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 ?
They are not making consumers do anything. They are offering a product for sale,
which consumers have the option to buy or not buy.
I'm looking forward to the day where a cell phone is as open as a computer (ie. you can choose any service provider, it works on any network, choose any add-ons, sync with it in a standard way, etc).
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!
You are not too bright. The combined population of France, Italy and Belgium is 131,412,817.
Do you really think it makes a lot of sense to decide to not sell your product in those countries, with such a large combined population, because you want to screw carriers, and their customers for the call and data charges? Do you think that what Apple makes from those charges in the European countries that it does end up selling the iPhone in could ever make up for what it doesn't make in a market of that size.
I know what is retarded around here and it isn't France.
You are not too bright. The combined population of France, Italy and Belgium is 131,412,817.
Do you really think it makes a lot of sense to decide to not sell your product in those countries, with such a large combined population, because you want to screw carriers, and their customers for the call and data charges? Do you think that what Apple makes from those charges in the European countries that it does end up selling the iPhone in could ever make up for what it doesn't make in a market of that size.
I know what is retarded around here and it isn't France.
You're funny.
Or rather, I'll do you a favor and assume that, given the inanity of your comments. There are so many incredibly inane things you said above in just two sentences in your second para (I'll ignore paras one and three) that I can't attribute it to anything else.
I'll give you that benefit of doubt, and not assume you are either retarded or not too bright.
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.
Hmmm... let me get this: The fact that..... someone can make assertions based on pure speculation about a product that -- paraphrasing you -- has been available a few months, and isn't even available in Europe yet, may/may not ("God know" [sic]) result in charges, let alone a conviction....... is, according to you, a point?
Hmmm... let me get this: The fact that..... someone can make assertions based on pure speculation about a product that -- paraphrasing you -- has been available a few months, and isn't even available in Europe yet, may/may not ("God know" [sic]) result in charges, let alone a conviction....... is, according to you, a point?
The point is that that your point -- Apple not having been convicted of anything -- is not very relevant here, at least not when said as if this fact you present outright counters any speculation. Yes, it is speculation -- and I think the poster doing the speculation is well aware of that -- but what you said is sort of like saying "Ah hah! Your speculation is just speculation!" Which leads to, "Uh, yeah... so?"
We're not a court of law. We're a discussion forum. It's okay, and expected, for people to speculate and bounce ideas around. The criteria for judging the value of a speculative idea is somewhat different than the standards for conviction or liability in a court of law. We're not going to reach many, if any, definitive conclusions here. The only possible clear "knock outs" are when someone's speculation has obvious logical flaws or is based on erroneous facts you can point out.
It's as if we were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination and you piped in with, "No one other than Oswald was ever arrested for killing Kennedy, and no one at all was ever convicted!" as if that would or should end all possible discussion of the matter.
The criteria for judging the value of a speculative idea is ... when someone's speculation has obvious logical flaws or is based on erroneous facts you can point out.
It's as if we were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination......
I really don't know much about the Kennedy assassination.
I was pointing out exactly the flaw and the lack of facts in aegisdesign's original assertion that Apple is <quote>"flouting consumer protection laws...."<unquote>.
What "consumer protection laws"? How was Apple "flouting" them?
Note he did not say "Apple may be.." or "Apple could be..." nor did he attempt to back up the bald assertion by a modicum of facts. Now, if you think that's a "valuable speculative idea," then good for you!
I happen to think that the original speculation wasn't worth the paper it was written on for precisely the reasons you bring up above. If you think that's not a valid counterpoint, then I am completely confused by what it is you are trying to say.
Your bizarre arguments don't even make sense. Kind of like those mathematical proofs where half the steps are missing. While we're at that, I might as well suggest that you want a system where Apple will only sell you a computer if you sign up for two years of AOL.
If Apple can somehow profit by exclusiely teaming with AOL I say "go for it". I think Verizon FiOS would be a better idea.
What "consumer protection laws"? How was Apple "flouting" them?
Those are good, valid questions. If you had actually asked those questions, I wouldn't have commented. You didn't. You simply bluntly said that Apple hadn't been convicted of any such thing yet, as if that settled the matter, which is not only beside the point, but a ridiculously impossible standard, as no such action regarding the iPhone could possible have concluded by now, much less even get started.
