T-Mobile is in an alliance of several European mobile telecommunications operators.
And the countrys that is a part of it are: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
>> T-Mobile is in an alliance of several European mobile telecommunications operators.
If they could get all those companies in on the iPhone for Europe it would be awesome! Great coverage all over Europe and, and this is from a purely egotistical standpoint, outstanding coverage in Sweden with Telia.
In Europe most of our TV download services are completely FREE so it could actually be Apple's biggest market if they could only get a DRM scheme out there to the European TV companies that they can use. So far they haven't, and the TV companies have used Windows Media.
Paid downloads are already DEAD in Europe before Apple even got started here.
What am I missing here Aegis?
You are saying that most European TV downloads are free, but then you say it could be Apple's biggest market. How so?
Are you saying they could license Quicktime, and take MS's market, even thought the downloads would be free?
I would not buy an iPhone if T-Mobile are the carrier. They are shockingly bad and their customer service is appauling. I thought Vodafone are bad enough, but T-Mobile? No!!!
Come on Apple.. don't you think Orange would be a better choice? Think of all the Apples and Oranges jokes!
As with our American users, no one agrees on which carrier is good, or bad.
It seems as though it makes no difference who Apple goes with, there will always be people who hate that carrier, and have a carrier that they say Apple MUST use, which almost everyone else hates as well.
Free ad-supported TV shows are already available on TV. Despite that, paid ad-free TV downloads still managed to generate some significant revenue.
But. When free ad-supported TV shows become downloadable on your computer (instead of just on your TV), the paid ad-free TV show downloads will shrivel up and die.
Because the people who paid for ad-free shows to avoid watching ads will now be willing to watch ads if they were downloaded from the web?
I will repeat my mantra on analysts: Ifthese guys are so smart, why don't they just keep your analysis to yourselves and make gazillions of money on the stock market instead? They're like Pluto (the Disney pooch), nobody can explain why they should logically exist and yet, there they are.
Free ad-supported TV shows are already available on TV. Despite that, paid ad-free TV downloads still managed to generate some significant revenue.
But. When free ad-supported TV shows become downloadable on your computer (instead of just on your TV), the paid ad-free TV show downloads will shrivel up and die.
Because the people who paid for ad-free shows to avoid watching ads will now be willing to watch ads if they were downloaded from the web?
I will repeat my mantra on analysts: Ifthese guys are so smart, why don't they just keep your analysis to yourselves and make gazillions of money on the stock market instead? They're like Pluto (the Disney pooch), nobody can explain why they should logically exist and yet, there they are.
When they talk about paid ad supported downloads, they generally are talking about paid for ads, but the program is free to the consumer.
Many TV srations already do this. Just watch TV. They will tell you to go to their website to view the program again, or to catch a missed show. It's ad supported, and free to you.
How do you think these analysts work? Do you think they stay at home guessing as you do, and just write a few paragraphs here and there?
It takes a large support network for them to get the information they need. Often they have contacts around the world, and have to visit many of them in the factories themselves, etc. They also have other contacts in business. There is a lot of actual analysis done on the numbers they come up with. They just present a bit of the headline conclusions to the public in order to generate interest and publicity for their companies.
Almost all of this is a result of them working for a company that does this work, charging anywhere from hundreds to thousands for each report.
An analyst can't do this on their own. But, they do get paid very well, The best, most well known, are pulling several hundred thou a year.
And these guys are right more often than they are wrong, though they can't get it exact.
We can guess, and sometimes we get it right as well, but we are only guessing, and when we are wrong, we don't go around telling everyone.
They have to back up what they are saying with numbers, which we don't have to do.
You are saying that most European TV downloads are free, but then you say it could be Apple's biggest market. How so?
Yes. For instance, http://www.channel4.com/4od/ gives you free downloads for a week after airing. The BBC's iPlayer is going to be the same when it's out of beta. Both are Windows Media only because Fairplay doesn't do self destructing time based downloads. British Telecom's BTVision service offers the same free downloads and paid downloads from 29p although you do have to have their broadband service.
Apple's AppleTV looks silly by comparison. It's a nice box but completely unconnected to any service just now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Are you saying they could license Quicktime, and take MS's market, even thought the downloads would be free?
Yes. That's what they need to do to provide a cross platform service for the TV companies otherwise they'll all be Windows Media and nobody will be buying shows from iTunes. The analyst is spot on - iTunes is currently a dead end as is AppleTV. They need to change both AppleTV and Quicktime/Fairplay.
