What I find most interesting is that people in Europe are trying to get government to do what they should be doing themselves, namely NOT BUYING an iPhone if it's bundled with a restrictive contract.
Seriously people this isn't rocket science. Boycott products you don't think are being sold fairly.
That will send a message that even Mr. Reality Distortion himself won't be able to miss.
While you're at it have a look at the exchange rate for your particular country and then check Apple prices versus those in the USA. If you don't like what you see, DON'T BUY ANYTHING WITH AN APPLE LOGO.
I'm productive with my 2.5 year old Mac and LG phone. I'm sure most of you are too. When Apple wakes up and smells the lost revenue we'll all be better off.
What I find most interesting is that people in Europe are trying to get government to do what they should be doing themselves, namely NOT BUYING an iPhone if it's bundled with a restrictive contract.
Seriously people this isn't rocket science. Boycott products you don't think are being sold fairly.
That will send a message that even Mr. Reality Distortion himself won't be able to miss.
While you're at it have a look at the exchange rate for your particular country and then check Apple prices versus those in the USA. If you don't like what you see, DON'T BUY ANYTHING WITH AN APPLE LOGO.
I'm productive with my 2.5 year old Mac and LG phone. I'm sure most of you are too. When Apple wakes up and smells the lost revenue we'll all be better off.
Hmm, what is your agenda? Adobe and Tivoli charge "foreign" customers some 200-250% for everything.
Apple - even if I dislike it a lot, everybody wants cheaper - is fully within the regular margins. They do not really overcharge more than anybody else - and keeping some fluctuation reserve is normal business conduct. I certainly will continue to buy things with an Apple logo - I can buy a Mac Pro with 8 cores for less than what the entire competition offers, great engineering, great design and best support in the industry - no problem here. I will not pay an iPhone at the current German conditions, but I do not appreciate to be hi-jacked. Nobody here did ask for an Apple boycott and I suggest, there are a few dozen companies that would deserve that more. Is your last name still Ballmer?
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.
Which has nothing to do with the appeals process, which is what I asked about. Hence "likely" as opposed to "what's happening now".
Quote:
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.
Which is what I was referring to by "appeals process". So I'm curious if it is probable that the iPhone will continue to be sold during this process.
You refer to sales not stopping "yet", which suggests that you believe stopping sales at some point is a possibility, no?
Wow, I guess sales of the Qbowl (Vodafone's iPhone killer) aren't doing so hot after all, if they have to pull a stunt like this.
dreyfus2, it's interesting how the basis of your argument is the assumption that Apple is SOLELY to blame for the current situation, and how you use the EU iTunes Store case as an example. You clearly don't know the facts of that case, so let me refresh your memory:
In court Apple said they wanted all along to implement an EU-wide iTunes Store, but the performance rights societies of each country where Apple does business were against it, and the laws regarding collection of royalties for the labels and fees for music publishers are chaotic at best. Apple's hands were tied.
Apple has repeatedly stated the reasons for going with a single carrier; it allowed them to do certain things with the iPhone that wouldn't be possible if the phone were available with multiple carriers, like visual voicemail, which happens to be one of the iPhone's major selling points. If YOU choose not to believe or agree with this reasoning that is your choice, but it's been documented to death.
Why is that so hard for guys like you to accept? People like yourself who are Apple haters who try to disguise it with statements like "I'm an Apple user for x years", or "I have invested x amount of money in Apple products" I find personally extremely irritating.
You do know that Vodafone, like it's US arm Verizon, was the FIRST carrier Apple approached, because it wanted a European-wide partner? Vodafone, like Verizon, messed that up, and are now most likely experiencing the backlash via the amount of inquiries from Vodafone customers who want to cancel their Vodafone contracts to go to T-Mobile.
Let's talk about anti-Consumer practices in Germany:
1. Why can't I pay an early termination fee if I want to cancel my contract with my current provider?
2. Why do I have to have the Logo of my provider on my phone, even if I don't want it? (the dreaded "branding")
3. Why do I have to have branded software on my phone that is usually inferior to the software that originally came with the phone?
I'm quite sure that in Apple's negotiations with Vodafone, a big sticking point was Apple's refusal to allow the iPhone to be branded by Vodafone, letting them dictate how the phone's software will be implemented as they do with all other phone manufacturers. The fact that T-Mobile sells the iPhone unbranded is IMO very pro-consumer.
This restraining order initiated by Vodafone is the bigest case of sour grapes that I've seen in a very long time, and to categorize it as anything else than that (and lay the blame on Apple) is silly.
It's interesting, Apple is the good guy because they fight the music labels for forcing people to buy bundles and not wanting to sell their content a la carte. But then Apple is very reluctant to sell their own product wihtout bundling. They force people who just want the iPhone to buy an extremly expensive contract togehter with the phone. To my mind Apple contradicts to it's own marketing plot they have set up for the music industry.
...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.