I think Apple is making some serious errors of judgment lately. They seem to think trying to squeeze every drop of profit out of the market and alienating many users and market segments is a better strategy than just making good products that people want to buy.
Their entry into the European market seems to be like a man trying to cross a stream who picks only some rocks to step on while ignoring other obvious choices, and risks hurting himself in the process.
Bricking modded iPhones is not a good way to inspire market confidence or customer satisfaction and loyalty. This ludicrous song and dance over it's approach to Europe is another.
This era of bad decisions reminds me of the nonsense they engaged in with allowing Mac clones and resellers then disallowing them a short while later.
Since 6 or 8 years orange is the more expensive and the worst service provider.
It is clear that Apple made a mistake when signing with orange.
No way I buy iPhone if orange sells it.
And anyway, look at the new "unlimited but limitted" internet access that orange just found : it is a new way to promise all, but to restrict all, and take the maximum of our money.
Look at that if you understand french, it is not a joke :
I admit, that's a bit strange deciding how much companies can charge for their products. I'd think that a bit of healthy competition from the OpenMoko phone when it comes out should solve any price gouging issues (the market will take care of itself in that case).
But I do support the law which forces phones to be unlocked. I think that it's a step in the right direction for consumers.
The fact is the French Telecom companies play around that law by giving their customers reward points when they sign for a one-year or 2-year contract. So before the expiry date, they said one has such an amount of point and if one re-signs with us, you can have a discount on a new phone. So it allows them to keep customers and to charge less for a phone.
Also I want to say that I have read in French newspapers that Orange had found a way to work around that law (selling a phone unlocked) but I have the feeling that Orange is putting some pressure on Apple to get a better a share on the sales. It is just a fight between companies trying to get the better out of the other.
I think Orange is pretty aware of the success of the iphone in the USA and the demand is high. By what I have heard in Paris, is that they are a lot of unlocked iPhone already on the market! Selling more than 500,000 units is seen as a success for a phone company so Orange knows that they have to sell it to be able to increase their market share in France.
And a last point, the European market is big but they are a lot of countries because of size and/or because of the economy level (the expected price of the iphone in Hungary is equivalent to an average monthly wage) will not represent a big share of the sales. So focusing on those countries where there are lots of consumers who can afford it like The UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy, is very important for
Apple especially if they want to reach the 1% of the world mobile phone market.
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.
First, you should pick your battles more carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I wrote
"Because macFanDave believes the size of the potential customer base should dictate the decisions a company makes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by he wrote
"No, I didn't. The size of the potential customer base should dictate how seriously you pursue negotiations. "
Now, "how seriously you pursue negotiations" is a business decision, one he feels is necessary because of the size of the potential customer base...which is what I wrote.
Second, you should stick with "appeals to authority" like you did in the other thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline
Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?
Learn to debate and you won't (and won't have to) commit so many logical fallacies.
Second, you should stick with "appeals to authority" like you did in the other thread:
Learn to debate and you won't (and won't have to) commit so many logical fallacies.
Appeals to authority are not automatically wrong, they simply aren't necessarily conclusive. Besides, you're not even citing the correct alleged fallacy. What I did was an appeal to popular opinion, not an appeal to authority.
As long as we're on the subject of logical fallacies, here's a popular fallacy for you to contemplate: The excluded middle.
Well, being that France is the fashion capital of the world, and that people there like to spend money on fashionable products, I suspect Apple disagrees with you. Apple wants the market. Can it make it happen, well that is another story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss
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.
But they DID send some troops to the US to fight of the colonial Brits and sold you Louisiana....
Cute...
Your right, but who else in the world would build a city below sea level in the past 300 years? But then again, they thought they could squeeze the Brits by controlling the main river artery in the country....till they got their ass kicked. Actually, France only owned the damn place for about a year prior to selling it.
New Orleans National Land Fill - has a nice ring....
If Apple gets 30% of call fees doesn't that mean that call fees are almost 1.5 times dearer than they should be?
If that's the deal when it comes to Ireland they can suck my balls if they think I'm going to get one.
Absolutely. It is the consumers who are going to wear the extra cost in the long run. I have not the slightest interest in buying an iPhone unless I could get one free of any contract. I believe a very large % of the European population will think likewise.
Comments
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 ?
They are not making consumers do anything. They are offering a product for sale,
which consumers have the option to buy or not buy.
