Apple imports a product that is designed and manufactured by Apple into our countries - neither Telekom nor O2 is required to make use of it. If they want to sell it here - they have to follow our rules. And if they want to sell a lot - it would be quite clever to meet people's demands.
Bundling of products and services is unethical when it is deliberate (e.g. bundling the sale of a medical device and the maintenance for it could be absolutely OK, if it would cause a risk, if somebody else is doing it. If I tell you, you and your family can rent this overpriced house from me, but only if you also buy a life insurance from me, this is unacceptable). The iPhone is a regular GSM phone - it works on every single network in Europe. The bundling is deliberate, unethical and will be stopped.
The discussion reminds me of that US steak house chain that tried to establish "please wait to be seated" signs in completely empty restaurants ... that was quite the same success
While I agree with following the rules of the land everything else above is complete nonsense.
You appear to be assuming that Apple's approach to providing solutions is that of your own (i.e. some kind of tragic interoperable model of devices and services held together by the patronising concept of the consumer making 'informed' choices they will never be capable of) and it never has been. Apple are reknown for 're-inventing' products which they feel are substandard by tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from.
Unethical? I call it good design
The irony is that in appearing to keep consumer choice open they enforce a model that will give you any choice except for the good one.
Pardon, but I strongly disagree. Being the legislation is one of the main roles of every government - no matter where. They have to make laws that limit a citizens risk of being killed, robbed or abused. Forcing a person that does an average of two phone calls a month and may have 10 MB of Internet traffic to sign up for a 45 EUR per months contract for 24 months is abuse. Selling a person a product and not giving him/her ownership is scam. Yes, I do want my government to protect me from that - I do not want to sell my house in order to be able to afford a lawyer that will do it for me. I pay 52 percent income tax and 19 % VAT - and yes, I want them to do something for my money.
A person that averages 2 phone calls a month and may use 10MB of Internet is A) someone that really doesn't seem to need a mobile phone - PERIOD or someone that is not in the demographics that Apple is targeting as a customer. Please tell me your options of buying a mobile phone are not limited to only Apple's iPhone??? What was everyone using before?
Next, I guess you will want your government to tell software makers, like Adobe Photoshop, etc. to stop licensing the use of their software that you purchase for the privelege of using but not owning!
The only big difference I see between Europe and the United States, is that you have a land of grown-ups who want your government to save your from having to make any sort of decisions you might be held to. As to bundling product and service being unethical, that's purely a matter of opinion.
And what exactly does a restaurant wanting to keep track of who enters and where they are seated have to do with the iPhone?
what a well thought out argument, not. thanks for making my country look even worse.
The actual (not "likely") status is that the party filing the claim did not ask to stop sales. Therefore they do not stop (yet). Telekom has two weeks to respond, nothing will happen in the meantime. If they are clever, they come up with a move that makes the claim obsolete. But more likely is that they will refer to their contractual conditions with Apple and that entire process will then go into an indefinite loop working its way through courts on different levels. It will likely not be solved in Germany at all. The EU will be there first and Germany will accept whatever they say - it will not be in Apple's favour.
It is even worse from the publicity and marketing points of view - it damages the Apple brand name. Nobody likes Telekom, the iPhone tariffs are theft and now Voodoofone is the good guy. It will also make potential buyers wait - hoping for better conditions or more choice when the conflict is resolved.
I think it's unlikely. Despite all the concerns about Apple's greed, cultural differences, ethics, and such, I think this will be just additional legal noise for Apple to maneuver. (Of course, such predictions are worth the paper they are written on......)
Strikes me as odd that such a marginal (in mobile phones) player as Apple should strike such fear and worry in the hearts of the Vodaphones of the world!
Why can't the rest of the darn industry get its act together and produce a product and user experience that competes with Apple, instead of trying to thwart it at every turn!?
Vodafone Germany chief executive Friedrich Joussen in a statement said his firm's goal is not to prevent sales of the device but rather allow for consumers to purchase iPhones without binding themselves to long-term agreements with any one carrier.
"We want it to be available to buyers without a mandatory calling plan," he said. "If I had wanted to halt sales, I could have, but I didn't."
What has either the iPhone or other consumers buying it got to do with Vodafone? They blew the deal and now he's trying to dictate how others do business?
How insane that he's got away with it - why not give consumers the real choice to vote with their wallets?
