France says Apple owes 48.5 million euros for unfair iPhone contracts with carriers

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 73
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    Unbelievable that the French government can just swoop on in and tell Apple that (legal) contracts agreed between parties is not allowed.  Last time I checked, no one forced them to sign an agreement with Apple.  They could just have stopped selling iPhones.

    Oh wait... they want the revenue it brings in, but not the costs to go with it?

    Before Apple introduced the iPhone, the telecom operators forced bloatware, crapware, extortion-rate fees for text-messages and what they called "apps" back then.  It was a scam, and we all should be grateful to Apple for telling those folks to shove it, especially when a company like Verizon was demanding that Apple allow it to display their company logo and pre-install apps on the iPhone.  

    I have zero sympathy for the telecoms.  Pre-iPhone, they screwed the consumer of billions and billions of dollars.  Now, they are crying.  

    Cry me a river.
  • Reply 22 of 73
    blitz2blitz2 Posts: 34member
    apple ][ said:
    What a bunch of Frenchy bullshit!

    This is exactly what makes Apple and iPhones so much better than anything else out there!

    Is there any carrier bloatware on Apple phones?

    Apparently, the French are not fond of fair deals negotiated between two parties. Did Apple force any carrier to sign any deals?

    Apple shouldn't pay a dime to these French extortionists.
    I guess Apple'll will have to pay what the French lawmaker tells them to pay up. Actually, Apple was never forced to sell phones in France...
  • Reply 23 of 73
    blitz2blitz2 Posts: 34member

    wood1208 said:
    France, put energy in fixing terrorist problem from illegal immigration than going after companies who gives some jobs in country and hurt/kill no one. Moreover, all business by it's legal structure and obligation to it's shareholders act different than non-profit organization.
    US Deaths by terrorist attacks: 2997
    France Deaths by terrorist attacks: 142

    Right!

    PS: you might also take the trouble and compare deaths by gunfire or police kills or ... 
    (whatever argument shows that the US are a second grade nation, including the presidential candidates)
    crosslad
  • Reply 24 of 73
    I like how governments go after Apple about their contracts but do nothing to the network providers over their slimy agreements to consumers. At least in Canada it's clearly evident that all the cellular network providers have price fixed cellular/tv/internet deals. The specials are now bad and they all look the same, Rogers, Bell and Telus have bought all the smaller companies that opened in Canada. Also, if our contract has an extra $20 to pay off a cell phone, the. Why doesn't it go down by $20 after 2 years when the cell phone is paid off (assuming you don't upgrade). When 2 year contracts were introduced, they screwed the consumer. Phone "upgrade" pricing went way up and monthly plan costs almost doubled, if you do the calculation from what it was to what it is you'll notice a huge markup. iPhones used to be $179 for 16gb and monthly plans at $60 with at least 3gb of data. Now they start at close to $90 with minimal data (1gb) and the iPhone 16gb starts at almost $300 cdn on a 2 year term.
    Phone prices didn't go up because of two year contracts, they went up because the Canadian dollar dropped from being on par to 70 cents US. So you have anywhere from 150 to 200 more that isn't being subsidized by the 500ish the carriers normally subsidize.
  • Reply 25 of 73
    blitz2blitz2 Posts: 34member

    snova said:
    sounds like Apple forgot a clause to force carrier's into arbitration like the carriers do to consumers..  or did they?
    cry me a river. 
    Still uncommon practice in the EU (and why should we, there are court rooms, not?)
    Part of the TTIP negotiations (which I hope will never give in to that kind of ruling)
  • Reply 26 of 73
    blitz2blitz2 Posts: 34member

    volcan said:
    AppleInsider said:
    The company [Apple] can also void a contract without warning, ...
    Figuratively. The carriers had no choice but to agree to Apple's terms. None of the multiple carriers could afford not to have the iPhone when the others did. The carriers agreed to a contract, but so did Apple. I find it curious that Apple could void the contract that they signed for any reason without warning. That part should probably be removed. 

    Some of the other clauses probably shouldn't be illegal, just hard ball business on the part of Apple.

    Below is a machine translated version of the ten complaints:

    The 10 clauses deemed illegal by the DGCCRF 

    1-operator must order a minimum volume of 3 years

    2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy

    3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion

    4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure

    5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand

    6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries

    7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs

    8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law

    9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents

    10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.

    Quite unbalanced...
    (3. is part of their tax avoidance scheme)
  • Reply 27 of 73
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    snova said:
    apple ][ said:
    I agree, subsidized phones and multi year contracts are crap, and carriers have been getting away with too much for far too long.

