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.
But there is nothing that governs Apple from stating a retail price that is lower than it typically would sell a device that isn't getting revenue from other sources. At only $400 the iPhone clearly isn't being sold with the regular Apple markup. It may be for the courts to decide if the contractual deals Apple has with carriers falls into the realm of "subsidization" since Apple isn't being paid directly for each iPhone sale. I understand what you are saying but as far as I know this is a new way of doing business in the cell market. Id est, there is no precedence.
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?
I have not said that our system is perfect overall, and not even that it is better - I have been talking about consumer rights, nothing else. If you would stop waving your banner for a second, you could start reading properly.
I have spent roughly 1.8 million USD in Apple equipment since 1983 (privately and for my five companies over the years) and as an IT consultant I have initiated or suggested orders for at least two times this amount (I really do not know the exact figure). So, yes - I am cheap, sorry.
I have promoted Apple anytime and everywhere - they are wrong here. That is all.
Well best thing would be if Apple made an example out of this and Pulled the iPhone out of Germany until they drop the court case. That would serve notice to other countries not to interfere with their Business (and to throw out all such stupid court cases)
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.
This was a beautiful post. I don't think Thomas Locke could have said it better himself!
The EU's antitrust policies are out of control. Of course, it follows naturally from the European corporatist tradition- the idea that government and big business should get together for their mutual benefit. Seriously, how is this lawsuit seen as "pro-consumer"? It's simply one business using the coercive force of government to stop a competitor. Innovation and competition are pro-consumer, not nanny state laws that allow huge corporations to bludgeon their competitors.
how is this lawsuit seen as "pro-consumer"? It's simply one business using the coercive force of government to stop a competitor. Innovation and competition are pro-consumer, not nanny state laws that allow huge corporations to bludgeon their competitors.
I have not said that our system is perfect overall, and not even that it is better - I have been talking about consumer rights, nothing else. If you would stop waving your banner for a second, you could start reading properly.
I have spent roughly 1.8 million USD in Apple equipment since 1983 (privately and for my five companies over the years) and as an IT consultant I have initiated or suggested orders for at least two times this amount (I really do not know the exact figure). So, yes - I am cheap, sorry.
I have promoted Apple anytime and everywhere - they are wrong here. That is all.
Is it possible that this could all work in Apple's favor?
Could the fact that one of the world's largest corporations is trying to suppress the iphone make it even more desirable? Are there people in Germany who are only now learning about the iphone as a result of this suit, and are wondering to themselves "what's so special about this small slab that it could compel a massive company and the legal system to band together against it?"
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%.
Heard of consenting adults freely and willingly entering into an economic transaction? Capitalism? Responsibility? And, the (legal) concept of bankruptcy?
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%.
And, one more thing: Ex ante, given the overall credit rating for that type of paper from the rating agencies, the loans were reasonably priced. Ex post, it turned out not to be.
Unfortunately, economic decisions are made ex ante.
But there is nothing that governs Apple from stating a retail price that is lower than it typically would sell a device that isn't getting revenue from other sources. At only $400 the iPhone clearly isn't being sold with the regular Apple markup. It may be for the courts to decide if the contractual deals Apple has with carriers falls into the realm of "subsidization" since Apple isn't being paid directly for each iPhone sale. I understand what you are saying but as far as I know this is a new way of doing business in the cell market. Id est, there is no precedence.
Correct, but not fully relevant (this becomes a bit difficult). IF (sorry for shouting) Apple would be providing the device and the service, you would be completely right - they could not be forced (unless they would have a monopoly, not really an issue with less than 1% market share) to break down their calculations. IF (sorry again) the device in question would be security or safety relevant, medical or something being a potential risk (weapon, nuclear plant, bunch of garlic etc.) and it would be not feasible to provide sufficient training to various competing parties with fluctuating staff, yes - if proven.
What we have here is a regular consumer device. The only relevant regulations are - more or less, I am not a communications engineer - electricity related (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to network standards (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to GSM standards (same), radiation (same) - there is absolutely nothing that makes the iPhone a special device from a regulatory point of view - it is (even if pretty and sophisticated) a standard consumer device. Visual voicemail is a nice feature, but neither essential not required to operate the device.
If Apple wants to go for a "new business" model - this is certainly OK as long as it does not disadvantage the consumer, unfortunately it does. Why?