Apple's own growing greed is what is damaging their own brand name. What happened to the Here's for the crazy ones Apple? Did they die the day the iMac got successful? I think so. Now it's the greed Apple. It's gonna backfire if they don't show us soon that Apple is not greedy, but open minded and with good intentions. The iPhone situation is taken to the limit of what's decent. I just hope the situation can change fast rather than take years of court action.
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.
[...]
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.
Wow - what a load of cobblers. I was wondering when the 2nd WW was going to be thrown back at us. OK we lost you won. Which was good because we were bad.
Can we get over it now ?
More down to the point : Your argument lacks depth and misses several points. Apple and T-Mobile ARE in a monopoly position. According to Wikipedia "A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide ".
Do you want to come back on your wording ? As the only provider for the "i-Phone experience" is the combo Apple and T-Mobile. There is only one provider of the good (T-Mobile) and the service (T-Mobile). Economic competition would intrinsically mean the someone else offers the good or service. So we do have a monopoly at hand. Yes I can chose other handsets (ie a fully subsidized N95@ 1 Euro) - but what if I want the iPhone. I actually do - but it isn't even offered in Belgium. And, unlike with other goods, I can not drive over the border and buy it. So my choice as a consumer is limited too. And -even more to the point- free circulation of services and goods -a backbone of the EU- does not exist on this product either.
When you do business in Europe you have to respect our regulatory framework as much as I have to respect the laws when I go to the US. Example : You have countries in Europe where you can have a few drinks and still drive (not endorsed by me) - when I am in the US a DUI is a serious offence - in Germany and Belgium you get a minor fine.
So IOW when in Rome do as Romans do.
Furthermore : assuming Apple gets a 30% cut of T-Mobile, they stand to make 272 Euro ex VAT from the revenue share over 24 months. I personally think the rev-share is more down in the region of 15% (but hey that is just 14 years of professional GSM experience talking). Let us therefore fairly assume that Apple makes 200 Euro over the lifetime of the customer - why not sell the so#$ing phone for -say- 599 Euro w/o being tied down.
I -and most other people for that matter- have lived for 14 years w/o Visual Voicemail. It's great - granted but I dont really need it to survive. Really.
Oh and BTW -there was resistance against the bad guys back then too- I believe Tom Cruise just mad a major motion picture about it.
So please do not patronize us on that subject as I really fail to see how Nazi Germany and german/european regulatory laws can be put in the same paragraph. You actually put shame on the process of European Unification.
Which has nothing to do with the appeals process, which is what I asked about. Hence "likely" as opposed to "what's happening now".
Which is what I was referring to by "appeals process". So I'm curious if it is probable that the iPhone will continue to be sold during this process.
You refer to sales not stopping "yet", which suggests that you believe stopping sales at some point is a possibility, no?
Sorry, if I was unclear (I guess I was).
Telekom will continue to sell the iPhone while they are preparing the reply. This is relatively trouble free - worst case is that they would have to void contracts being made from now on (they would still get the customers from other carriers - most will stay).
There are several "layers" to that, I will try to explain (my opinion, reality may vary):
- the pure existence of the claim is important for people signing up from now on - they can sign under "proviso", meaning the entire contract could be null and void if the claimant succeeds
- as above - if better conditions will (have to) be offered as a result of the claim, people signing up after the date the claim was filed will automagically benefit
Now - in theory - as the claimant was not demanding the stop of sales, Telekom could do three things:
1) continue, putting all further contracts in limbo
2) stop sales
3) continue, selling it unlocked for a premium and clarifying unlocking conditions at the end of contract
The only good answer is 3) for everbody
As the iPhone is a hot item and we do have the holiday season - the calculation is of course: close eyes and continue, as long as we will keep 50% of the customers it pays out (consider that penalties in Germany are much much less severe than in the US). You pay some 150k EUR if you accidentally break somebody's spine - and only if you can afford it.
The initial local court is far to small for this case - they will refer the case up to the next higher court after listening to some statements, just to keep face. Telekom will certainly try to defer the issue - Apple has offered this contract and O2 in the UK has the same contract - at this point the local court is out (we do not get involved with EU issues, they overrule us and we look like idiots)... this might iterate through some levels, but it will give them 4-6 months and safely cover the holidays.
In parallel the EU commission will prepare the case - I know they are already at it - and sometime between February and April they will announce they are targeting the issue. They will not go into the Summer 2008 vacation without a major bang. They will make a bold statement and give the parties a few days to respond - this will not change the verdict. It is already clear that the EU commission will stop exclusive contracts in the mobile market and they also discuss a 12 month cap on contracts (with mandatory removal of sim-locks thereafter). This is a non-issue, the majority for this is close to 90%. All politicians in Europe have let down local issues at large and this is one case to score - just as the MS and roaming cases made them popular.
Telekom (T-Mobile) used to be a public company - German politicians will try to stay away from the issue as they have too many comrades there. Once the EU commission is at it, hits will come fast - I expect an injunction (if the parties do not resolve the issue) between May and August 2008, this will come with a penalty for further contracts - at this time they will stop new contracts (low season, nothing to win).