Yes. For instance, http://www.channel4.com/4od/ gives you free downloads for a week after airing. The BBC's iPlayer is going to be the same when it's out of beta. Both are Windows Media only because Fairplay doesn't do self destructing time based downloads. British Telecom's BTVision service offers the same free downloads and paid downloads from 29p although you do have to have their broadband service.
Apple's AppleTV looks silly by comparison. It's a nice box but completely unconnected to any service just now.
Yes. That's what they need to do to provide a cross platform service for the TV companies otherwise they'll all be Windows Media and nobody will be buying shows from iTunes. The analyst is spot on - iTunes is currently a dead end as is AppleTV. They need to change both AppleTV and Quicktime/Fairplay.
I think the Apple TV has done a great job of bringing content back to the living room. It has also reminded me why I like watching things on my TELEVISION rather than my computer (even lower quality video).
Even if NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX offer their content to be downloaded for free (with commercials), they don't have a DEVICE that allows you to watch them on your television. Right now, you have to watch your content on your computer, which TECHNICALLY could be hooked up to your living room display, but most people are not going to go through the hassle. Often times the episodes are broken apart, requiring you to search the website for the other half. Not my idea of a relaxing evening watching my favorite shows.
The other word I only "grazed" was COMMERCIALS, but after having my comcast DVR for a while now, I almost never watch commercials. Adding it to a free content is not going to make it "worth" it. I actually wish I could pay a monthly fee to get rid of my commercials on comcast. This is a reason box sets of TV shows sell so well. I think that trend will continue and even sell better once you can get entire seasons ON DEMAND (ala Sopranos on HBO On-Demand). Many people don't have time to sit and watch the shows on a given night of the week. I know I watch the show Entourage a couple days after the show aires originally (not REALLY sure what night that is to be honest), but it is always there waiting when I'm ready.
Anyway...
I'm pretty sure video content will sell, I would like to see a rental option available soon (a per movie rental fee rather than a subscription).
It seems as though it makes no difference who Apple goes with, there will always be people who hate that carrier, and have a carrier that they say Apple MUST use, which almost everyone else hates as well.
Yep. The problem is, all carriers are bad. It's just a matter of which carrier you've had the most bad experiences with recently that will throw your vote.
However, just looking at tariffs, T-Mobile is the ONLY carrier with a sensible data plan here in Europe. Vodafone and Orange may have slightly better coverage but they're astronomically expensive for data. I'm on both Vodafone AND Orange on two of my phones. I only keep Vodafone around to keep the number (it's my incoming business line) on a pay-as-you-go SIM card I pay about £10 a year for. I wouldn't use them otherwise.
Orange have the advantage of having two lines on one phone. Nobody else does this. That's why I've got Orange.
Well, it is boring to wait for web sites to download on your iPhone.
As far as providers, Apple has to pick 2 in Europe. For example, they could go with T-Mobile exclusively in countries where T-Mobile has a network, but than choose Vodafone or O2 as a secondary in other countries like Ireland, where T-Mobile does not have a network, but Vodafone and O2 both do.
... which would be really great for switzerland where there's none of those three...
they should just sell it open (it does have a SIM card slot) like everybody does in europe. since it's going to be the same price with or without a plan it wouldn't make any difference for the consumer.
oh yeah, except i could buy it in fall 2007 (not like the itunes store which took two years to arrive here (not that i would buy my music there))
Meanwhile, Macworld UK notes that EMI has confirmed plans to release the entire Paul McCartney solo catalogue through online music services for the first time (as first reported last week by Ars).
EMI Music has retained the former Beatles' solo catalogue and is preparing a comprehensive re-launch, including new digital campaigns as well as physical re-releases.
"Paul McCartney?s post-Beatles catalogue, spanning four decades, is one of the great treasures of popular music," said Tony Wadsworth, chairman and CEO, EMI Music UK. "EMI is proud to be introducing Paul?s music to the digital marketplace."
The catalogue includes Paul?s first solo album ?McCartney? through his releases with Wings to his latest critically-acclaimed studio album ?Chaos And Creation In The Backyard?.
Singles to be released digitally will include: ?Band On The Run?, ?My Love?, ?Let ?Em In?, and ?Jet?.