Fairy tale....
I buy a subsidised phone from, say, O2 and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR a month (traditional business model). I pay 200 EUR for a 700 EUR phone. I loose my job or have a major accident after 3 months. According to German law, I inform them that I can no longer pay my 50 EUR per month and ask them to waive the contract. They will agree to some type of settlement that will not get them into trouble. I pay two more monthly fees (100 EUR) in ten installments, keep the phone and buy a prepaid chip, so I can at least reach my children or call the ambulance. Everybody is fine, as these customers are part of O2s calculations.
I buy an Apple iPhone for the full list price (399 EUR plus 25 EUR activation) and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR per month. Same story - just, in this case I cannot even make any judgement about the possible damage and risk. T-Mobile will not agree to an "easy settlement", because they still have to pay 21 monthly payments to Apple. I, unemployed and handicapped, have to find a lawyer. Long story short... some kind of settlement will be reached down the road. Difference: Compared to the O2 story, I will have spent some 2,000 bucks more and will sit there with a 425 EUR brick that cannot even call the fire brigade if my house burns down.
Sorry for that completely over-the-top story, point is: this difference is not transparent for the consumer. You go into a regular mobile shop and buy a regular mobile. Nobody tells you: there is zero tolerance with this particular contract - as we have hidden obligations. Nobody tells you: if you travel abroad, you have mandatory roaming. Nobody tells you: if you run out of money, you do not even have a phone anymore. This is clearly and definitely an in-transparent business, a trademark of crooks. This is not the Apple that kicked the record industries behind for being consumer-unfriendly and greedy.
This made-up story is extreme? Yes, I admit, but most consumer laws are made to protect the weak, anybody with full pockets would throw the bloody phone in the trash can and get on with it. But with full pockets you hardly ever need recourse to laws.
And I could have sworn we saved the world from communism and fascism?
In all seriousness, I think the European attitude is very interesting when it comes to differentiating "rights" from "responsibilities." Apple is forcing nobody to do anything, because there are literally hundreds of cellular phones on the market for consumers to choose from, and a good number of cellular providers. If someone does not want to buy an iPhone through T-Mobile, there are MANY more options available to them. This is the beauty of the free market -- if consumers do not feel it is worth signing up and paying the fees T-Mobile asks for, and entering into the contract, they do not have to. Saying they are "forced" to do anything is ridiculous. We are not talking about water or electricity here, we are talking about one particular cellular phone in a market of hundreds.
I also think it's strange that some folks don't seem to understand that some "devices" inherently might have to have "services" bundled with them, in order to work properly. Nintendo doesn't HAVE to make the Wii work with Xbox Live, and allow customers to play downloadable Xbox Live games on the Wii. The Wii is specifically engineered around Nintendo's online service and store.
Likewise, Visual Voicemail, for instance, requires the provider to modify their network and make an investment to do those upgrades. Why shouldn't the provider be allowed to enter in to an exclusive contract with a device maker, to incent them to make such upgrades?
I should add that I find the general European attitude that consumers should have some inherent rights is admirable. But let's be reasonable, the iPhone is a luxury item, nobody is forced to buy one, Apple and T-Mobile are hardly in a monopoly position. Before espousing governmental control of every aspect of the consumer economy, I think people should take a few minutes to think back 50-70 years, which was really not so long ago. Thankfully for you (I refer to Europeans and Asians here) the USA made major sacrifices to free you from communism and fascism, two belief systems that very much support strong governmental regulation of/partnership with corporations. Don't dig yourself into the same hole again. Sometimes the government should be kept small on purpose, and consumers should exercise their own choices through the free market system to get what they want. Expecting Big Brother to keep you safe from big bad companies to such a ridiculous extreme is a recipe for disaster.
Correct, but not fully relevant (this becomes a bit difficult). IF (sorry for shouting) Apple would be providing the device and the service, you would be completely right - they could not be forced (unless they would have a monopoly, not really an issue with less than 1% market share) to break down their calculations. IF (sorry again) the device in question would be security or safety relevant, medical or something being a potential risk (weapon, nuclear plant, bunch of garlic etc.) and it would be not feasible to provide sufficient training to various competing parties with fluctuating staff, yes - if proven.
