the plan is pure profit to the phone company. If the phone costs $200, $175 of that plan will end up being lost of the phone. If the phone costs less, it also makes it more tempting to buy into the lock-in plan.
Lots of undifferentiated junk is best for anyone who stands to gain as a result of the MANY devices being sold, except the company making it (the company making them makes almost nothing because the only differentiation will be price, and so they'll go to the floor with their device to try and get them out the door)
Verizon and T-Mobile have a lot to gain by commoditizing these devices. If they can make the cost of the devices lower, they can make their profits off them higher, and they can get more phones out the door and onto the market, with more lock in contracts.
Its irrelevant whether its the software provider, or the end telco. The real issue is: Who stands to gain by devices costing nothing? And that is everyone, except the device makers.
Microsoft wants undifferentiated junk on the market? How does that help them again? Step by step?
That has been their business model all along. Where have you been? Microsoft makes all the money while the cloners race to the bottom in pricing with their undifferentiated junk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
And please explain how undifferentiated junk hardware helps either M$ or the telcos. I absolutely don't understand how it would help either one of them, or how M$ and the telcos are in the same camp.
The telcos are in the same cloner market with Android and Windows Phone as the cloner PC makers are with Window OS. There is nothing to differentiate themselves with. Just a race to the bottom in pricing. The telcos can at least make some money with their excessive call plans and rip off text messaging, so they are in better shape than the cloner PC makers. In either case, Microsoft gets their hefty tax money and the "partners" are left with crumbs. Back to the first sentence: "That has been their business model all along"
If the devices cost nothing, how can the telcos differentiate themselves other than lowering the price on their service plans?
They don't need to differentiate themselves. They're already in a cartel, they're charging much higher monthly fees than other countries with actual competition.
In this situation, it's best for them if the smartphone industry is in 'perfect competition' and basically have 0 profit, because that would maximize the profit of the upstream cartel. Simple Econ 101 really.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
T-mobile has nothing to lose, they're not getting the iPhone now and will either get it after the merger or if the merger fails, never get the iPhone, which are outcomes independent of whether they go against Apple or not. As for VZ, they already signed long-term daels with Apple, neither side can back out of it now, in the next few years (until they negotiate the new deal), also nothing to lose.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
Right, Steve would turn away millions of potential customers of those carriers because of two amicus curae briefs.
...more money to make when they sell you a bundled plan: "Get this phone for $25 on a 2 year plan with us" - if the phone costs 25 dollars, the plan is pure profit to the phone company...
Apart from maintaining and upgrading the network, electricity to run the network people to run the network and other associated costs.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
Apple has taken "revenge" on manufacturing partners and suppliers. These are companies that actually enable iphone sales because said phones must run on some network. Turning away from Verizon especially would anger a lot of shareholders. They've been a significant help in iphone growth, and they provide a much needed alternative to AT&T (I've always hated them). I expect the iphone will eventually reach T-mobile if they are not taken over. Having over a million phones on an unsupported network is just incredible. There has to be more sales potential there.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
Tim Cook has all the leeway in the world to dictate terms for Apple. I see no reason for him to not continue with the Jobs legacy of smackdown-ism.
Comments
It is a similar world in the PC business currently. All the OEMs are designing essentially identical items and then trying to differentiate in very minor ways. This creates very little chance for differentiation, and thus very little chance to make much profit. This is the way Microsoft wants it. They don't want the OEMs making the money - they want Microsoft making the money.
The same thing applies here. If mobile devices become commoditized, the phone market profit share will actually lie squarely with the mobile companies. Its the way that its been before, and every cell network provider at the moment is clawing to try and get the market back to that way. They're scared.
Microsoft wants undifferentiated junk on the market? How does that help them again? Step by step?
And the same thing with the telcos and the OEMs?
Keep in mind that the more boxes that get sold, the more M$ makes.
Keep in mind that M$ sells TO the OEMs, and the telcos buy FROM the OEMs.
And please explain how undifferentiated junk hardware helps either M$ or the telcos. I absolutely don't understand how it would help either one of them, or how M$ and the telcos are in the same camp.
How is it detrimental to the public interest to uphold intellectual property laws?
You seem to be begging the question, and the wrong question at that.
The issue is a preliminary injunction. You've gone all the way to the ultimate verdict, and made assumptions about what it will be.
Not only that, but you've put words in TM's mouth. They never said it would be detrimental to the public interest to do that. Such a statement makes no sense, which is likely why they never said it.
t mobile apparently does not want the iPhone.
Seems that way!
Microsoft wants undifferentiated junk on the market? How does that help them again? Step by step?
And the same thing with the telcos and the OEMs?
Keep in mind that the more boxes that get sold, the more M$ makes.
Keep in mind that M$ sells TO the OEMs, and the telcos buy FROM the OEMs.