The iPhone is a regular GSM phone - it works on every single network in Europe. The bundling is deliberate, unethical and will be stopped.
It is not unethical in any way whatsoever. No individual claims a natural right to the product of another person's effort. The only rights individuals have is a right and freedom to think of their own ideas, to create their ideas, and to trade them FREELY. ie: without other people/government holding a gun to their head with laws telling them how to sell, nor the creator of the product holding a gun to others' heads telling them to buy, nor or a gun held to your head demanding to take it from you.
The marketplace is a 100% voluntary free exchange of ideas and products. You have absolutely no right to steve jobs' invention. He can chose to sell it any way he wants, and you can chose to buy or not to buy. If you DON'T buy it, the product will cease to exist and he and his shareholders will lose their money.
What this is about is people who WANT to buy it, use it in a way the creator did not intend, and use the power of the government holding a gun to steve jobs and his shareholders demanding you get your way, like a child with a loaded gun throwing a temper tantrum, or the kid on the sports field who slugs his opponent because he is losing the game.
You have no natural right to the product of other people's minds.
You appear to be assuming that Apple's approach to providing solutions is that of your own (i.e. some kind of tragic interoperable model of devices and services held together by the patronising concept of the consumer making 'informed' choices they will never be capable of) and it never has been. Apple are reknown for 're-inventing' products which they feel are substandard by tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from.
Unethical? I call it good design
I assume because this godly, reality distorted design is so great, Apple is:
- selling more Macs, since you can use other peripherals than what is listed on their own compatibility list
- selling more computers, since they run Windows
- selling a non proportional amount of iTunes Plus titles that play elsewhere
Apple does design great products - I agree. But their patronising approach to tell others what they have to want is more often than not a major PITA. I still do need a modem in my notebook, I want a mobile phone that can be used as a modem and I think it is a pain that I cannot go into an Apple shop (own or reseller) and buy a machine with BTO options (you want Airport in a Mac Pro - how unprofessional... you have to wait son). No, they are far far from doing everything right.
They exclusively sell and maintain the iPhone (which requires a computer to work at all) via e.g. T-Mobile, a company having no knowledge about computers (no matter if OS X or Windows), cannot assist with anything (not even their own products) and you claim that this equals "tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from" Sorry, I really do not want to play the "fanboy" argument... but I am stunned now
Strikes me as odd that such a marginal (in mobile phones) player as Apple should strike such fear and worry in the hearts of the Vodaphones of the world!
Because vodaphone knows Apple is soon to become NOT such a marginal player with their device.
Why can't Apple just offer a no-contract phone for 1500 Euros, agree to split the difference of any such purchases with their local service provider in Europe, and just get on with it........
That will stop this kind of nonsense lawsuit dead in its tracks.
Customers can choose the i-Phone or whatever else they want.
In Australia you can get a free expensive phone on a contract OR you can pay upfront for a phone and go pre-paid if you like.
Apple is selling their phone's with a contract. It's not holding a gun to peoples heads and forcing people to buy the phone. There are hundreds of other phones people can buy.
Some Euro trash laws are just so stupid. Like to whole lead free electronics issue. It's going to cost consumers billons of dollars with tin whiskers for no good reason.
Because vodaphone knows Apple is soon to become NOT such a marginal player with their device.
Heh heh.... that's what I implied.
I thought that by saying so, I might get flamed by some of the self-professed European tech sophisticates on this forum who think that the iPhone is a piece of low-end crap that will go nowhere!
Apparently, the Vodaphones of the world don't think that!
A person that averages 2 phone calls a month and may use 10MB of Internet is A) someone that really doesn't seem to need a mobile phone - PERIOD or someone that is not in the demographics that Apple is targeting as a customer. Please tell me your options of buying a mobile phone are not limited to only Apple's iPhone??? What was everyone using before?
Well, even for an all-American point of view, this is a little bit extreme. Manufacturers choosing the customer? Quite a step ahead of a free market, aren't you? Brave new world.
People have a job today and are unemployed tomorrow, a lot of times without being to blame. The system of virtually unlimited credit puts economies at risk. "Forcing" (I do not mean forcing to buy something, but forcing people to surrender to long-term contracts or not being a customer at all) adds significantly to this risk. If everybody only offers these conditions (will ultimately happen, if this is successful) people will indeed be "forced" to sign. A government that is wise enough to disapprove such pitfalls is neither overly bureaucratic nor communist - it is good human sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Next, I guess you will want your government to tell software makers, like Adobe Photoshop, etc. to stop licensing the use of their software that you purchase for the privelege of using but not owning!