What we have here is a regular consumer device. The only relevant regulations are - more or less, I am not a communications engineer - electricity related (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to network standards (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to GSM standards (same), radiation (same) - there is absolutely nothing that makes the iPhone a special device from a regulatory point of view - it is (even if pretty and sophisticated) a standard consumer device. Visual voicemail is a nice feature, but neither essential not required to operate the device.
If Apple wants to go for a "new business" model - this is certainly OK as long as it does not disadvantage the consumer, unfortunately it does. Why?
Fairy tale....
I buy a subsidised phone from, say, O2 and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR a month (traditional business model). I pay 200 EUR for a 700 EUR phone. I loose my job or have a major accident after 3 months. According to German law, I inform them that I can no longer pay my 50 EUR per month and ask them to waive the contract. They will agree to some type of settlement that will not get them into trouble. I pay two more monthly fees (100 EUR) in ten installments, keep the phone and buy a prepaid chip, so I can at least reach my children or call the ambulance. Everybody is fine, as these customers are part of O2s calculations.
I buy an Apple iPhone for the full list price (399 EUR plus 25 EUR activation) and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR per month. Same story - just, in this case I cannot even make any judgement about the possible damage and risk. T-Mobile will not agree to an "easy settlement", because they still have to pay 21 monthly payments to Apple. I, unemployed and handicapped, have to find a lawyer. Long story short... some kind of settlement will be reached down the road. Difference: Compared to the O2 story, I will have spent some 2,000 bucks more and will sit there with a 425 EUR brick that cannot even call the fire brigade if my house burns down.
Sorry for that completely over-the-top story, point is: this difference is not transparent for the consumer. You go into a regular mobile shop and buy a regular mobile. Nobody tells you: there is zero tolerance with this particular contract - as we have hidden obligations. Nobody tells you: if you travel abroad, you have mandatory roaming. Nobody tells you: if you run out of money, you do not even have a phone anymore. This is clearly and definitely an in-transparent business, a trademark of crooks. This is not the Apple that kicked the record industries behind for being consumer-unfriendly and greedy.
This made-up story is extreme? Yes, I admit, but most consumer laws are made to protect the weak, anybody with full pockets would throw the bloody phone in the trash can and get on with it. But with full pockets you hardly ever need recourse to laws.
Man, what a lame law. Is Europe really so full of pitiful souls who can't manage to plan for the future? Is getting a job there so hard? What a mess of laws! It's really the phone company's problem if you are too stupid or lazy to keep a job or get a new one? Boo hoo!
You all can only hope some force comes along to take down those laws. Pitiful!
And I could have sworn we saved the world from communism and fascism?
Etc..
Well put. I daresay it sounds like it's too late though. Hopefully the poster(s) on this thread is not representative of the masses. Very interesting to see what is happening in France right now, of all places.
Man, what a lame law. Is Europe really so full of pitiful souls who can't manage to plan for the future? Is getting a job there so hard? What a mess of laws! It's really the phone company's problem if you are too stupid or lazy to keep a job or get a new one? Boo hoo!
You all can only hope some force comes along to take down those laws. Pitiful!
My guess is because it's so unfriendly for companies to do business in Europe, companies are failing left and right and people lose their jobs all the time... The irony!
My guess is because it's so unfriendly for companies to do business in Europe, companies are failing left and right and people lose their jobs all the time... The irony!
Better work on that point. Germany is still (to be passed by China soon, maybe this year already) the country with the highest accumulated export value and our exports did not bulge a cent while the USD lost almost 30% of its value.
If one country with up to 52% income tax, full medical coverage for everyone and all these pitiful laws can beat the US in exports hands down - your point looses quite some momentum.
We do have unemployment - yes. We have a highly over-aged (no disrespect, just a fact) population, some areas with 30-50% immigrants that cannot read and write properly (not their fault, our fault - just claiming to have no immigration does not make it so) and we have integrated a communist/socialist/whatever country with 20 million people less than 20 years ago - and still produce more export value than the great industry-friendly US (and looking at the clowns running this show here - this did not require an awful lot). More than 30% of companies that have moved production to the Far East or the former USSR (and associates) are moving back, and a respectable percentage of the rest is looking into it. Does not look like a problem case to me.
I would have to agree this may be a case of government intervening on the free market.