    It's ridiculous that most cell plans in the US cost as much as they do.
    lol. you think its a better situation now? no one forced anyone to sign subsided contracts. You could buy phones at retail back then just like you can now. Prepaid plans were available just like outside of the US.
    Now you get even worse contracts which are essentially leases with buyout clauses.  Even better for the carrier than the subsidy contracts. With sub, you pay off $450 over the course of 24 months at 0%. With these leases/buyout contract, if you want to leave you have to wait until you pay $850 for a $650 phone.  If you think things are getting better for consumers by removal of subsidies, then you are mistaken.  All the changes are for the benefit of the carrier. 
    Yes you could have always paid full retail for a phone but you were still forced into a contract, and had to pay the subsidized price for service. At least now you get a discount for buying outright.
  • Reply 28 of 73
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    C'est la faute du Marketing...

    This is Marketing's fault.

    American companies always lose outside US because of such stupid blanket contracts prepared / applied by inefficient, uninformed, incompetent or totally ignorant teams.

    I'm like hearing TC yelling "what the hell do we do with French ops' patents for God's sake..."

    None of the parties is evil in this case. Not Apple, not carriers, not French government. There is just a mismanaged (bad marketing) legal technicality (blanket contract) that costs Apple some 55 million. Such things happen in international trade...
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 29 of 73
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 752member
    blitz2 said:
    apple ][ said:
    What a bunch of Frenchy bullshit!

    This is exactly what makes Apple and iPhones so much better than anything else out there!

    Is there any carrier bloatware on Apple phones?

    Apparently, the French are not fond of fair deals negotiated between two parties. Did Apple force any carrier to sign any deals?

    Apple shouldn't pay a dime to these French extortionists.
    I guess Apple'll will have to pay what the French lawmaker tells them to pay up. Actually, Apple was never forced to sell phones in France...
    Actually, French carriers were never forced to buy Apple's phones, either.

    Stop typing biased nonsense.
    bestkeptsecret
  • Reply 30 of 73
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    Apple was the most favored nation of France following the visit of Steve Jobs to then-president François Mitterand. And that was that country's bulk Macintosh orders (some 200.000 ?) which saved the Macintosh from being born dead... It is lamentable to see that history being spoiled by such stupid blanket contracts.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 31 of 73
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,369member
    If the carrier's didn't like the terms of the contract, they shouldn't have signed on. Pretty simple. Now they go whining to mommy that it's unfair. And they say our generation are crybabies? No. We're sick of corporations not taking responsibility for their own actions.
  • Reply 32 of 73
    ipilyaipilya Posts: 195member
    Any sensible person would have to see that there are some brow raising aspects to these contracts... but yes they were signed. 

    On another note... All the people who are complaining about the French are sorely misinformed... ignorant... and some even worse. By the way.... has anyone even ventured over to free.fr to see what their service offerings are? The closest anyone in America will get to such sweet delights is in a wet dream!


    quick note: in America.... 4g is actually 3g. In Europe... 4g is... well 4g (i.e. LTE)
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 33 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    sog35 said:

    You signed the contract you live with it.

    Exactly my point, Apple signed the contract too but they claim they can void it at any time for any reason. That does seem a little unbalanced.

    I'm not an attorney, but I believe in most jurisdictions a contract cannot be enforced if it is found to be illegal. In our contracts we usually have something like "In the event that any portion of this Agreement is held unenforceable, the unenforceable portion shall be construed in accordance with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of the parties, and the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect." 

    I'd be surprised if Apple didn't also have language such as:

     "Indemnification and disclaimer of liability. The [name] agrees to indemnify and hold harmless [other name] against and from any cliams, liabilities, losses or damages, and that no such party shall have any liability for any consequential, incidental, and/or liquidated damages, if any, that result from, ..."

    Of course that may be illegal in France as well.



    edited April 2016
  • Reply 34 of 73
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,369member
    misa said:
    proline said:
    Dude, this lawsuit is supporting corporate power- they are saying the poor old phone carriers need more power so the government will use its power to help them. Orange and O2 are just as big an bad as Apple is.
    Gee, where did Apple pull out the gun and threaten the carriers? No? 

    The carriers did not have to sign, or even renew these contracts. Hell wireless service providers in the US and Canada tended to hide the iPhone in the back, and show you nothing but the highly-profitable Android phones, you know the ones with all the security problems and are obsolete in 8 months so the customer will be back for another. 