Telekom and Apple cannot win here. They have zero chances - as I said, French and German populations are against it, Italy is a "prepaid country" at large, most of the eastern countries will be either annoyed because they did not get the iPhone at all or embarrassed because they know they are unlikely to get it in the foreseeable future.
So - to get back to your question - I do not think there will be any stop to sales during the holiday season (this is very unlikely - the court simply cannot delegate the case up and make a decision at the same time - they could legally, but I have never seen this happening with big cases ever). I certainly expect a strong reaction from the EU - and it will not be nice. Apple has for the first time been stupid enough to make itself a target, for no reason. As somebody else in this thread said - give the iPhone (unlocked) a price, even if it is lunatic (a claim dealing with inappropriate pricing is nothing compared to what they challenge here, they can easily stretch this for 6-8 months before they give in and still look good). This will calm the disappointed people down (finally it can be bought without contract at all, and the price will come down at some point), bring additional customers (all of a sudden it looks much cheaper with a contract) and take ammunition away from critics.
The only thing they should do now, is keep a very low profile. Any broad statement will be watched and reactions will not necessarily be proportional.
Wow - what a load of cobblers. I was wondering when the 2nd WW was going to be thrown back at us. OK we lost you won. Which was good because we were bad.
Can we get over it now ?
More down to the point : Your argument lacks depth and misses several points. Apple and T-Mobile ARE in a monopoly position. According to Wikipedia "A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide ".
Do you want to come back on your wording ? As the only provider for the "i-Phone experience" is the combo Apple and T-Mobile. There is only one provider of the good (T-Mobile) and the service (T-Mobile). Economic competition would intrinsically mean the someone else offers the good or service. So we do have a monopoly at hand. Yes I can chose other handsets (ie a fully subsidized N95@ 1 Euro) - but what if I want the iPhone. I actually do - but it isn't even offered in Belgium. And, unlike with other goods, I can not drive over the border and buy it. So my choice as a consumer is limited too. And -even more to the point- free circulation of services and goods -a backbone of the EU- does not exist on this product either.
When you do business in Europe you have to respect our regulatory framework as much as I have to respect the laws when I go to the US. Example : You have countries in Europe where you can have a few drinks and still drive (not endorsed by me) - when I am in the US a DUI is a serious offence - in Germany and Belgium you get a minor fine.
So IOW when in Rome do as Romans do.
Furthermore : assuming Apple gets a 30% cut of T-Mobile, they stand to make 272 Euro ex VAT from the revenue share over 24 months. I personally think the rev-share is more down in the region of 15% (but hey that is just 14 years of professional GSM experience talking). Let us therefore fairly assume that Apple makes 200 Euro over the lifetime of the customer - why not sell the so#$ing phone for -say- 599 Euro w/o being tied down.
I -and most other people for that matter- have lived for 14 years w/o Visual Voicemail. It's great - granted but I dont really need it to survive. Really.
Oh and BTW -there was resistance against the bad guys back then too- I believe Tom Cruise just mad a major motion picture about it.
So please do not patronize us on that subject as I really fail to see how Nazi Germany and german/european regulatory laws can be put in the same paragraph. You actually put shame on the process of European Unification.
"Good or service" in your citation clearly refers to categories, not specific implementations.
Apple and T-Mobile are not the only sellers of phones or phone infrastructure in Germany, hence, they are not a monopoly-- any more than BMW is a monopoly because it doesn't make its "I-Drive" system available to Audi or Porche.
By your definition of "monopoly", every manufacturer of goods and services that came up with a market differentiating wrinkle would be obliged to share that competitive advantage, since to do otherwise would deny others that particular "experience".
Apple's not forcing anyone to do anything. They're offering a product for sale with their partner. If you don't like the package, you are free not to buy it. The phone and the service are a package.
You and the rest of your flock may swallow that argument in the US, cos you're used to being herded by the carriers and doing what you're told. But in Europe we're used to more freedom of choice.
I've been a dyed-in-the-wool Apple user for at least five years now (multiple Macs and iPods) and usually side with Apple on any argument. But as a European, Apple's approach to market with the iPhone really rubs me up the wrong way. I want the consumer choice that I get from all the other mobile phone vendors. Further more, Apple's revenue sharing scheme with its carrier of choice stinks. When the music labels spoke out and claimed they should get a revenue share from iPod sales, we all jumped up and down, blew raspberries and called them greedy scum sucking parasites. How is Apple behaving any different with the iPhone? It's greedy, it's an abuse of power from Apple, and it doesn't benefit the consumer.
I'm totally disappointed that the carriers in Europe didn't show more backbone; club together and collectively tell Apple where they could shove it until they were prepared to play fair.