There should be some room for German government to allow the market to decide if they want what Apple and T-Mobile are offering. It is not pro-consumer to force a company to change its business model simply because you personally do not like said business model.
I agree with someone earlier this is Vodafone manipulating the law to keep a competitor from gaining an advantage. An advantage Vodafone itself wanted and would have fought to protect had it won the iPhone.
I am just not sure what this has to do with communism vs capitalism contrast. It is quite straightforward issue, that has been recently well explained by The Economist. US economy leaves the regulation to the market and legal system. So, if you have a problem with a product, a) consumers will stop buying it; b) you can hire a lawyer and sue a company. This will push a company to modify its behaviour.
European system believes that such approach should be moderated by the government that takes regulatory positions. You should understand that it can be pro-consumer approach, and that in principle we trust our regulators in such decisions (not because we are naive). The Economist article is illuminating in that respect, as it says that it is the EU approach is being accepted and expanding in the rest of the world (mainly Asia). And mind you, The Economist is not your pro-left-communist paper ;-).
I do agree with the person that said "when in Rome, be like Romans". It is not taken out of context, and clearly shows how product needs to conform to local legal and -- more importantly -- cultural patterns.
European system believes that such approach should be moderated by the government that takes regulatory positions. You should understand that it can be pro-consumer approach, and that in principle we trust our regulators in such decisions
There are limits to everything. I think it goes too far when one company can use law to keep a competitor from gaining an advantage. Especially when said company attempted to gain that exact same advantage. T-Mobile and Apple are doing nothing that would severely hinder other mobile companies. The iPhone is just an advantage. Vodafone and every other mobile phone carrier are free to create their own advantages. This is the purpose of a market.
The point where it becomes anti-consumer is when one company prevents another company from innovating and gaining their own advantages to compete. As long as everyone is free to compete the government should stay out of it. I don't agree with government preventing innovation and advantage.
I would have to agree this may be a case of government intervening on the free market.
There should be some room for German government to allow the market to decide if they want what Apple and T-Mobile are offering. It is not pro-consumer to force a company to change its business model simply because you personally do not like said business model.
Just to set this straight: the "government" has not done nothing yet and they will not. PERIOD. We are not some communist hillbillies and companies (like Voodoofone) do not report to the government - they cannot even go there directly. We do not even have your problem (president ruling on conflicts involving companies that have financed his campaign to get him there in the first place). We have something called "separation of powers" - most of the judges on duty have been selected by the previous government, or even earlier. They follow something called "the law". It is blind (does not respect "who" is filing a request) and does not accept gratuities. Even our lawyers get paid according to a tariff and do not get "a share". Why do you think a lot of European "victims" (rightfully or not) seek law suits in the US if they have lunatic requests?
The claim does rightfully refer to existing law - like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I agree with someone earlier this is Vodafone manipulating the law to keep a competitor from gaining an advantage. An advantage Vodafone itself wanted and would have fought to protect had it won the iPhone.
I certainly dislike Vodafone and you are 100% correct - they do abuse the law for their own benefit. Just, they are indeed clever. They did not approach the court because of the failed negotiations and not using any "internal knowledge". They have waited patiently for customers to call in and terminate existing contracts (and be sure - they have asked their leaving customers what they have been told about terms and conditions by T-Mobile ("if you could answer some questions, we will waive your termination fee"), just 5 of these quotations will set any court room on fire).
The claim is valid (Apple and T-Mobile did fail) and VF knows exactly that they will be supported by the vast majority of consumers (even those never wanting an iPhone at all). Any claim that is of "public interest" will be honoured in front of German courts (unless they deal with an issue that is covered by privacy) - and the iPhone is as public as anything can get. What is the result? Potential iPhone buyers are bitter about the T-Mobile offerings anyhow and will support anybody beating them up, judges and politicians see the "once in a lifetime" opportunity to rise above their own grey selves and Apple and T-Mobile cannot even see what will hit them. If they have a small piece of brain - they will solve the issue before it goes to court (just say "iPhone without contract: 800,- EUR, turn left, just one cross") and they will all go home and hide.
We have something called "separation of powers" - most of the judges on duty have been selected by the previous government, or even earlier. They follow something called "the law". It is blind (does not respect "who" is filing a request) and does not accept gratuities.
