One thing that no one seems to have mentioned is the issue of the EU Single Market. Apple is already in trouble about different pricing for the iTunes store in different EU countries, well not that so much but the fact that you cannot buy from say the German iTunes store if you are not in Germany- can yo imagine a situation where a resident of New Jersey couldn't buy stuff off an iTunes store in New York? I'm not talking about having to pay a different rate of sales tax, just being blocked from making the transaction at all. And yet that is the situation that Apple and the Music Labels are trying to perpetrate in the Single Market. A few years ago VW was fined several hundred million Euros for this sort of practice so the legislation is not aimed just at Americans or 'foreigners'. It applies to everyone. The point I am getting at is that if Apple wants to do any iPhone business in Europe they will have to worry about the whole market because for a long time now it has not been possible to dice up the EU and create barriers to trade in the internal market of the EU. In the case of iTunes, Apple has a reasonable defence that it wasn't them but the Music Labels that forced this business model on them- they have the copyright on the product. But on the iPhone? It won't be so easy when it is clearly Apple that is driving the bizarre business model they are trying to foist on all of us.
One thing that no one seems to have mentioned is the issue of the EU Single Market.
I don't think that applies because the EU doesn't have a single communications network. If Apple licenses it's device to a particular carrier, it's not obligated to license it's products to all carriers, surely.
These aren't agreements made between Apple and individual customers - they're agreements between Apple and individual carriers. B2B type stuff.
Quote:
The EU isn't a single telecom market yet: it's actually 27 separate markets, with their own separate national telecom authorities. This is supposed to change after this summer, but the iPhone will most likely still need 27 approvals.
...
Just think about the iTunes store. I'm not sure if everyone knows, but 12 of the EU's 27 member states still have no access to the store. (It's a different 12 from the countries without a Vodafone affiliate, so no, it's not a pattern.) Establishing a single European market is a great endeavor, and the EU has come a long way, but there's still a lot of distance to cover.
This news is not good for Apple to meet their own sales projections, and it is not good for revenue... on the other hand, I have no idea why AAPL is up almost 4 points this morning...
Because Apple stock traditionally drops after good news, so I guess this makes sense, right?
In order to crack much of the European market, Apple will have to sell an unlocked iPhone. Doing so has a drawback for Apple -- it loses its revenue stream from the carriers. But so what?
Unlocking European iPhones probably doesn't violate the AT&T contract. Apple needed AT&T in order to get established and keep its price where it wanted it, but now that it has the AT&T insurance, I think it ought to go after marketshare.
Sell an unlocked iPhone in certain European countries (apparently the more enlightened ones), don't worry about who buys the iPhone, as long as it's Apple-controlled, and lose revenue in probably all of Europe from the carriers. I doubt Apple will have to worry about the US-based AT&T because the only other possible carrier in the US is T-Mobile, which is not anywhere near as widespread as AT&T.
I worry that Apple will hurt itself in the long run if it doesn't sell a viable iPhone everywhere in the world.
In order to crack much of the European market, Apple will have to sell an unlocked iPhone. Doing so has a drawback for Apple -- it loses its revenue stream from the carriers. But so what?.
I wonder if AT&T made Apple agree not to sell any unlocked iPhones anywhere. After all, if they're sold in Europe unlocked, many will show up in the US that way too.
Because macFanDave believes the size of the potential customer base should dictate the decisions a company makes.
No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. You think that at the first sign of adversity, Apple should take its ball and go home. That would be idiotic. Good for the French whose government regulations look out for the interests of the consumer! I think that the current situation in the US is not only anti-consumer, it is also anti-Apple. It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.
Quote:
With that defining the parameters around a decision, Apple should abandon OS X for it's hardware products because the customer base for Windows is much larger.
You can always use Boot Camp to make your Mac run as a Windows box. Sure, it costs more, but in the normal world, customers who sign long-term contracts for cell phones get more favorable terms than non-contract users. Similarly, Apple could agree to a structure where French iPhone customers who sign contracts get better terms than those who don't.
I don't think that applies because the EU doesn't have a single communications network. If Apple licenses it's device to a particular carrier, it's not obligated to license it's products to all carriers, surely.
These aren't agreements made between Apple and individual customers - they're agreements between Apple and individual carriers. B2B type stuff.
And, given that it's an Apple product with Apple IP, the bottom line is that it's Apple's call whether it wants to be in a particular country with the product, and if so, on what terms.
I can understand some people in France being p***ed off by that, and this may put a dent on Apple's performance forecasts -- altho, the $4+ stock price runup today does not seem to suggest the market is too worried about this issue -- but I see no reason why Apple should do anything different in France compared to what it has been doing in the US, Germany, and the UK.
And, as an Apple shareholder, I totally welcome Apple's attempt to squeeze some additional cash flows out of these (retarded) carriers. Stay tough, Apple!