I'm looking forward to the day where a cell phone is as open as a computer (ie. you can choose any service provider, it works on any network, choose any add-ons, sync with it in a standard way, etc).
I think the word you are looking for is Europe
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!
You are not too bright. The combined population of France, Italy and Belgium is 131,412,817.
Do you really think it makes a lot of sense to decide to not sell your product in those countries, with such a large combined population, because you want to screw carriers, and their customers for the call and data charges? Do you think that what Apple makes from those charges in the European countries that it does end up selling the iPhone in could ever make up for what it doesn't make in a market of that size.
I know what is retarded around here and it isn't France.
You are not too bright. The combined population of France, Italy and Belgium is 131,412,817.
Do you really think it makes a lot of sense to decide to not sell your product in those countries, with such a large combined population, because you want to screw carriers, and their customers for the call and data charges? Do you think that what Apple makes from those charges in the European countries that it does end up selling the iPhone in could ever make up for what it doesn't make in a market of that size.
I know what is retarded around here and it isn't France.
You're funny.
Or rather, I'll do you a favor and assume that, given the inanity of your comments. There are so many incredibly inane things you said above in just two sentences in your second para (I'll ignore paras one and three) that I can't attribute it to anything else.
I'll give you that benefit of doubt, and not assume you are either retarded or not too bright.
And, no need to get so angry, man......
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.
Hmmm... let me get this: The fact that..... someone can make assertions based on pure speculation about a product that -- paraphrasing you -- has been available a few months, and isn't even available in Europe yet, may/may not ("God know" [sic]) result in charges, let alone a conviction....... is, according to you, a point?
Hmmm... let me get this: The fact that..... someone can make assertions based on pure speculation about a product that -- paraphrasing you -- has been available a few months, and isn't even available in Europe yet, may/may not ("God know" [sic]) result in charges, let alone a conviction....... is, according to you, a point?
The point is that that your point -- Apple not having been convicted of anything -- is not very relevant here, at least not when said as if this fact you present outright counters any speculation. Yes, it is speculation -- and I think the poster doing the speculation is well aware of that -- but what you said is sort of like saying "Ah hah! Your speculation is just speculation!" Which leads to, "Uh, yeah... so?"
We're not a court of law. We're a discussion forum. It's okay, and expected, for people to speculate and bounce ideas around. The criteria for judging the value of a speculative idea is somewhat different than the standards for conviction or liability in a court of law. We're not going to reach many, if any, definitive conclusions here. The only possible clear "knock outs" are when someone's speculation has obvious logical flaws or is based on erroneous facts you can point out.
It's as if we were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination and you piped in with, "No one other than Oswald was ever arrested for killing Kennedy, and no one at all was ever convicted!" as if that would or should end all possible discussion of the matter.
The criteria for judging the value of a speculative idea is ... when someone's speculation has obvious logical flaws or is based on erroneous facts you can point out.
It's as if we were having an argument about the Kennedy assassination......
I really don't know much about the Kennedy assassination.
I was pointing out exactly the flaw and the lack of facts in aegisdesign's original assertion that Apple is <quote>"flouting consumer protection laws...."<unquote>.
What "consumer protection laws"? How was Apple "flouting" them?
Note he did not say "Apple may be.." or "Apple could be..." nor did he attempt to back up the bald assertion by a modicum of facts. Now, if you think that's a "valuable speculative idea," then good for you!
I happen to think that the original speculation wasn't worth the paper it was written on for precisely the reasons you bring up above. If you think that's not a valid counterpoint, then I am completely confused by what it is you are trying to say.
Your bizarre arguments don't even make sense. Kind of like those mathematical proofs where half the steps are missing. While we're at that, I might as well suggest that you want a system where Apple will only sell you a computer if you sign up for two years of AOL.
If Apple can somehow profit by exclusiely teaming with AOL I say "go for it". I think Verizon FiOS would be a better idea.
What "consumer protection laws"? How was Apple "flouting" them?
Those are good, valid questions. If you had actually asked those questions, I wouldn't have commented. You didn't. You simply bluntly said that Apple hadn't been convicted of any such thing yet, as if that settled the matter, which is not only beside the point, but a ridiculously impossible standard, as no such action regarding the iPhone could possible have concluded by now, much less even get started.
Their entry into the European market seems to be like a man trying to cross a stream who picks only some rocks to step on while ignoring other obvious choices, and risks hurting himself in the process.