Real life situations where law are applied are not simply black and white - right and wrong. That is the reason we have judges and courts to interpret law and properly apply it to situations people did not think of when the law was created. These rulings set precedent of how this law will be applied to similar situations in the future. I'm not sure about Germany but in the US its common for laws to be amended because life changes in ways that were unexpected when the law was created.
Comments
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.
But there is nothing that governs Apple from stating a retail price that is lower than it typically would sell a device that isn't getting revenue from other sources. At only $400 the iPhone clearly isn't being sold with the regular Apple markup. It may be for the courts to decide if the contractual deals Apple has with carriers falls into the realm of "subsidization" since Apple isn't being paid directly for each iPhone sale. I understand what you are saying but as far as I know this is a new way of doing business in the cell market. Id est, there is no precedence.
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?
I have not said that our system is perfect overall, and not even that it is better - I have been talking about consumer rights, nothing else. If you would stop waving your banner for a second, you could start reading properly.
I have spent roughly 1.8 million USD in Apple equipment since 1983 (privately and for my five companies over the years) and as an IT consultant I have initiated or suggested orders for at least two times this amount (I really do not know the exact figure). So, yes - I am cheap, sorry.
I have promoted Apple anytime and everywhere - they are wrong here. That is all.
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.
This was a beautiful post. I don't think Thomas Locke could have said it better himself!
The EU's antitrust policies are out of control. Of course, it follows naturally from the European corporatist tradition- the idea that government and big business should get together for their mutual benefit. Seriously, how is this lawsuit seen as "pro-consumer"? It's simply one business using the coercive force of government to stop a competitor. Innovation and competition are pro-consumer, not nanny state laws that allow huge corporations to bludgeon their competitors.
how is this lawsuit seen as "pro-consumer"? It's simply one business using the coercive force of government to stop a competitor. Innovation and competition are pro-consumer, not nanny state laws that allow huge corporations to bludgeon their competitors.
Nice!
I have not said that our system is perfect overall, and not even that it is better - I have been talking about consumer rights, nothing else. If you would stop waving your banner for a second, you could start reading properly.
I have spent roughly 1.8 million USD in Apple equipment since 1983 (privately and for my five companies over the years) and as an IT consultant I have initiated or suggested orders for at least two times this amount (I really do not know the exact figure). So, yes - I am cheap, sorry.
I have promoted Apple anytime and everywhere - they are wrong here. That is all.
............
Could the fact that one of the world's largest corporations is trying to suppress the iphone make it even more desirable? Are there people in Germany who are only now learning about the iphone as a result of this suit, and are wondering to themselves "what's so special about this small slab that it could compel a massive company and the legal system to band together against it?"
Just a thought.
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%.
Heard of consenting adults freely and willingly entering into an economic transaction? Capitalism? Responsibility? And, the (legal) concept of bankruptcy?
As I said, please don't exaggerate.
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%.
And, one more thing: Ex ante, given the overall credit rating for that type of paper from the rating agencies, the loans were reasonably priced. Ex post, it turned out not to be.
Unfortunately, economic decisions are made ex ante.
But there is nothing that governs Apple from stating a retail price that is lower than it typically would sell a device that isn't getting revenue from other sources. At only $400 the iPhone clearly isn't being sold with the regular Apple markup. It may be for the courts to decide if the contractual deals Apple has with carriers falls into the realm of "subsidization" since Apple isn't being paid directly for each iPhone sale. I understand what you are saying but as far as I know this is a new way of doing business in the cell market. Id est, there is no precedence.
Correct, but not fully relevant (this becomes a bit difficult). IF (sorry for shouting) Apple would be providing the device and the service, you would be completely right - they could not be forced (unless they would have a monopoly, not really an issue with less than 1% market share) to break down their calculations. IF (sorry again) the device in question would be security or safety relevant, medical or something being a potential risk (weapon, nuclear plant, bunch of garlic etc.) and it would be not feasible to provide sufficient training to various competing parties with fluctuating staff, yes - if proven.
What we have here is a regular consumer device. The only relevant regulations are - more or less, I am not a communications engineer - electricity related (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to network standards (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to GSM standards (same), radiation (same) - there is absolutely nothing that makes the iPhone a special device from a regulatory point of view - it is (even if pretty and sophisticated) a standard consumer device. Visual voicemail is a nice feature, but neither essential not required to operate the device.