I'm in the UK and I've still not got an iPhone yet. Purely because I'm not sure that I want to endorse Apple in this way with my hard earned cash. I'll probably go for an iPod Touch instead.
dreyfus2, it's interesting how the basis of your argument is the assumption that Apple is SOLELY to blame for the current situation, and how you use the EU iTunes Store case as an example. You clearly don't know the facts of that case, so let me refresh your memory:
In court Apple said they wanted all along to implement an EU-wide iTunes Store, but the performance rights societies of each country where Apple does business were against it, and the laws regarding collection of royalties for the labels and fees for music publishers are chaotic at best. Apple's hands were tied.
No need to refresh my memory - I have been there. Apple took the easy way out - and most people in the commission were realising it, but decided to give them some time to settle it. You can force the entire music industry to agree to 99 cents per song, but you cannot promote identical pricing across Europe? Big laughter. The pricing differences across Europe are below Apple's income from selling songs from the store. Apple is the reseller here and they have to do the job. The pricing from the record companies is not that much different - even in developing countries the price for a legal CD is consistently between 10 and 12 EUR. No need for all that jazz at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons
Apple has repeatedly stated the reasons for going with a single carrier; it allowed them to do certain things with the iPhone that wouldn't be possible if the phone were available with multiple carriers, like visual voicemail, which happens to be one of the iPhone's major selling points. If YOU choose not to believe or agree with this reasoning that is your choice, but it's been documented to death.
??? Documenting something proves anything? Since when? Visual voicemail is an extremely simple feature - nicely implemented and a shame for the mobile carriers that Apple needed to invent it - but it does not require anything special at all. Safari is a major selling point, eliminating a separate iPod and not missing calls when listening to music is a major selling point, visual voice mail is a gimmick - serious people with positive credit like me answer the phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons
Why is that so hard for guys like you to accept? People like yourself who are Apple haters who try to disguise it with statements like "I'm an Apple user for x years", or "I have invested x amount of money in Apple products" I find personally extremely irritating.
I hope you have good medical insurance. Paranoia can be healed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons
You do know that Vodafone, like it's US arm Verizon, was the FIRST carrier Apple approached, because it wanted a European-wide partner? Vodafone, like Verizon, messed that up, and are now most likely experiencing the backlash via the amount of inquiries from Vodafone customers who want to cancel their Vodafone contracts to go to T-Mobile.
They messed up by rejecting to pay 30% of the service fees to a company providing no service? Yeah - if I would be a Vodafone shareholder, I would make damn sure they do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons
Let's talk about anti-Consumer practices in Germany:
1. Why can't I pay an early termination fee if I want to cancel my contract with my current provider?
2. Why do I have to have the Logo of my provider on my phone, even if I don't want it? (the dreaded "branding")
3. Why do I have to have branded software on my phone that is usually inferior to the software that originally came with the phone?
1. - Correct, you cannot. Companies can demand that you prove to be unable to fulfil your contract (e.g. being unemployed and collecting welfare money). This is actually a protection for companies from people blindly signing everything and makes a lot of sense. You cannot just turn around and say "eat that contract" - you have to prove that your financial situation does not allow you to maintain it. Therefore you get extremely favourable exit conditions if you are indeed broke. The process is also not really embarrassing - you have to apply for social money or unemployment money anyhow, the same people will assist with that paperwork for free.
2. - Because there is a list price for every phone in Germany. If VF offers the N95 for 795,- EUR without a contract and for 300,- EUR with contract and branding, it should be obvious to most human beings that the 300,- EUR variant comes with a contract and branding. By the way - thanks to European consumer laws you can order the entire junk online and return it for 14 days with no questions asked. If you need more than 14 days to find out that a phone is branded - I am lost...
3 - see 2. As long as you do not damage the phone, even if you buy it in a shop, you can return it. Most carriers will not even ask questions within 14 days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csimmons
I'm quite sure that in Apple's negotiations with Vodafone, a big sticking point was Apple's refusal to allow the iPhone to be branded by Vodafone, letting them dictate how the phone's software will be implemented as they do with all other phone manufacturers. The fact that T-Mobile sells the iPhone unbranded is IMO very pro-consumer.
This restraining order initiated by Vodafone is the bigest case of sour grapes that I've seen in a very long time, and to categorize it as anything else than that (and lay the blame on Apple) is silly.
You could have a point about that branding thing - I do not know at all, but it is likely. I cannot imagine though that VF was valuing that higher than the potential loss of subscribers - nobody can be that much nuts. It is a simple thing really - Apple played James Dean and VF did not bite. That is normal business. Now they realised that the public is annoyed by Apple (for valid reasons IMHO, but your opinion is obviously different) - they saw their chance (maybe they have waited for it, sure). The media is full with T-Mobile's lunatic charges and the iPhone's shortcomings (some I agree with, some are obviously made up), of course there is always a good percentage of people being envious of other people being able to buy 600 EUR phones with 1600 EUR contracts, and the mandatory contract issue is a real issue. They brought it up and it will make its way though courts... Apple could have avoided that easily - they will sell an unlocked phone in France in less than two weeks; doing the same thing in Germany that case would have been dismissed in minutes. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The thing here is that no one is saying that Apple should give their advantage away. As stated before, if apple gets €200 from T-Mobile, offer the phone without a contract for €599. If they feel that visual voicemail is such a great feature offer it for sale to other operators.