Bricking modded iPhones is not a good way to inspire market confidence or customer satisfaction and loyalty. This ludicrous song and dance over it's approach to Europe is another.
This era of bad decisions reminds me of the nonsense they engaged in with allowing Mac clones and resellers then disallowing them a short while later.
It is clear that Apple made a mistake when signing with orange.
No way I buy iPhone if orange sells it.
And anyway, look at the new "unlimited but limitted" internet access that orange just found : it is a new way to promise all, but to restrict all, and take the maximum of our money.
Look at that if you understand french, it is not a joke :
http://www.journaldugeek.com/?2007/1...llimite-limite
Now who will buy an iPhone ?
I admit, that's a bit strange deciding how much companies can charge for their products. I'd think that a bit of healthy competition from the OpenMoko phone when it comes out should solve any price gouging issues (the market will take care of itself in that case).
But I do support the law which forces phones to be unlocked. I think that it's a step in the right direction for consumers.
The fact is the French Telecom companies play around that law by giving their customers reward points when they sign for a one-year or 2-year contract. So before the expiry date, they said one has such an amount of point and if one re-signs with us, you can have a discount on a new phone. So it allows them to keep customers and to charge less for a phone.
Also I want to say that I have read in French newspapers that Orange had found a way to work around that law (selling a phone unlocked) but I have the feeling that Orange is putting some pressure on Apple to get a better a share on the sales. It is just a fight between companies trying to get the better out of the other.
I think Orange is pretty aware of the success of the iphone in the USA and the demand is high. By what I have heard in Paris, is that they are a lot of unlocked iPhone already on the market! Selling more than 500,000 units is seen as a success for a phone company so Orange knows that they have to sell it to be able to increase their market share in France.
And a last point, the European market is big but they are a lot of countries because of size and/or because of the economy level (the expected price of the iphone in Hungary is equivalent to an average monthly wage) will not represent a big share of the sales. So focusing on those countries where there are lots of consumers who can afford it like The UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy, is very important for
Apple especially if they want to reach the 1% of the world mobile phone market.
If that's the deal when it comes to Ireland they can suck my balls if they think I'm going to get one.
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.
First, you should pick your battles more carefully.
"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. "
Now, "how seriously you pursue negotiations" is a business decision, one he feels is necessary because of the size of the potential customer base...which is what I wrote.
Second, you should stick with "appeals to authority" like you did in the other thread:
Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?
Learn to debate and you won't (and won't have to) commit so many logical fallacies.
http://faculty.rivier.edu/dburgess/w.../fallicies.htm
.... not a good way to inspire market confidence or customer satisfaction and loyalty.
LOL.
The only slight problem is, the market, which sent AAPL up $5.20099 yesterday, seems to vehemently disagree with you!
LOL.
The only slight problem is, the market, which sent AAPL up $5.20099 yesterday, seems to vehemently disagree with you!
Rule #1 in business:
Never argue with success. It makes you look ... well, silly really, although I could use less complementary adjectives.
It's a rule in life too, but not quite #1.
Second, you should stick with "appeals to authority" like you did in the other thread:
Learn to debate and you won't (and won't have to) commit so many logical fallacies.
Appeals to authority are not automatically wrong, they simply aren't necessarily conclusive. Besides, you're not even citing the correct alleged fallacy. What I did was an appeal to popular opinion, not an appeal to authority.
As long as we're on the subject of logical fallacies, here's a popular fallacy for you to contemplate: The excluded middle.
That fallacy seems to be one of your favorites.
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.
But they DID send some troops to the US to fight of the colonial Brits and sold you Louisiana....
Cute...
Your right, but who else in the world would build a city below sea level in the past 300 years? But then again, they thought they could squeeze the Brits by controlling the main river artery in the country....till they got their ass kicked. Actually, France only owned the damn place for about a year prior to selling it.
New Orleans National Land Fill - has a nice ring....
If Apple gets 30% of call fees doesn't that mean that call fees are almost 1.5 times dearer than they should be?
If that's the deal when it comes to Ireland they can suck my balls if they think I'm going to get one.
Absolutely. It is the consumers who are going to wear the extra cost in the long run. I have not the slightest interest in buying an iPhone unless I could get one free of any contract. I believe a very large % of the European population will think likewise.