Thanks for putting nonsense into my mouth... software licenses are a special commodity, a mix of product and service by design (support, updates etc.). Nobody questioned that (at least I did not). A phone is a phone - just (to use a common analogy) like a car is a car. My car runs on premium plus and I can drive it to any destination I like (e.g. also to Mexico or Canada) and buy fuel there for the local price (this might be a benefit or not...), because this car is mine and I paid 100% of the price asked. Jaguar is not telling me, you can only buy fuel from Exxon, because they are our exclusive partner. If you travel to a country where Exxon does not operate gas stations, well will send you Exxon fuel via air cargo for a little surcharge. If I pay the full 100% list price for an iPhone - I have to use Apple's local exclusive partner, no matter where in the world I go and pay roaming charges through my nose... Why? Did they subsidise my phone? No. Do they operate a service centre in any country I travel to, offer me free coffee and snacks? No. They pay the local provider some 3 cents a minute and charge me 3.99 EUR for nothing. I paid 580 USD for that phone, so I am supposed to use it as a phone.
If I pay the full 100% list price for an iPhone - I have to use Apple's local exclusive partner, no matter where in the world I go and pay roaming charges through my nose... Why? Did the subsidise my phone? No.
Yes it did. Just because they don't offer to sell it at a non-subsidized price does not mean that the price with service is not subsidized.
Many of the iphone's 'features' like visual voicemail, & whatever future stuff
Apple might want to develop use Apple-specific servers installed tight with
the cell provider's infrastructure... So although it can function as a GSM phone,
as well as general data/ web, unless those Apple servers are on your carrier,
not everything will work the same...
That said, any sort of locked-in/contract policy seems pretty much contrary
to a decent portion of European regulations, and I don't really see how selling
a 'premium' unlocked product would fly very well (i.e. it's not premium at all, but a lesser product, not being able to use all the features (visual voicemail, etc) that it should
(or would be able to use given the right Apple servers on the providers network.)
Apple is obviously interested in selling the 'whole experience' and doesn't want to adulterate that with sub-par services on non-partner/exclusive cell networks...
But given the realities of European law on this, it seems like something will give...
I think from the consumer perspective, Apple should really just be running all their premium service servers (vis.voicemail, etc.) themselves, and arranging suitable connections direct into any and all providers infrastructure...
(non-partnering networks thus defaulting to general IP/internet access)
I think given the seeming conflict between no-contract laws and Apple's desire for revenue-sharing contracts (I don't see why Apple should be interested in network exclusivity otherwise), I think Apple would be interested in trying to migrate their revenue-sharing model into other markets, i.e iTunes Store-Wireless (+video, etc)...
(which seems like it WOULD be able to be offered carrier-exclusive, since it's not an inherent function/necessity to GSM-phones)
(although more fuel on the fire of potential iTunes store problems)
any interesting case for network-neutrality, in any case....
Yes it did. Just because they don't offer to sell it at a non-subsidized price does not mean that the price with service is not subsidized.
The list price of a product (before any subsidies) has to be transparent - European law. If you do only publish one price - this is the price without subsidies. Every other phone maker is able to do that. Not a single exception. Whatever they make "inofficially" (under whatever terms with their exclusive partner) does not limit the consumer's rights. Apple will learn it. Believe me.
The list price of a product (before any subsidies) has to be transparent - European law. If you do only publish one price - this is the price without subsidies. Every other phone maker is able to do that. Not a single exception. Whatever they make "inofficially" (under whatever terms with their exclusive partner) does not limit the consumer's rights. Apple will learn it. Believe me.
lol
You Euros have a very high opinion of your system. That's great. And I'm sure Apple knows that. But Apple makes a lot of money from the iPhone and will continue to do so, and people like you will continue to use something else and turn up your nose at the thought of paying more (whether it be up front price or long term price) for a better product. Enjoy your inferior one with your superior attitude!
When you buy a Gillette razor (oh I know, you wouldn't be caught dead with an Ameican POS like that, right?) does the price on the shelf include the price of the blades you'll need over the life of the razor?