I really do believe that Apple would not loose money, but make more money doing this. At least in Europe that is. We also have subsidized phones when entering a contract and many people do enter contracts. The big difference is that no one is forced to enter a contract to get a particular phone and not as many are willing to do so.
It is also fairly common to get a cell phone from your employer and if you are working in a company with 10,000 employes it might be hard to tell them to renegotiate their contracts because you want to use an iPhone.
Offering the iPhone without a contract at a higher price would sell more phones.
I am no big fan of large governments or over-regulating. But I'm also impatient.
I can as suggested tell Apple that I don't like their business model by not buying an iPhone. And hopefully Apple will in a few months time se that this isn't going the way they hoped. "We aren't selling as many phones as we could, maybe we should offer it without a contract". And a few months later I might be able to by an iPhone, woho!
The thing is that there are some maybe's and hopefully's in this as well as a lot of waiting for me. Apple might not recognize that they are making a mistake or they might be stubborn? And you will probably argue that that is their choice.
I believe that the governments first priority is to server it's citizens. We believe in regulations that are beneficiary to consumers and at the same time doesn't cause unwarranted harm to corporations, and this is where our cultures differ. We don't see this as causing unwarranted harm to Apple, you seem to do.
If I am to believe that what I read here is the true feelings of the people of U.S.A. then I really don't see your objections? We would not cause Apple to loose money, and we are not forcing our free choice of phones on you. Apple are free to keep their business model in U.S.A., a model that you seem to prefer.
"Good or service" in your citation clearly refers to categories, not specific implementations.
Apple and T-Mobile are not the only sellers of phones or phone infrastructure in Germany, hence, they are not a monopoly-- any more than BMW is a monopoly because it doesn't make its "I-Drive" system available to Audi or Porche.
By your definition of "monopoly", every manufacturer of goods and services that came up with a market differentiating wrinkle would be obliged to share that competitive advantage, since to do otherwise would deny others that particular "experience".
Sorry but you are wrong. I am well aware that there are more manufacturers then Apple and more operators. BUT - if you do want an iPhone you HAVE to obey by the monopolistic structure. You can not obtain the iPhone with an e-Plus, O2 or Vodafone subscription or on its own and put in the card that you as the consumer want to put in. The comparison with i-Drive/BMW is therefore without relevance.
What "one" tends to forget in this very emotional discussion is that the iPhone is a piece of hardware and that T-Mobile is (kindda like) software. As much as you have the right as a consumer to have you computer unbundled of Windows (judgments to that respect in both France and Germany) because you want to install Linux instead - I as the consumer should have the right to unbundle the iPhone from T-Mobile and put in a (say) Vodafone card.
Why is it that no one on this forum thinks that getting rid of Windows to the benefit (?) of Linux is -per se- a bad thing, yet when holy Apple is concerned there seems to be a vortex around common sense ? Visual voicemail (the only generic app that requires T-Mobile) is like the Windows Media Player. If I don't want it i should be able to do without....
To put this to bed all Apple need to do is put the iPhone out there off contract (highlighting that visual voicemail ONLY works with a supported carrier on a specific contract) and charge ?1000 for the iPhone. (£725)
Also offer an unlock service through the SP which is based on a flat rate of ?30 once they have been with the SP for 6 months OR if the customer pays out their whole contract.
They will comply with all european rules for mobile handsets and that will end the moaning.
(they can justify the price as they can say that to recover manufacturing costs and 10 years of R & D costs that is why they are on a 18 month contract etc etc)
To put this to bed all Apple need to do is put the iPhone out there off contract (highlighting that visual voicemail ONLY works with a supported carrier on a specific contract) and charge ?1000 for the iPhone. (£725)
Also offer an unlock service through the SP which is based on a flat rate of ?30 once they have been with the SP for 6 months OR if the customer pays out their whole contract.
They will comply with all european rules for mobile handsets and that will end the moaning.
(they can justify the price as they can say that to recover manufacturing costs and 10 years of R & D costs that is why they are on a 18 month contract etc etc)
Gee-wizz. I dont want your calculator. Let's pls be realistic here and take the O2 contract @ 35 UKP, which is 30 UKP w/o VAT. Assuming that O2 was a sucker for the deal and is handing 30% to Apple this equates to 8.90 UKP/month or 160 UKP for the 18 months (which is 250 Euro BTW)
Where you get the 450 quid premium from is beyond me.
Each customer is supposed to pay for his/her contract anyway - but where HE/SHE wants to.
I am no bloody cheapskate - my monthly phone bill is 180 Euro thank you very much ( I am being robbed) and I can afford full price phones (I have to as I live in Belgium) so I am not whining at all.