So? Network building and maintenance costs something, and people transfer bits over that network. From that you can count what is the price for one bit. Very simple. That bit costs the same regardless of the phone set it was consumed on, does it not? Now, building a phone costs something, and those costs are the same, regardless of operator who will provide the service for that phone? No one is saying that operators aren't allowed to set the price for the bit, but why should they be allowed to set the price for the phone, or dictate to what network that phone can connect to? Apparently it takes government to draw the lines for greed. On markets where huge initial investments are needed and/or existing players actually are monetizing government built architecture, new players just can't enter to market and free market just can sort things out.
I agree 100%. Which is why I've always viewed the role of government in a capitalist society to be an entity which balances the interests of the population at large with the interests of the those who invest and only look at the bottom line.
Call it greed, call it self-interest, call it whatever names you like, it's what forms the economic basis of society. I'm sure you put your money somewhere (the bank, retirement, stocks, bonds), and you want to get the best interest rate for that money. Where do you think that interest comes from? So you are a silent participator in the process.
However, there are times where economic interest may not be what's best for society/humanity (eg. in relation to environmental concerns, poor labour conditions, etc). However, no single company will step up and take responsibility because it will put them at a disadvantage when competing with others. There's just no incentive there. So it's the role of the government to step in and say that everyone has to take responsibility and play by the same rules. Unfortunately, with globalization, this is much tougher to enforce (no single government can do it).
This is relevant to the iPhone issue because, while certainly not as important as the environment, the government of France is regulating the cellular industry in a way that it feels is best for the population of France at large (which I agree with). So I applaud them for taking a stance on it. However, as with legislating poor environmental and poor labour conditions, corporations will just take their business to other countries to avoid those laws.
It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.
Huh?
How can you make a bland assertion like this unless you know more about it all than Apple does? Surely, you don't think that a $130 billion company hasn't thought this through more deeply and carefully than you?
No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. You think that at the first sign of adversity, Apple should take its ball and go home. That would be idiotic. Good for the French whose government regulations look out for the interests of the consumer! I think that the current situation in the US is not only anti-consumer, it is also anti-Apple. It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.
You have to realize two things:
1. You said whatever Taskiss says you said, and you have to defend his version of what you said or you're "dancing around" the issue.
2. Taskiss can point to online pages listing the great variety of cellphones available, and to the recent $200 price drop of the iPhone, thus proving (apparently!) beyond a shadow of a doubt that the consumer is absolutely and totally in control of the cellphone market.
How can you make a bland assertion like this unless you know more about it all than Apple does? Surely, you don't think that a $130 billion company hasn't thought this through more deeply and carefully than you?
Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.
France has 53 million mobile cellular customers, the EU (without France) has 413 million, the USA has 233 million. Not having France as a market doesn't really matter, as I see it.
Isn't that a really really long and drawn out to say what I think we're all thinking...
Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.
Yes, you are right. If I ever need to hire a spokesperson, I will keep your name in consideration
Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.
I see you your point, but I thought that was obvious in real life. The greatest deal you can't get is always worth less than the best deal that you can get.
In the case of iTunes, Apple has a reasonable defence that it wasn't them but the Music Labels that forced this business model on them- they have the copyright on the product. But on the iPhone? It won't be so easy when it is clearly Apple that is driving the bizarre business model they are trying to foist on all of us.
No, that's not relevant. You're allowed to price goods differently in each member country in the EU. Nothing wrong with that. The problem Apple has with it's iTunes store is selling the same goods from Luxembourg to different member states at different prices - that is illegal.
The second problem is not selling some songs to consumers if not in the country that a music label operates in due to restrictive distribution agreements.
The iPhone carrier restrictions are totally different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
And, as an Apple shareholder, I totally welcome Apple's attempt to squeeze some additional cash flows out of these (retarded) carriers. Stay tough, Apple!
Just a pity they're flouting consumer protection laws in the process and making consumers pay way over the odds for their half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone ?
Just a pity they're flouting consumer protection laws in the process and making consumers pay way over the odds for their half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone ?
You keep saying things like this, without a shred of evidence, but rather, just based on surmise!
1) Apple has not been convicted of flouting any consumer protection laws, as far as I know.
2) You can keep calling the iPhone "....half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone..." etc etc all you want. I have actually used it every day since June 29 and I can only speak from my personal experience: it is an outstanding product, and quite unlike anything else I have used to enhance my digital life. Have you used it at all, or again, is it just surmise?
1) Apple has not been convicted of flouting any consumer protection laws, as far as I know.
I don't know that I'd state Apple's position on the iPhone as harshly as aegisdesign did (I have some issues with the iPhone, but I'm still pretty impressed and happy with mine), but the above comment of yours is hardly a counterpoint. The iPhone has only been available a few months in the US, and isn't even available in Europe yet. It would take many months after the introduction of the iPhone for anyone to get around to pressing any such charges -- fair or not -- and God know how many more months or years after than to get a conviction or a settlement.