Comments
This argument gets sooo long in the tooth.
Apple imports a product that is designed and manufactured by Apple into our countries - neither Telekom nor O2 is required to make use of it. If they want to sell it here - they have to follow our rules. And if they want to sell a lot - it would be quite clever to meet people's demands.
Bundling of products and services is unethical when it is deliberate (e.g. bundling the sale of a medical device and the maintenance for it could be absolutely OK, if it would cause a risk, if somebody else is doing it. If I tell you, you and your family can rent this overpriced house from me, but only if you also buy a life insurance from me, this is unacceptable). The iPhone is a regular GSM phone - it works on every single network in Europe. The bundling is deliberate, unethical and will be stopped.
The discussion reminds me of that US steak house chain that tried to establish "please wait to be seated" signs in completely empty restaurants ... that was quite the same success
While I agree with following the rules of the land everything else above is complete nonsense.
You appear to be assuming that Apple's approach to providing solutions is that of your own (i.e. some kind of tragic interoperable model of devices and services held together by the patronising concept of the consumer making 'informed' choices they will never be capable of) and it never has been. Apple are reknown for 're-inventing' products which they feel are substandard by tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from.
Unethical? I call it good design
The irony is that in appearing to keep consumer choice open they enforce a model that will give you any choice except for the good one.
McD
Pardon, but I strongly disagree. Being the legislation is one of the main roles of every government - no matter where. They have to make laws that limit a citizens risk of being killed, robbed or abused. Forcing a person that does an average of two phone calls a month and may have 10 MB of Internet traffic to sign up for a 45 EUR per months contract for 24 months is abuse. Selling a person a product and not giving him/her ownership is scam. Yes, I do want my government to protect me from that - I do not want to sell my house in order to be able to afford a lawyer that will do it for me. I pay 52 percent income tax and 19 % VAT - and yes, I want them to do something for my money.
A person that averages 2 phone calls a month and may use 10MB of Internet is A) someone that really doesn't seem to need a mobile phone - PERIOD or
Next, I guess you will want your government to tell software makers, like Adobe Photoshop, etc. to stop licensing the use of their software that you purchase for the privelege of using but not owning!
The only big difference I see between Europe and the United States, is that you have a land of grown-ups who want your government to save your from having to make any sort of decisions you might be held to. As to bundling product and service being unethical, that's purely a matter of opinion.
And what exactly does a restaurant wanting to keep track of who enters and where they are seated have to do with the iPhone?
what a well thought out argument, not. thanks for making my country look even worse.
The actual (not "likely") status is that the party filing the claim did not ask to stop sales. Therefore they do not stop (yet). Telekom has two weeks to respond, nothing will happen in the meantime. If they are clever, they come up with a move that makes the claim obsolete. But more likely is that they will refer to their contractual conditions with Apple and that entire process will then go into an indefinite loop working its way through courts on different levels. It will likely not be solved in Germany at all. The EU will be there first and Germany will accept whatever they say - it will not be in Apple's favour.
It is even worse from the publicity and marketing points of view - it damages the Apple brand name. Nobody likes Telekom, the iPhone tariffs are theft and now Voodoofone is the good guy. It will also make potential buyers wait - hoping for better conditions or more choice when the conflict is resolved.
Excellent analysis!
A halt to iPhone sales?
I think it's unlikely. Despite all the concerns about Apple's greed, cultural differences, ethics, and such, I think this will be just additional legal noise for Apple to maneuver. (Of course, such predictions are worth the paper they are written on......)
Strikes me as odd that such a marginal (in mobile phones) player as Apple should strike such fear and worry in the hearts of the Vodaphones of the world!
Why can't the rest of the darn industry get its act together and produce a product and user experience that competes with Apple, instead of trying to thwart it at every turn!?
Vodafone Germany chief executive Friedrich Joussen in a statement said his firm's goal is not to prevent sales of the device but rather allow for consumers to purchase iPhones without binding themselves to long-term agreements with any one carrier.
"We want it to be available to buyers without a mandatory calling plan," he said. "If I had wanted to halt sales, I could have, but I didn't."
What has either the iPhone or other consumers buying it got to do with Vodafone? They blew the deal and now he's trying to dictate how others do business?
How insane that he's got away with it - why not give consumers the real choice to vote with their wallets?