    If anything Apple saved these very jackass wireless carriers from being overtaken by a competing WiFi technology, and that may still yet happen in major cities.
    I say Apple just uses their stock pile to compete with these dumb carriers in a few regions. I bet the other carriers will start to think otherwise about their whining.
  • Reply 35 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    snova said:

    You could buy phones at retail back then just like you can now. Prepaid plans were available just like outside of the US.
    I'm not sure this was the case, at least not with AT&T. iPhone was an exception. They didn't allow prepaid on iPhones and the monthly fee was the same whether you owned your device, were off contract or were on a subsidized contract. Carriers were always playing games with the fine print and still are.
  • Reply 36 of 73
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,799member
    ipilya said:
    [...] are sorely misinformed... ignorant... 

    quick note: in America.... 4g is actually 3g. In Europe... 4g is... well 4g (i.e. LTE)
    Talk about sorely misinformed?
  • Reply 37 of 73
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    volcan said:
    AppleInsider said:
    The company [Apple] can also void a contract without warning, ...
    misa said:

    Gee, where did Apple pull out the gun and threaten the carriers? No? 
    Figuratively. The carriers had no choice but to agree to Apple's terms. None of the multiple carriers could afford not to have the iPhone when the others did. The carriers agreed to a contract, but so did Apple. I find it curious that Apple could void the contract that they signed for any reason without warning. That part should probably be removed. 

    Some of the other clauses probably shouldn't be illegal, just hard ball business on the part of Apple.

    Below is a machine translated version of the ten complaints:

    The 10 clauses deemed illegal by the DGCCRF 

    1-operator must order a minimum volume of 3 years

    2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy

    3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion

    4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure

    5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand

    6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries

    7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs

    8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law

    9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents

    10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.


    Not to say some of the terms are not hard ball, but all these things are negotiable and I have negotiate similar clauses with suppliers. Yes item 8 it call termination for convenience clause and it is standard practice. Most time it requires 30  to 90 days notice.

    If you want to do business together, you have to decide whether it is worth agreeing to these things. Government should have no say so in a B2B contracts because business have the ability to hirer lawyers to advise them, it not like a consumer doing business with a big company and do not have the means to hire professional help. Plus if some one breeches the contract or does not like the final outcome this is what courts are for both parties can stand in front of judge and tell them why they were cheated. Guess what most places have well establish case laws on contract deal even if apple make them sign something which is not fair case law over rids.

    To you first point, yes carries do not have to do business with apple it is their choose, Apple is not forcing them to buy their products, the good things is the fact Apple is not 90% market share like Microsoft was with PC. Android claims to have the market power, apple is  less than 50% in the EU so they do not have monopoly power to demand the carries to do what they want. 

  • Reply 38 of 73
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    volcan said:
    ipilya said:
    [...] are sorely misinformed... ignorant... 

    quick note: in America.... 4g is actually 3g. In Europe... 4g is... well 4g (i.e. LTE)
    Talk about sorely misinformed?
    He could be talking about t mobile which was calling GSM HSPA+ as 4G, and now calls LTE as 4G LTE. 
  • Reply 39 of 73
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,564member
    "if our contract has an extra $20 to pay off a cell phone, the. Why doesn't it go down by $20 after 2 years when the cell phone is paid off" Because you are no longer bound to a 2 year contract at that point. That's a huge benefit; you are free. I don't like ISPs either, but you have to be fair and honest to criminals too.
  • Reply 40 of 73
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    maestro64 said:
    volcan said:
    Figuratively. The carriers had no choice but to agree to Apple's terms. None of the multiple carriers could afford not to have the iPhone when the others did. The carriers agreed to a contract, but so did Apple. I find it curious that Apple could void the contract that they signed for any reason without warning. That part should probably be removed. 

    Some of the other clauses probably shouldn't be illegal, just hard ball business on the part of Apple.

    Below is a machine translated version of the ten complaints:

    The 10 clauses deemed illegal by the DGCCRF 

    1-operator must order a minimum volume of 3 years

    2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy

    3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion

    4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure

    5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand

    6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries

    7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs

    8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law

    9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents

    10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.


    Not to say some of the terms are not hard ball, but all these things are negotiable and I have negotiate similar clauses with suppliers. Yes item 8 it call termination for convenience clause and it is standard practice. Most time it requires 30  to 90 days notice.

    If you want to do business together, you have to decide whether it is worth agreeing to these things. Government should have no say so in a B2B contracts because business have the ability to hirer lawyers to advise them, it not like a consumer doing business with a big company and do not have the means to hire professional help. Plus if some one breeches the contract or does not like the final outcome this is what courts are for both parties can stand in front of judge and tell them why they were cheated. Guess what most places have well establish case laws on contract deal even if apple make them sign something which is not fair case law over rids.

    To you first point, yes carries do not have to do business with apple it is their choose, Apple is not forcing them to buy their products, the good things is the fact Apple is not 90% market share like Microsoft was with PC. Android claims to have the market power, apple is  less than 50% in the EU so they do not have monopoly power to demand the carries to do what they want. 

    'Take it or leave it' is not exactly negotiable. 
Sign In or Register to comment.