Comments
LOL! I'd take the French wine over the closed iPhone, thank you very much.
AND if everyone in France adopts that position, this is a non-issue.
One thing that no one seems to have mentioned is the issue of the EU Single Market.
I don't think that applies because the EU doesn't have a single communications network. If Apple licenses it's device to a particular carrier, it's not obligated to license it's products to all carriers, surely.
These aren't agreements made between Apple and individual customers - they're agreements between Apple and individual carriers. B2B type stuff.
The EU isn't a single telecom market yet: it's actually 27 separate markets, with their own separate national telecom authorities. This is supposed to change after this summer, but the iPhone will most likely still need 27 approvals.
...
Just think about the iTunes store. I'm not sure if everyone knows, but 12 of the EU's 27 member states still have no access to the store. (It's a different 12 from the countries without a Vodafone affiliate, so no, it's not a pattern.) Establishing a single European market is a great endeavor, and the EU has come a long way, but there's still a lot of distance to cover.
http://macthoughtcrime.blogspot.com/...or-iphone.html
This news is not good for Apple to meet their own sales projections, and it is not good for revenue... on the other hand, I have no idea why AAPL is up almost 4 points this morning...
Because Apple stock traditionally drops after good news, so I guess this makes sense, right?
Unlocking European iPhones probably doesn't violate the AT&T contract. Apple needed AT&T in order to get established and keep its price where it wanted it, but now that it has the AT&T insurance, I think it ought to go after marketshare.
Sell an unlocked iPhone in certain European countries (apparently the more enlightened ones), don't worry about who buys the iPhone, as long as it's Apple-controlled, and lose revenue in probably all of Europe from the carriers. I doubt Apple will have to worry about the US-based AT&T because the only other possible carrier in the US is T-Mobile, which is not anywhere near as widespread as AT&T.
I worry that Apple will hurt itself in the long run if it doesn't sell a viable iPhone everywhere in the world.
In order to crack much of the European market, Apple will have to sell an unlocked iPhone. Doing so has a drawback for Apple -- it loses its revenue stream from the carriers. But so what?.
I wonder if AT&T made Apple agree not to sell any unlocked iPhones anywhere. After all, if they're sold in Europe unlocked, many will show up in the US that way too.
Because macFanDave believes the size of the potential customer base should dictate the decisions a company makes.
No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. You think that at the first sign of adversity, Apple should take its ball and go home. That would be idiotic. Good for the French whose government regulations look out for the interests of the consumer! I think that the current situation in the US is not only anti-consumer, it is also anti-Apple. It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.
With that defining the parameters around a decision, Apple should abandon OS X for it's hardware products because the customer base for Windows is much larger.
You can always use Boot Camp to make your Mac run as a Windows box. Sure, it costs more, but in the normal world, customers who sign long-term contracts for cell phones get more favorable terms than non-contract users. Similarly, Apple could agree to a structure where French iPhone customers who sign contracts get better terms than those who don't.
I don't think that applies because the EU doesn't have a single communications network. If Apple licenses it's device to a particular carrier, it's not obligated to license it's products to all carriers, surely.
These aren't agreements made between Apple and individual customers - they're agreements between Apple and individual carriers. B2B type stuff.
http://macthoughtcrime.blogspot.com/...or-iphone.html
You're right on this.
And, given that it's an Apple product with Apple IP, the bottom line is that it's Apple's call whether it wants to be in a particular country with the product, and if so, on what terms.
I can understand some people in France being p***ed off by that, and this may put a dent on Apple's performance forecasts -- altho, the $4+ stock price runup today does not seem to suggest the market is too worried about this issue -- but I see no reason why Apple should do anything different in France compared to what it has been doing in the US, Germany, and the UK.
And, as an Apple shareholder, I totally welcome Apple's attempt to squeeze some additional cash flows out of these (retarded) carriers. Stay tough, Apple!
So? Network building and maintenance costs something, and people transfer bits over that network. From that you can count what is the price for one bit. Very simple. That bit costs the same regardless of the phone set it was consumed on, does it not? Now, building a phone costs something, and those costs are the same, regardless of operator who will provide the service for that phone? No one is saying that operators aren't allowed to set the price for the bit, but why should they be allowed to set the price for the phone, or dictate to what network that phone can connect to? Apparently it takes government to draw the lines for greed. On markets where huge initial investments are needed and/or existing players actually are monetizing government built architecture, new players just can't enter to market and free market just can sort things out.
I agree 100%. Which is why I've always viewed the role of government in a capitalist society to be an entity which balances the interests of the population at large with the interests of the those who invest and only look at the bottom line.