I am just a strong advocate of freedom of choice and it's nor my role nor my place to be Apple bashing at all. Hell - I probably equate to 0.5% of the yearly revenue the ITS generates back here as I personally think that the combo iPod/ITS is good (no hassle for music....)
I am just hacked off that Aples policies force me either to not have one or buy a jailbroken/hacked/soon to be bricked phone from a dodgy trader @ 999 Euro, which i am not going to do for obvious reasons. I like my statutory warranty of 2 years (thank you Europe :-) )
Laws and legislation aside, there's clearly something that Europeans don't like about the iPhone because here in the UK, I don't know a single person who has one or even wants one. Everyone I've spoken to about them complains that:
+ The contract terms are too onerous
+ There's no 3G
+ There's no MMS
+ It's too expensive
+ The camera's not very good
+ It's got poor reviews compared to devices from other manufacturers
I don't think we need legal battles to sort this issue out - until they beef it up a bit, the iPhone looks like it's heading towards being a flop in Europe all on it's own.
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.
Still, some people say that it is especially blind when the Landgericht Hamburg is involved...
Well if you read your software agreements in order to be able to post this in the first place, you must have been scamed
cos you don't own your software either!
You might not own the software. But you do own a license which in turn you can legally sell. Yeah there are EULA that forbid this - but once again European regulation super seeds this and you CAN indeed sell your software again. Totally legal.
Comments
Seriously people this isn't rocket science. Boycott products you don't think are being sold fairly.
That will send a message that even Mr. Reality Distortion himself won't be able to miss.
While you're at it have a look at the exchange rate for your particular country and then check Apple prices versus those in the USA. If you don't like what you see, DON'T BUY ANYTHING WITH AN APPLE LOGO.
I'm productive with my 2.5 year old Mac and LG phone. I'm sure most of you are too. When Apple wakes up and smells the lost revenue we'll all be better off.
What I find most interesting is that people in Europe are trying to get government to do what they should be doing themselves, namely NOT BUYING an iPhone if it's bundled with a restrictive contract.
Seriously people this isn't rocket science. Boycott products you don't think are being sold fairly.
That will send a message that even Mr. Reality Distortion himself won't be able to miss.
While you're at it have a look at the exchange rate for your particular country and then check Apple prices versus those in the USA. If you don't like what you see, DON'T BUY ANYTHING WITH AN APPLE LOGO.
I'm productive with my 2.5 year old Mac and LG phone. I'm sure most of you are too. When Apple wakes up and smells the lost revenue we'll all be better off.
Hmm, what is your agenda? Adobe and Tivoli charge "foreign" customers some 200-250% for everything.
Apple - even if I dislike it a lot, everybody wants cheaper - is fully within the regular margins. They do not really overcharge more than anybody else - and keeping some fluctuation reserve is normal business conduct. I certainly will continue to buy things with an Apple logo - I can buy a Mac Pro with 8 cores for less than what the entire competition offers, great engineering, great design and best support in the industry - no problem here. I will not pay an iPhone at the current German conditions, but I do not appreciate to be hi-jacked. Nobody here did ask for an Apple boycott and I suggest, there are a few dozen companies that would deserve that more. Is your last name still Ballmer?
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.
Which has nothing to do with the appeals process, which is what I asked about. Hence "likely" as opposed to "what's happening now".
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.
Which is what I was referring to by "appeals process". So I'm curious if it is probable that the iPhone will continue to be sold during this process.
You refer to sales not stopping "yet", which suggests that you believe stopping sales at some point is a possibility, no?
dreyfus2, it's interesting how the basis of your argument is the assumption that Apple is SOLELY to blame for the current situation, and how you use the EU iTunes Store case as an example. You clearly don't know the facts of that case, so let me refresh your memory:
In court Apple said they wanted all along to implement an EU-wide iTunes Store, but the performance rights societies of each country where Apple does business were against it, and the laws regarding collection of royalties for the labels and fees for music publishers are chaotic at best. Apple's hands were tied.
Apple has repeatedly stated the reasons for going with a single carrier; it allowed them to do certain things with the iPhone that wouldn't be possible if the phone were available with multiple carriers, like visual voicemail, which happens to be one of the iPhone's major selling points. If YOU choose not to believe or agree with this reasoning that is your choice, but it's been documented to death.
Why is that so hard for guys like you to accept? People like yourself who are Apple haters who try to disguise it with statements like "I'm an Apple user for x years", or "I have invested x amount of money in Apple products" I find personally extremely irritating.
You do know that Vodafone, like it's US arm Verizon, was the FIRST carrier Apple approached, because it wanted a European-wide partner? Vodafone, like Verizon, messed that up, and are now most likely experiencing the backlash via the amount of inquiries from Vodafone customers who want to cancel their Vodafone contracts to go to T-Mobile.