If Apple wants to go for a "new business" model - this is certainly OK as long as it does not disadvantage the consumer, unfortunately it does. Why?
Fairy tale....
I buy a subsidised phone from, say, O2 and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR a month (traditional business model). I pay 200 EUR for a 700 EUR phone. I loose my job or have a major accident after 3 months. According to German law, I inform them that I can no longer pay my 50 EUR per month and ask them to waive the contract. They will agree to some type of settlement that will not get them into trouble. I pay two more monthly fees (100 EUR) in ten installments, keep the phone and buy a prepaid chip, so I can at least reach my children or call the ambulance. Everybody is fine, as these customers are part of O2s calculations.
I buy an Apple iPhone for the full list price (399 EUR plus 25 EUR activation) and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR per month. Same story - just, in this case I cannot even make any judgement about the possible damage and risk. T-Mobile will not agree to an "easy settlement", because they still have to pay 21 monthly payments to Apple. I, unemployed and handicapped, have to find a lawyer. Long story short... some kind of settlement will be reached down the road. Difference: Compared to the O2 story, I will have spent some 2,000 bucks more and will sit there with a 425 EUR brick that cannot even call the fire brigade if my house burns down.
Sorry for that completely over-the-top story, point is: this difference is not transparent for the consumer. You go into a regular mobile shop and buy a regular mobile. Nobody tells you: there is zero tolerance with this particular contract - as we have hidden obligations. Nobody tells you: if you travel abroad, you have mandatory roaming. Nobody tells you: if you run out of money, you do not even have a phone anymore. This is clearly and definitely an in-transparent business, a trademark of crooks. This is not the Apple that kicked the record industries behind for being consumer-unfriendly and greedy.
This made-up story is extreme? Yes, I admit, but most consumer laws are made to protect the weak, anybody with full pockets would throw the bloody phone in the trash can and get on with it. But with full pockets you hardly ever need recourse to laws.
In all seriousness, I think the European attitude is very interesting when it comes to differentiating "rights" from "responsibilities." Apple is forcing nobody to do anything, because there are literally hundreds of cellular phones on the market for consumers to choose from, and a good number of cellular providers. If someone does not want to buy an iPhone through T-Mobile, there are MANY more options available to them. This is the beauty of the free market -- if consumers do not feel it is worth signing up and paying the fees T-Mobile asks for, and entering into the contract, they do not have to. Saying they are "forced" to do anything is ridiculous. We are not talking about water or electricity here, we are talking about one particular cellular phone in a market of hundreds.
I also think it's strange that some folks don't seem to understand that some "devices" inherently might have to have "services" bundled with them, in order to work properly. Nintendo doesn't HAVE to make the Wii work with Xbox Live, and allow customers to play downloadable Xbox Live games on the Wii. The Wii is specifically engineered around Nintendo's online service and store.
Likewise, Visual Voicemail, for instance, requires the provider to modify their network and make an investment to do those upgrades. Why shouldn't the provider be allowed to enter in to an exclusive contract with a device maker, to incent them to make such upgrades?
I should add that I find the general European attitude that consumers should have some inherent rights is admirable. But let's be reasonable, the iPhone is a luxury item, nobody is forced to buy one, Apple and T-Mobile are hardly in a monopoly position. Before espousing governmental control of every aspect of the consumer economy, I think people should take a few minutes to think back 50-70 years, which was really not so long ago. Thankfully for you (I refer to Europeans and Asians here) the USA made major sacrifices to free you from communism and fascism, two belief systems that very much support strong governmental regulation of/partnership with corporations. Don't dig yourself into the same hole again. Sometimes the government should be kept small on purpose, and consumers should exercise their own choices through the free market system to get what they want. Expecting Big Brother to keep you safe from big bad companies to such a ridiculous extreme is a recipe for disaster.
Correct, but not fully relevant (this becomes a bit difficult). IF (sorry for shouting) Apple would be providing the device and the service, you would be completely right - they could not be forced (unless they would have a monopoly, not really an issue with less than 1% market share) to break down their calculations. IF (sorry again) the device in question would be security or safety relevant, medical or something being a potential risk (weapon, nuclear plant, bunch of garlic etc.) and it would be not feasible to provide sufficient training to various competing parties with fluctuating staff, yes - if proven.