Call it greed, call it self-interest, call it whatever names you like, it's what forms the economic basis of society. I'm sure you put your money somewhere (the bank, retirement, stocks, bonds), and you want to get the best interest rate for that money. Where do you think that interest comes from? So you are a silent participator in the process.
However, there are times where economic interest may not be what's best for society/humanity (eg. in relation to environmental concerns, poor labour conditions, etc). However, no single company will step up and take responsibility because it will put them at a disadvantage when competing with others. There's just no incentive there. So it's the role of the government to step in and say that everyone has to take responsibility and play by the same rules. Unfortunately, with globalization, this is much tougher to enforce (no single government can do it).
This is relevant to the iPhone issue because, while certainly not as important as the environment, the government of France is regulating the cellular industry in a way that it feels is best for the population of France at large (which I agree with). So I applaud them for taking a stance on it. However, as with legislating poor environmental and poor labour conditions, corporations will just take their business to other countries to avoid those laws.
It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.
Huh?
How can you make a bland assertion like this unless you know more about it all than Apple does? Surely, you don't think that a $130 billion company hasn't thought this through more deeply and carefully than you?
No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. You think that at the first sign of adversity, Apple should take its ball and go home. That would be idiotic. Good for the French whose government regulations look out for the interests of the consumer! I think that the current situation in the US is not only anti-consumer, it is also anti-Apple. It would be great for Apple if the iPhone could either work with any provider, or if Apple started their own MVNO. Getting welded to AT&T is not an optimal condition.
You have to realize two things:
1. You said whatever Taskiss says you said, and you have to defend his version of what you said or you're "dancing around" the issue.
2. Taskiss can point to online pages listing the great variety of cellphones available, and to the recent $200 price drop of the iPhone, thus proving (apparently!) beyond a shadow of a doubt that the consumer is absolutely and totally in control of the cellphone market.
How can you make a bland assertion like this unless you know more about it all than Apple does? Surely, you don't think that a $130 billion company hasn't thought this through more deeply and carefully than you?
Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.
France has 53 million mobile cellular customers, the EU (without France) has 413 million, the USA has 233 million. Not having France as a market doesn't really matter, as I see it.
Isn't that a really really long and drawn out to say what I think we're all thinking...
F--K THE FRENCH!
Kidding!!! Kidding!!
Really!
D
Because Apple stock traditionally drops after good news, so I guess this makes sense, right?
Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.
Yes, you are right. If I ever need to hire a spokesperson, I will keep your name in consideration
Apple may or may not have managed the best deal that they could get with AT&T, but no matter how smart they were about the negotiations doesn't mean that the best deal they could get is a particularly great deal. I think that's all macFanDave is trying to convey here.
I see you your point, but I thought that was obvious in real life. The greatest deal you can't get is always worth less than the best deal that you can get.
Yes, you are right. If I ever need to hire a spokesperson, I will keep your name in consideration
OK.... I see.... ignore my comment above!
In the case of iTunes, Apple has a reasonable defence that it wasn't them but the Music Labels that forced this business model on them- they have the copyright on the product. But on the iPhone? It won't be so easy when it is clearly Apple that is driving the bizarre business model they are trying to foist on all of us.
No, that's not relevant. You're allowed to price goods differently in each member country in the EU. Nothing wrong with that. The problem Apple has with it's iTunes store is selling the same goods from Luxembourg to different member states at different prices - that is illegal.
The second problem is not selling some songs to consumers if not in the country that a music label operates in due to restrictive distribution agreements.
The iPhone carrier restrictions are totally different.
And, as an Apple shareholder, I totally welcome Apple's attempt to squeeze some additional cash flows out of these (retarded) carriers. Stay tough, Apple!
Just a pity they're flouting consumer protection laws in the process and making consumers pay way over the odds for their half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone ?
Just a pity they're flouting consumer protection laws in the process and making consumers pay way over the odds for their half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone ?
You keep saying things like this, without a shred of evidence, but rather, just based on surmise!
1) Apple has not been convicted of flouting any consumer protection laws, as far as I know.
2) You can keep calling the iPhone "....half finished, limited functionality, restrictive beta phone..." etc etc all you want. I have actually used it every day since June 29 and I can only speak from my personal experience: it is an outstanding product, and quite unlike anything else I have used to enhance my digital life. Have you used it at all, or again, is it just surmise?
1) Apple has not been convicted of flouting any consumer protection laws, as far as I know.
I don't know that I'd state Apple's position on the iPhone as harshly as aegisdesign did (I have some issues with the iPhone, but I'm still pretty impressed and happy with mine), but the above comment of yours is hardly a counterpoint. The iPhone has only been available a few months in the US, and isn't even available in Europe yet. It would take many months after the introduction of the iPhone for anyone to get around to pressing any such charges -- fair or not -- and God know how many more months or years after than to get a conviction or a settlement.