Let's talk about anti-Consumer practices in Germany:
1. Why can't I pay an early termination fee if I want to cancel my contract with my current provider?
2. Why do I have to have the Logo of my provider on my phone, even if I don't want it? (the dreaded "branding")
3. Why do I have to have branded software on my phone that is usually inferior to the software that originally came with the phone?
I'm quite sure that in Apple's negotiations with Vodafone, a big sticking point was Apple's refusal to allow the iPhone to be branded by Vodafone, letting them dictate how the phone's software will be implemented as they do with all other phone manufacturers. The fact that T-Mobile sells the iPhone unbranded is IMO very pro-consumer.
This restraining order initiated by Vodafone is the bigest case of sour grapes that I've seen in a very long time, and to categorize it as anything else than that (and lay the blame on Apple) is silly.
...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.
Apple's own growing greed is what is damaging their own brand name. What happened to the Here's for the crazy ones Apple? Did they die the day the iMac got successful? I think so. Now it's the greed Apple. It's gonna backfire if they don't show us soon that Apple is not greedy, but open minded and with good intentions. The iPhone situation is taken to the limit of what's decent. I just hope the situation can change fast rather than take years of court action.
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.
[...]
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.
Wow - what a load of cobblers. I was wondering when the 2nd WW was going to be thrown back at us. OK we lost you won. Which was good because we were bad.
Can we get over it now ?
More down to the point : Your argument lacks depth and misses several points. Apple and T-Mobile ARE in a monopoly position. According to Wikipedia "A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide ".
Do you want to come back on your wording ? As the only provider for the "i-Phone experience" is the combo Apple and T-Mobile. There is only one provider of the good (T-Mobile) and the service (T-Mobile). Economic competition would intrinsically mean the someone else offers the good or service. So we do have a monopoly at hand. Yes I can chose other handsets (ie a fully subsidized N95@ 1 Euro) - but what if I want the iPhone. I actually do - but it isn't even offered in Belgium. And, unlike with other goods, I can not drive over the border and buy it. So my choice as a consumer is limited too. And -even more to the point- free circulation of services and goods -a backbone of the EU- does not exist on this product either.
When you do business in Europe you have to respect our regulatory framework as much as I have to respect the laws when I go to the US. Example : You have countries in Europe where you can have a few drinks and still drive (not endorsed by me) - when I am in the US a DUI is a serious offence - in Germany and Belgium you get a minor fine.
So IOW when in Rome do as Romans do.
Furthermore : assuming Apple gets a 30% cut of T-Mobile, they stand to make 272 Euro ex VAT from the revenue share over 24 months. I personally think the rev-share is more down in the region of 15% (but hey that is just 14 years of professional GSM experience talking). Let us therefore fairly assume that Apple makes 200 Euro over the lifetime of the customer - why not sell the so#$ing phone for -say- 599 Euro w/o being tied down.
I -and most other people for that matter- have lived for 14 years w/o Visual Voicemail. It's great - granted but I dont really need it to survive. Really.
Oh and BTW -there was resistance against the bad guys back then too- I believe Tom Cruise just mad a major motion picture about it.
So please do not patronize us on that subject as I really fail to see how Nazi Germany and german/european regulatory laws can be put in the same paragraph. You actually put shame on the process of European Unification.
Which has nothing to do with the appeals process, which is what I asked about. Hence "likely" as opposed to "what's happening now".
Which is what I was referring to by "appeals process". So I'm curious if it is probable that the iPhone will continue to be sold during this process.
You refer to sales not stopping "yet", which suggests that you believe stopping sales at some point is a possibility, no?
Sorry, if I was unclear (I guess I was).
Telekom will continue to sell the iPhone while they are preparing the reply. This is relatively trouble free - worst case is that they would have to void contracts being made from now on (they would still get the customers from other carriers - most will stay).
There are several "layers" to that, I will try to explain (my opinion, reality may vary):
- the pure existence of the claim is important for people signing up from now on - they can sign under "proviso", meaning the entire contract could be null and void if the claimant succeeds
- as above - if better conditions will (have to) be offered as a result of the claim, people signing up after the date the claim was filed will automagically benefit
Now - in theory - as the claimant was not demanding the stop of sales, Telekom could do three things:
1) continue, putting all further contracts in limbo
2) stop sales
3) continue, selling it unlocked for a premium and clarifying unlocking conditions at the end of contract
The only good answer is 3) for everbody
As the iPhone is a hot item and we do have the holiday season - the calculation is of course: close eyes and continue, as long as we will keep 50% of the customers it pays out (consider that penalties in Germany are much much less severe than in the US). You pay some 150k EUR if you accidentally break somebody's spine - and only if you can afford it.
The initial local court is far to small for this case - they will refer the case up to the next higher court after listening to some statements, just to keep face. Telekom will certainly try to defer the issue - Apple has offered this contract and O2 in the UK has the same contract - at this point the local court is out (we do not get involved with EU issues, they overrule us and we look like idiots)... this might iterate through some levels, but it will give them 4-6 months and safely cover the holidays.