What we have here is a regular consumer device. The only relevant regulations are - more or less, I am not a communications engineer - electricity related (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to network standards (standard for all devices in Europe, no special requirements), conformity to GSM standards (same), radiation (same) - there is absolutely nothing that makes the iPhone a special device from a regulatory point of view - it is (even if pretty and sophisticated) a standard consumer device. Visual voicemail is a nice feature, but neither essential not required to operate the device.
If Apple wants to go for a "new business" model - this is certainly OK as long as it does not disadvantage the consumer, unfortunately it does. Why?
Fairy tale....
I buy a subsidised phone from, say, O2 and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR a month (traditional business model). I pay 200 EUR for a 700 EUR phone. I loose my job or have a major accident after 3 months. According to German law, I inform them that I can no longer pay my 50 EUR per month and ask them to waive the contract. They will agree to some type of settlement that will not get them into trouble. I pay two more monthly fees (100 EUR) in ten installments, keep the phone and buy a prepaid chip, so I can at least reach my children or call the ambulance. Everybody is fine, as these customers are part of O2s calculations.
I buy an Apple iPhone for the full list price (399 EUR plus 25 EUR activation) and sign up for a 24 months contract at 50 EUR per month. Same story - just, in this case I cannot even make any judgement about the possible damage and risk. T-Mobile will not agree to an "easy settlement", because they still have to pay 21 monthly payments to Apple. I, unemployed and handicapped, have to find a lawyer. Long story short... some kind of settlement will be reached down the road. Difference: Compared to the O2 story, I will have spent some 2,000 bucks more and will sit there with a 425 EUR brick that cannot even call the fire brigade if my house burns down.
Sorry for that completely over-the-top story, point is: this difference is not transparent for the consumer. You go into a regular mobile shop and buy a regular mobile. Nobody tells you: there is zero tolerance with this particular contract - as we have hidden obligations. Nobody tells you: if you travel abroad, you have mandatory roaming. Nobody tells you: if you run out of money, you do not even have a phone anymore. This is clearly and definitely an in-transparent business, a trademark of crooks. This is not the Apple that kicked the record industries behind for being consumer-unfriendly and greedy.
This made-up story is extreme? Yes, I admit, but most consumer laws are made to protect the weak, anybody with full pockets would throw the bloody phone in the trash can and get on with it. But with full pockets you hardly ever need recourse to laws.
Man, what a lame law. Is Europe really so full of pitiful souls who can't manage to plan for the future? Is getting a job there so hard? What a mess of laws! It's really the phone company's problem if you are too stupid or lazy to keep a job or get a new one? Boo hoo!
You all can only hope some force comes along to take down those laws. Pitiful!
And I could have sworn we saved the world from communism and fascism?
Etc..
Well put. I daresay it sounds like it's too late though. Hopefully the poster(s) on this thread is not representative of the masses. Very interesting to see what is happening in France right now, of all places.
Man, what a lame law. Is Europe really so full of pitiful souls who can't manage to plan for the future? Is getting a job there so hard? What a mess of laws! It's really the phone company's problem if you are too stupid or lazy to keep a job or get a new one? Boo hoo!
You all can only hope some force comes along to take down those laws. Pitiful!
My guess is because it's so unfriendly for companies to do business in Europe, companies are failing left and right and people lose their jobs all the time... The irony!
My guess is because it's so unfriendly for companies to do business in Europe, companies are failing left and right and people lose their jobs all the time... The irony!
Better work on that point. Germany is still (to be passed by China soon, maybe this year already) the country with the highest accumulated export value and our exports did not bulge a cent while the USD lost almost 30% of its value.
If one country with up to 52% income tax, full medical coverage for everyone and all these pitiful laws can beat the US in exports hands down - your point looses quite some momentum.
We do have unemployment - yes. We have a highly over-aged (no disrespect, just a fact) population, some areas with 30-50% immigrants that cannot read and write properly (not their fault, our fault - just claiming to have no immigration does not make it so) and we have integrated a communist/socialist/whatever country with 20 million people less than 20 years ago - and still produce more export value than the great industry-friendly US (and looking at the clowns running this show here - this did not require an awful lot). More than 30% of companies that have moved production to the Far East or the former USSR (and associates) are moving back, and a respectable percentage of the rest is looking into it. Does not look like a problem case to me.