McD
The iPhone is a regular GSM phone - it works on every single network in Europe. The bundling is deliberate, unethical and will be stopped.
It is not unethical in any way whatsoever. No individual claims a natural right to the product of another person's effort. The only rights individuals have is a right and freedom to think of their own ideas, to create their ideas, and to trade them FREELY. ie: without other people/government holding a gun to their head with laws telling them how to sell, nor the creator of the product holding a gun to others' heads telling them to buy, nor or a gun held to your head demanding to take it from you.
The marketplace is a 100% voluntary free exchange of ideas and products. You have absolutely no right to steve jobs' invention. He can chose to sell it any way he wants, and you can chose to buy or not to buy. If you DON'T buy it, the product will cease to exist and he and his shareholders will lose their money.
What this is about is people who WANT to buy it, use it in a way the creator did not intend, and use the power of the government holding a gun to steve jobs and his shareholders demanding you get your way, like a child with a loaded gun throwing a temper tantrum, or the kid on the sports field who slugs his opponent because he is losing the game.
You have no natural right to the product of other people's minds.
End of discussion.
You appear to be assuming that Apple's approach to providing solutions is that of your own (i.e. some kind of tragic interoperable model of devices and services held together by the patronising concept of the consumer making 'informed' choices they will never be capable of) and it never has been. Apple are reknown for 're-inventing' products which they feel are substandard by tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from.
Unethical? I call it good design
I assume because this godly, reality distorted design is so great, Apple is:
- selling more Macs, since you can use other peripherals than what is listed on their own compatibility list
- selling more computers, since they run Windows
- selling a non proportional amount of iTunes Plus titles that play elsewhere
Apple does design great products - I agree. But their patronising approach to tell others what they have to want is more often than not a major PITA. I still do need a modem in my notebook, I want a mobile phone that can be used as a modem and I think it is a pain that I cannot go into an Apple shop (own or reseller) and buy a machine with BTO options (you want Airport in a Mac Pro - how unprofessional... you have to wait son). No, they are far far from doing everything right.
They exclusively sell and maintain the iPhone (which requires a computer to work at all) via e.g. T-Mobile, a company having no knowledge about computers (no matter if OS X or Windows), cannot assist with anything (not even their own products) and you claim that this equals "tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from"
Strikes me as odd that such a marginal (in mobile phones) player as Apple should strike such fear and worry in the hearts of the Vodaphones of the world!
Because vodaphone knows Apple is soon to become NOT such a marginal player with their device.
That will stop this kind of nonsense lawsuit dead in its tracks.
In Australia you can get a free expensive phone on a contract OR you can pay upfront for a phone and go pre-paid if you like.
Apple is selling their phone's with a contract. It's not holding a gun to peoples heads and forcing people to buy the phone. There are hundreds of other phones people can buy.
Some Euro trash laws are just so stupid. Like to whole lead free electronics issue. It's going to cost consumers billons of dollars with tin whiskers for no good reason.
Because vodaphone knows Apple is soon to become NOT such a marginal player with their device.
Heh heh.... that's what I implied.
I thought that by saying so, I might get flamed by some of the self-professed European tech sophisticates on this forum who think that the iPhone is a piece of low-end crap that will go nowhere!
Apparently, the Vodaphones of the world don't think that!
A person that averages 2 phone calls a month and may use 10MB of Internet is A) someone that really doesn't seem to need a mobile phone - PERIOD or
Well, even for an all-American point of view, this is a little bit extreme. Manufacturers choosing the customer? Quite a step ahead of a free market, aren't you? Brave new world.
People have a job today and are unemployed tomorrow, a lot of times without being to blame. The system of virtually unlimited credit puts economies at risk. "Forcing" (I do not mean forcing to buy something, but forcing people to surrender to long-term contracts or not being a customer at all) adds significantly to this risk. If everybody only offers these conditions (will ultimately happen, if this is successful) people will indeed be "forced" to sign. A government that is wise enough to disapprove such pitfalls is neither overly bureaucratic nor communist - it is good human sense.
Next, I guess you will want your government to tell software makers, like Adobe Photoshop, etc. to stop licensing the use of their software that you purchase for the privelege of using but not owning!