I'm a Beatles fan myself, but I don't get the continuing excitement about the possibility of the Beatles on iTunes (or any other digital music store). I feel like the arrival of the Beatles downloads is expected to bring about the death of the CD, like the headlines will suddenly read, "Circuit City, Best Buy End CD Sales." With quotes from store management like, "With the Beatles on iTunes, CD sales have fallen through the floor. When I asked a customer why he wasn't buing CD's, he replied, 'The Beatles, Man! They're on iTunes! Why would I want to enjoy the quality sound of those remastered CDs when I can download a crappy sounding copy from iTunes.'"
The Beatles were a great band but the arrival of the digital downloads aren't going to change the sales dynamics currently in place.
Thanks for acknowledging that "2.0" is lame. It's tacked-on to so much stuff to try to pretend it's new when it often is just a repackaging or even just a renaming of something that's been done before.
Yes. For instance, http://www.channel4.com/4od/ gives you free downloads for a week after airing. The BBC's iPlayer is going to be the same when it's out of beta. Both are Windows Media only because Fairplay doesn't do self destructing time based downloads.
I imagine that Fairplay can be modified to do self-destructing if it's not already there as a hidden and unused feature. That's beside the point if Apple doesn't license it.
As with our American users, no one agrees on which carrier is good, or bad.
It seems as though it makes no difference who Apple goes with, there will always be people who hate that carrier, and have a carrier that they say Apple MUST use, which almost everyone else hates as well.
I'm pretty sure that everybody sucks on nearly equal levels, but differ on why they suck.
When they talk about paid ad supported downloads, they generally are talking about paid for ads, but the program is free to the consumer.
Many TV srations already do this. Just watch TV. They will tell you to go to their website to view the program again, or to catch a missed show. It's ad supported, and free to you.
An analyst can't do this on their own. But, they do get paid very well, The best, most well known, are pulling several hundred thou a year.
And these guys are right more often than they are wrong, though they can't get it exact.
Read my post again about free ad-supported vs. paid ad-free TV shows. You didn't understand it.
As to analysts, yeah they're highly paid like Henry Blodgett and those other snake oil salesmen who were pushing Worldcom and Enron and all those other financial disasters.
Your long, diversionary, discourse about how analysts go about producing their 'research' still doesn't address the basic conundrum: If they're more often right than wrong, if there are so many potential 'Sages of Omaha' walking around, then why aren't they just keeping all that analysis to themselves and turning themselves into the next Warren Buffet? The answer is obvious.
Comments
Wasn't it McCartney and Wings?
Yes, it was.
And the countrys that is a part of it are: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
Read more at this URL:
http://www.freemovealliance.com/index.php?lang=en
If they could get all those companies in on the iPhone for Europe it would be awesome! Great coverage all over Europe and, and this is from a purely egotistical standpoint, outstanding coverage in Sweden with Telia.
Oh well, one can only hope!
In Europe most of our TV download services are completely FREE so it could actually be Apple's biggest market if they could only get a DRM scheme out there to the European TV companies that they can use. So far they haven't, and the TV companies have used Windows Media.
Paid downloads are already DEAD in Europe before Apple even got started here.
What am I missing here Aegis?
You are saying that most European TV downloads are free, but then you say it could be Apple's biggest market. How so?
Are you saying they could license Quicktime, and take MS's market, even thought the downloads would be free?
Come on Apple.. don't you think Orange would be a better choice? Think of all the Apples and Oranges jokes!
As with our American users, no one agrees on which carrier is good, or bad.
It seems as though it makes no difference who Apple goes with, there will always be people who hate that carrier, and have a carrier that they say Apple MUST use, which almost everyone else hates as well.
Free ad-supported TV shows are already available on TV. Despite that, paid ad-free TV downloads still managed to generate some significant revenue.
But. When free ad-supported TV shows become downloadable on your computer (instead of just on your TV), the paid ad-free TV show downloads will shrivel up and die.
Because the people who paid for ad-free shows to avoid watching ads will now be willing to watch ads if they were downloaded from the web?
I will repeat my mantra on analysts: Ifthese guys are so smart, why don't they just keep your analysis to yourselves and make gazillions of money on the stock market instead? They're like Pluto (the Disney pooch), nobody can explain why they should logically exist and yet, there they are.
Okay, okay let me get this straight.
Free ad-supported TV shows are already available on TV. Despite that, paid ad-free TV downloads still managed to generate some significant revenue.
But. When free ad-supported TV shows become downloadable on your computer (instead of just on your TV), the paid ad-free TV show downloads will shrivel up and die.
Because the people who paid for ad-free shows to avoid watching ads will now be willing to watch ads if they were downloaded from the web?