There should be some room for German government to allow the market to decide if they want what Apple and T-Mobile are offering. It is not pro-consumer to force a company to change its business model simply because you personally do not like said business model.
I agree with someone earlier this is Vodafone manipulating the law to keep a competitor from gaining an advantage. An advantage Vodafone itself wanted and would have fought to protect had it won the iPhone.
European system believes that such approach should be moderated by the government that takes regulatory positions. You should understand that it can be pro-consumer approach, and that in principle we trust our regulators in such decisions (not because we are naive). The Economist article is illuminating in that respect, as it says that it is the EU approach is being accepted and expanding in the rest of the world (mainly Asia). And mind you, The Economist is not your pro-left-communist paper ;-).
I do agree with the person that said "when in Rome, be like Romans". It is not taken out of context, and clearly shows how product needs to conform to local legal and -- more importantly -- cultural patterns.
European system believes that such approach should be moderated by the government that takes regulatory positions. You should understand that it can be pro-consumer approach, and that in principle we trust our regulators in such decisions
There are limits to everything. I think it goes too far when one company can use law to keep a competitor from gaining an advantage. Especially when said company attempted to gain that exact same advantage. T-Mobile and Apple are doing nothing that would severely hinder other mobile companies. The iPhone is just an advantage. Vodafone and every other mobile phone carrier are free to create their own advantages. This is the purpose of a market.
The point where it becomes anti-consumer is when one company prevents another company from innovating and gaining their own advantages to compete. As long as everyone is free to compete the government should stay out of it. I don't agree with government preventing innovation and advantage.
I would have to agree this may be a case of government intervening on the free market.
There should be some room for German government to allow the market to decide if they want what Apple and T-Mobile are offering. It is not pro-consumer to force a company to change its business model simply because you personally do not like said business model.
Just to set this straight: the "government" has not done nothing yet and they will not. PERIOD. We are not some communist hillbillies and companies (like Voodoofone) do not report to the government - they cannot even go there directly. We do not even have your problem (president ruling on conflicts involving companies that have financed his campaign to get him there in the first place). We have something called "separation of powers" - most of the judges on duty have been selected by the previous government, or even earlier. They follow something called "the law". It is blind (does not respect "who" is filing a request) and does not accept gratuities. Even our lawyers get paid according to a tariff and do not get "a share". Why do you think a lot of European "victims" (rightfully or not) seek law suits in the US if they have lunatic requests?
The claim does rightfully refer to existing law - like it or not.
I agree with someone earlier this is Vodafone manipulating the law to keep a competitor from gaining an advantage. An advantage Vodafone itself wanted and would have fought to protect had it won the iPhone.
I certainly dislike Vodafone and you are 100% correct - they do abuse the law for their own benefit. Just, they are indeed clever. They did not approach the court because of the failed negotiations and not using any "internal knowledge". They have waited patiently for customers to call in and terminate existing contracts (and be sure - they have asked their leaving customers what they have been told about terms and conditions by T-Mobile ("if you could answer some questions, we will waive your termination fee"), just 5 of these quotations will set any court room on fire).
The claim is valid (Apple and T-Mobile did fail) and VF knows exactly that they will be supported by the vast majority of consumers (even those never wanting an iPhone at all). Any claim that is of "public interest" will be honoured in front of German courts (unless they deal with an issue that is covered by privacy) - and the iPhone is as public as anything can get. What is the result? Potential iPhone buyers are bitter about the T-Mobile offerings anyhow and will support anybody beating them up, judges and politicians see the "once in a lifetime" opportunity to rise above their own grey selves and Apple and T-Mobile cannot even see what will hit them. If they have a small piece of brain - they will solve the issue before it goes to court (just say "iPhone without contract: 800,- EUR, turn left, just one cross") and they will all go home and hide.
We have something called "separation of powers" - most of the judges on duty have been selected by the previous government, or even earlier. They follow something called "the law". It is blind (does not respect "who" is filing a request) and does not accept gratuities.
Real life situations where law are applied are not simply black and white - right and wrong. That is the reason we have judges and courts to interpret law and properly apply it to situations people did not think of when the law was created. These rulings set precedent of how this law will be applied to similar situations in the future. I'm not sure about Germany but in the US its common for laws to be amended because life changes in ways that were unexpected when the law was created.