Thanks for putting nonsense into my mouth... software licenses are a special commodity, a mix of product and service by design (support, updates etc.). Nobody questioned that (at least I did not). A phone is a phone - just (to use a common analogy) like a car is a car. My car runs on premium plus and I can drive it to any destination I like (e.g. also to Mexico or Canada) and buy fuel there for the local price (this might be a benefit or not...), because this car is mine and I paid 100% of the price asked. Jaguar is not telling me, you can only buy fuel from Exxon, because they are our exclusive partner. If you travel to a country where Exxon does not operate gas stations, well will send you Exxon fuel via air cargo for a little surcharge. If I pay the full 100% list price for an iPhone - I have to use Apple's local exclusive partner, no matter where in the world I go and pay roaming charges through my nose... Why? Did they subsidise my phone? No. Do they operate a service centre in any country I travel to, offer me free coffee and snacks? No. They pay the local provider some 3 cents a minute and charge me 3.99 EUR for nothing. I paid 580 USD for that phone, so I am supposed to use it as a phone.
If I pay the full 100% list price for an iPhone - I have to use Apple's local exclusive partner, no matter where in the world I go and pay roaming charges through my nose... Why? Did the subsidise my phone? No.
Yes it did. Just because they don't offer to sell it at a non-subsidized price does not mean that the price with service is not subsidized.
Many of the iphone's 'features' like visual voicemail, & whatever future stuff
Apple might want to develop use Apple-specific servers installed tight with
the cell provider's infrastructure... So although it can function as a GSM phone,
as well as general data/ web, unless those Apple servers are on your carrier,
not everything will work the same...
That said, any sort of locked-in/contract policy seems pretty much contrary
to a decent portion of European regulations, and I don't really see how selling
a 'premium' unlocked product would fly very well (i.e. it's not premium at all, but a lesser product, not being able to use all the features (visual voicemail, etc) that it should
(or would be able to use given the right Apple servers on the providers network.)
Apple is obviously interested in selling the 'whole experience' and doesn't want to adulterate that with sub-par services on non-partner/exclusive cell networks...
But given the realities of European law on this, it seems like something will give...
I think from the consumer perspective, Apple should really just be running all their premium service servers (vis.voicemail, etc.) themselves, and arranging suitable connections direct into any and all providers infrastructure...
(non-partnering networks thus defaulting to general IP/internet access)
I think given the seeming conflict between no-contract laws and Apple's desire for revenue-sharing contracts (I don't see why Apple should be interested in network exclusivity otherwise), I think Apple would be interested in trying to migrate their revenue-sharing model into other markets, i.e iTunes Store-Wireless (+video, etc)...
(which seems like it WOULD be able to be offered carrier-exclusive, since it's not an inherent function/necessity to GSM-phones)
(although more fuel on the fire of potential iTunes store problems)
any interesting case for network-neutrality, in any case....
Well, even for an all-American point of view, this is a little bit extreme. ......The system of virtually unlimited credit puts economies at risk.
There is no such system. Please get real. (And, talk about being "a little bit extreme.")
There is no such system. Please get real. (And, talk about being "a little bit extreme.")
You could try to tell that to some people that have to pay off 300% of the market value of their house and cannot even sell it for 100%.
Yes it did. Just because they don't offer to sell it at a non-subsidized price does not mean that the price with service is not subsidized.
The list price of a product (before any subsidies) has to be transparent - European law. If you do only publish one price - this is the price without subsidies. Every other phone maker is able to do that. Not a single exception. Whatever they make "inofficially" (under whatever terms with their exclusive partner) does not limit the consumer's rights. Apple will learn it. Believe me.
The list price of a product (before any subsidies) has to be transparent - European law. If you do only publish one price - this is the price without subsidies. Every other phone maker is able to do that. Not a single exception. Whatever they make "inofficially" (under whatever terms with their exclusive partner) does not limit the consumer's rights. Apple will learn it. Believe me.
lol
You Euros have a very high opinion of your system. That's great. And I'm sure Apple knows that. But Apple makes a lot of money from the iPhone and will continue to do so, and people like you will continue to use something else and turn up your nose at the thought of paying more (whether it be up front price or long term price) for a better product. Enjoy your inferior one with your superior attitude!
When you buy a Gillette razor (oh I know, you wouldn't be caught dead with an Ameican POS like that, right?) does the price on the shelf include the price of the blades you'll need over the life of the razor?