I will repeat my mantra on analysts: Ifthese guys are so smart, why don't they just keep your analysis to yourselves and make gazillions of money on the stock market instead? They're like Pluto (the Disney pooch), nobody can explain why they should logically exist and yet, there they are.
When they talk about paid ad supported downloads, they generally are talking about paid for ads, but the program is free to the consumer.
Many TV srations already do this. Just watch TV. They will tell you to go to their website to view the program again, or to catch a missed show. It's ad supported, and free to you.
How do you think these analysts work? Do you think they stay at home guessing as you do, and just write a few paragraphs here and there?
It takes a large support network for them to get the information they need. Often they have contacts around the world, and have to visit many of them in the factories themselves, etc. They also have other contacts in business. There is a lot of actual analysis done on the numbers they come up with. They just present a bit of the headline conclusions to the public in order to generate interest and publicity for their companies.
Almost all of this is a result of them working for a company that does this work, charging anywhere from hundreds to thousands for each report.
An analyst can't do this on their own. But, they do get paid very well, The best, most well known, are pulling several hundred thou a year.
And these guys are right more often than they are wrong, though they can't get it exact.
We can guess, and sometimes we get it right as well, but we are only guessing, and when we are wrong, we don't go around telling everyone.
They have to back up what they are saying with numbers, which we don't have to do.
And when we do, guess what?
We use their numbers to support our guesses.
What am I missing here Aegis?
You are saying that most European TV downloads are free, but then you say it could be Apple's biggest market. How so?
Yes. For instance, http://www.channel4.com/4od/ gives you free downloads for a week after airing. The BBC's iPlayer is going to be the same when it's out of beta. Both are Windows Media only because Fairplay doesn't do self destructing time based downloads. British Telecom's BTVision service offers the same free downloads and paid downloads from 29p although you do have to have their broadband service.
Apple's AppleTV looks silly by comparison. It's a nice box but completely unconnected to any service just now.
Are you saying they could license Quicktime, and take MS's market, even thought the downloads would be free?
Yes. That's what they need to do to provide a cross platform service for the TV companies otherwise they'll all be Windows Media and nobody will be buying shows from iTunes. The analyst is spot on - iTunes is currently a dead end as is AppleTV. They need to change both AppleTV and Quicktime/Fairplay.
Yes. For instance, http://www.channel4.com/4od/ gives you free downloads for a week after airing. The BBC's iPlayer is going to be the same when it's out of beta. Both are Windows Media only because Fairplay doesn't do self destructing time based downloads. British Telecom's BTVision service offers the same free downloads and paid downloads from 29p although you do have to have their broadband service.
Apple's AppleTV looks silly by comparison. It's a nice box but completely unconnected to any service just now.
Yes. That's what they need to do to provide a cross platform service for the TV companies otherwise they'll all be Windows Media and nobody will be buying shows from iTunes. The analyst is spot on - iTunes is currently a dead end as is AppleTV. They need to change both AppleTV and Quicktime/Fairplay.
Interesting.
Even if NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX offer their content to be downloaded for free (with commercials), they don't have a DEVICE that allows you to watch them on your television. Right now, you have to watch your content on your computer, which TECHNICALLY could be hooked up to your living room display, but most people are not going to go through the hassle. Often times the episodes are broken apart, requiring you to search the website for the other half. Not my idea of a relaxing evening watching my favorite shows.
The other word I only "grazed" was COMMERCIALS, but after having my comcast DVR for a while now, I almost never watch commercials. Adding it to a free content is not going to make it "worth" it. I actually wish I could pay a monthly fee to get rid of my commercials on comcast. This is a reason box sets of TV shows sell so well. I think that trend will continue and even sell better once you can get entire seasons ON DEMAND (ala Sopranos on HBO On-Demand). Many people don't have time to sit and watch the shows on a given night of the week. I know I watch the show Entourage a couple days after the show aires originally (not REALLY sure what night that is to be honest), but it is always there waiting when I'm ready.
Anyway...
I'm pretty sure video content will sell, I would like to see a rental option available soon (a per movie rental fee rather than a subscription).
It seems as though it makes no difference who Apple goes with, there will always be people who hate that carrier, and have a carrier that they say Apple MUST use, which almost everyone else hates as well.
Yep. The problem is, all carriers are bad. It's just a matter of which carrier you've had the most bad experiences with recently that will throw your vote.