And please explain how undifferentiated junk hardware helps either M$ or the telcos. I absolutely don't understand how it would help either one of them, or how M$ and the telcos are in the same camp.
If Microsoft end up with undifferentiated PC OEMS, the prices drop as the OEMs have nothing to differentiate their product except price. And that pushes more computers, and thus more Windows copies, out into the market. The lower the prices drop due to a lack of differentiation, the better it is for microsoft. It turns a PC into a commoditized piece of hardware where no one is really making any money except the one company that won't budge on its prices: Microsoft. Microsoft wins when more computers are on the market, full stop, and the way for them to make that happen is to make them all compete with each other till the prices drop.
Telcos too also want the prices to drop on these devices. If the phones cost less they have more money to spend on calling. If phones cost less they have more money to make when they sell you a bundled plan: "Get this phone for $25 on a 2 year plan with us" - if the phone costs 25 dollars, the plan is pure profit to the phone company. If the phone costs $200, $175 of that plan will end up being lost of the phone. If the phone costs less, it also makes it more tempting to buy into the lock-in plan.
Lots of undifferentiated junk is best for anyone who stands to gain as a result of the MANY devices being sold, except the company making it (the company making them makes almost nothing because the only differentiation will be price, and so they'll go to the floor with their device to try and get them out the door)
Verizon and T-Mobile have a lot to gain by commoditizing these devices. If they can make the cost of the devices lower, they can make their profits off them higher, and they can get more phones out the door and onto the market, with more lock in contracts.
Its irrelevant whether its the software provider, or the end telco. The real issue is: Who stands to gain by devices costing nothing? And that is everyone, except the device makers.
The real issue is: Who stands to gain by devices costing nothing? And that is everyone, except the device makers.
If the devices cost nothing, how can the telcos differentiate themselves other than lowering the price on their service plans?
Microsoft wants undifferentiated junk on the market? How does that help them again? Step by step?
That has been their business model all along. Where have you been? Microsoft makes all the money while the cloners race to the bottom in pricing with their undifferentiated junk.
And please explain how undifferentiated junk hardware helps either M$ or the telcos. I absolutely don't understand how it would help either one of them, or how M$ and the telcos are in the same camp.
The telcos are in the same cloner market with Android and Windows Phone as the cloner PC makers are with Window OS. There is nothing to differentiate themselves with. Just a race to the bottom in pricing. The telcos can at least make some money with their excessive call plans and rip off text messaging, so they are in better shape than the cloner PC makers. In either case, Microsoft gets their hefty tax money and the "partners" are left with crumbs. Back to the first sentence: "That has been their business model all along"
If the devices cost nothing, how can the telcos differentiate themselves other than lowering the price on their service plans?
They don't need to differentiate themselves. They're already in a cartel, they're charging much higher monthly fees than other countries with actual competition.
In this situation, it's best for them if the smartphone industry is in 'perfect competition' and basically have 0 profit, because that would maximize the profit of the upstream cartel. Simple Econ 101 really.
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
T-mobile has nothing to lose, they're not getting the iPhone now and will either get it after the merger or if the merger fails, never get the iPhone, which are outcomes independent of whether they go against Apple or not. As for VZ, they already signed long-term daels with Apple, neither side can back out of it now, in the next few years (until they negotiate the new deal), also nothing to lose.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
Right, Steve would turn away millions of potential customers of those carriers because of two amicus curae briefs.
...more money to make when they sell you a bundled plan: "Get this phone for $25 on a 2 year plan with us" - if the phone costs 25 dollars, the plan is pure profit to the phone company...
Apart from maintaining and upgrading the network, electricity to run the network people to run the network and other associated costs.
Your view is way too simplistic.
maintaining
Peanuts.
upgrading
They don't really do that, anyway.
Texting is pure profit. How much else could be, then?
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
Apple has taken "revenge" on manufacturing partners and suppliers. These are companies that actually enable iphone sales because said phones must run on some network. Turning away from Verizon especially would anger a lot of shareholders. They've been a significant help in iphone growth, and they provide a much needed alternative to AT&T (I've always hated them). I expect the iphone will eventually reach T-mobile if they are not taken over. Having over a million phones on an unsupported network is just incredible. There has to be more sales potential there.
I wonder how Apple will respond to this move by Verizon and T-mobile?
If Steve Jobs were still in charge, I'd expect a righteous smackdown to come in the near future. But now with Tim Cook at the helm, that's not so certain.
VZ and T-mob seem to not understand that Apple has feelings. Unlike most corporations--who only care about the bottom line--Apple can be very spiteful when they've been crossed.
Tim Cook has all the leeway in the world to dictate terms for Apple. I see no reason for him to not continue with the Jobs legacy of smackdown-ism.