However, just looking at tariffs, T-Mobile is the ONLY carrier with a sensible data plan here in Europe. Vodafone and Orange may have slightly better coverage but they're astronomically expensive for data. I'm on both Vodafone AND Orange on two of my phones. I only keep Vodafone around to keep the number (it's my incoming business line) on a pay-as-you-go SIM card I pay about £10 a year for. I wouldn't use them otherwise.
Orange have the advantage of having two lines on one phone. Nobody else does this. That's why I've got Orange.
However, I'll be on t-mobile next for data alone.
Well, it is boring to wait for web sites to download on your iPhone.
As far as providers, Apple has to pick 2 in Europe. For example, they could go with T-Mobile exclusively in countries where T-Mobile has a network, but than choose Vodafone or O2 as a secondary in other countries like Ireland, where T-Mobile does not have a network, but Vodafone and O2 both do.
... which would be really great for switzerland where there's none of those three...
they should just sell it open (it does have a SIM card slot) like everybody does in europe. since it's going to be the same price with or without a plan it wouldn't make any difference for the consumer.
oh yeah, except i could buy it in fall 2007 (not like the itunes store which took two years to arrive here (not that i would buy my music there))
iTunes lands a Beatle
Meanwhile, Macworld UK notes that EMI has confirmed plans to release the entire Paul McCartney solo catalogue through online music services for the first time (as first reported last week by Ars).
EMI Music has retained the former Beatles' solo catalogue and is preparing a comprehensive re-launch, including new digital campaigns as well as physical re-releases.
"Paul McCartney?s post-Beatles catalogue, spanning four decades, is one of the great treasures of popular music," said Tony Wadsworth, chairman and CEO, EMI Music UK. "EMI is proud to be introducing Paul?s music to the digital marketplace."
The catalogue includes Paul?s first solo album ?McCartney? through his releases with Wings to his latest critically-acclaimed studio album ?Chaos And Creation In The Backyard?.
Singles to be released digitally will include: ?Band On The Run?, ?My Love?, ?Let ?Em In?, and ?Jet?.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I'm a Beatles fan myself, but I don't get the continuing excitement about the possibility of the Beatles on iTunes (or any other digital music store). I feel like the arrival of the Beatles downloads is expected to bring about the death of the CD, like the headlines will suddenly read, "Circuit City, Best Buy End CD Sales." With quotes from store management like, "With the Beatles on iTunes, CD sales have fallen through the floor. When I asked a customer why he wasn't buing CD's, he replied, 'The Beatles, Man! They're on iTunes! Why would I want to enjoy the quality sound of those remastered CDs when I can download a crappy sounding copy from iTunes.'"
The Beatles were a great band but the arrival of the digital downloads aren't going to change the sales dynamics currently in place.
Apologies for lame "2.0" references.
Thanks for acknowledging that "2.0" is lame. It's tacked-on to so much stuff to try to pretend it's new when it often is just a repackaging or even just a renaming of something that's been done before.
Yes. For instance, http://www.channel4.com/4od/ gives you free downloads for a week after airing. The BBC's iPlayer is going to be the same when it's out of beta. Both are Windows Media only because Fairplay doesn't do self destructing time based downloads.
I imagine that Fairplay can be modified to do self-destructing if it's not already there as a hidden and unused feature. That's beside the point if Apple doesn't license it.
I think this is great!
As with our American users, no one agrees on which carrier is good, or bad.
It seems as though it makes no difference who Apple goes with, there will always be people who hate that carrier, and have a carrier that they say Apple MUST use, which almost everyone else hates as well.
I'm pretty sure that everybody sucks on nearly equal levels, but differ on why they suck.
When they talk about paid ad supported downloads, they generally are talking about paid for ads, but the program is free to the consumer.
Many TV srations already do this. Just watch TV. They will tell you to go to their website to view the program again, or to catch a missed show. It's ad supported, and free to you.
An analyst can't do this on their own. But, they do get paid very well, The best, most well known, are pulling several hundred thou a year.
And these guys are right more often than they are wrong, though they can't get it exact.
Read my post again about free ad-supported vs. paid ad-free TV shows. You didn't understand it.
As to analysts, yeah they're highly paid like Henry Blodgett and those other snake oil salesmen who were pushing Worldcom and Enron and all those other financial disasters.
Your long, diversionary, discourse about how analysts go about producing their 'research' still doesn't address the basic conundrum: If they're more often right than wrong, if there are so many potential 'Sages of Omaha' walking around, then why aren't they just keeping all that analysis to themselves and turning themselves into the next Warren Buffet? The answer is obvious.