In parallel the EU commission will prepare the case - I know they are already at it - and sometime between February and April they will announce they are targeting the issue. They will not go into the Summer 2008 vacation without a major bang. They will make a bold statement and give the parties a few days to respond - this will not change the verdict. It is already clear that the EU commission will stop exclusive contracts in the mobile market and they also discuss a 12 month cap on contracts (with mandatory removal of sim-locks thereafter). This is a non-issue, the majority for this is close to 90%. All politicians in Europe have let down local issues at large and this is one case to score - just as the MS and roaming cases made them popular.
Telekom (T-Mobile) used to be a public company - German politicians will try to stay away from the issue as they have too many comrades there. Once the EU commission is at it, hits will come fast - I expect an injunction (if the parties do not resolve the issue) between May and August 2008, this will come with a penalty for further contracts - at this time they will stop new contracts (low season, nothing to win).
Telekom and Apple cannot win here. They have zero chances - as I said, French and German populations are against it, Italy is a "prepaid country" at large, most of the eastern countries will be either annoyed because they did not get the iPhone at all or embarrassed because they know they are unlikely to get it in the foreseeable future.
So - to get back to your question - I do not think there will be any stop to sales during the holiday season (this is very unlikely - the court simply cannot delegate the case up and make a decision at the same time - they could legally, but I have never seen this happening with big cases ever). I certainly expect a strong reaction from the EU - and it will not be nice. Apple has for the first time been stupid enough to make itself a target, for no reason. As somebody else in this thread said - give the iPhone (unlocked) a price, even if it is lunatic (a claim dealing with inappropriate pricing is nothing compared to what they challenge here, they can easily stretch this for 6-8 months before they give in and still look good). This will calm the disappointed people down (finally it can be bought without contract at all, and the price will come down at some point), bring additional customers (all of a sudden it looks much cheaper with a contract) and take ammunition away from critics.
The only thing they should do now, is keep a very low profile. Any broad statement will be watched and reactions will not necessarily be proportional.
Wow - what a load of cobblers. I was wondering when the 2nd WW was going to be thrown back at us. OK we lost you won. Which was good because we were bad.
Can we get over it now ?
More down to the point : Your argument lacks depth and misses several points. Apple and T-Mobile ARE in a monopoly position. According to Wikipedia "A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide ".
Do you want to come back on your wording ? As the only provider for the "i-Phone experience" is the combo Apple and T-Mobile. There is only one provider of the good (T-Mobile) and the service (T-Mobile). Economic competition would intrinsically mean the someone else offers the good or service. So we do have a monopoly at hand. Yes I can chose other handsets (ie a fully subsidized N95@ 1 Euro) - but what if I want the iPhone. I actually do - but it isn't even offered in Belgium. And, unlike with other goods, I can not drive over the border and buy it. So my choice as a consumer is limited too. And -even more to the point- free circulation of services and goods -a backbone of the EU- does not exist on this product either.
When you do business in Europe you have to respect our regulatory framework as much as I have to respect the laws when I go to the US. Example : You have countries in Europe where you can have a few drinks and still drive (not endorsed by me) - when I am in the US a DUI is a serious offence - in Germany and Belgium you get a minor fine.
So IOW when in Rome do as Romans do.
Furthermore : assuming Apple gets a 30% cut of T-Mobile, they stand to make 272 Euro ex VAT from the revenue share over 24 months. I personally think the rev-share is more down in the region of 15% (but hey that is just 14 years of professional GSM experience talking). Let us therefore fairly assume that Apple makes 200 Euro over the lifetime of the customer - why not sell the so#$ing phone for -say- 599 Euro w/o being tied down.
I -and most other people for that matter- have lived for 14 years w/o Visual Voicemail. It's great - granted but I dont really need it to survive. Really.
Oh and BTW -there was resistance against the bad guys back then too- I believe Tom Cruise just mad a major motion picture about it.
So please do not patronize us on that subject as I really fail to see how Nazi Germany and german/european regulatory laws can be put in the same paragraph. You actually put shame on the process of European Unification.
"Good or service" in your citation clearly refers to categories, not specific implementations.
Apple and T-Mobile are not the only sellers of phones or phone infrastructure in Germany, hence, they are not a monopoly-- any more than BMW is a monopoly because it doesn't make its "I-Drive" system available to Audi or Porche.
By your definition of "monopoly", every manufacturer of goods and services that came up with a market differentiating wrinkle would be obliged to share that competitive advantage, since to do otherwise would deny others that particular "experience".
Apple's not forcing anyone to do anything. They're offering a product for sale with their partner. If you don't like the package, you are free not to buy it. The phone and the service are a package.
You and the rest of your flock may swallow that argument in the US, cos you're used to being herded by the carriers and doing what you're told. But in Europe we're used to more freedom of choice.
I've been a dyed-in-the-wool Apple user for at least five years now (multiple Macs and iPods) and usually side with Apple on any argument. But as a European, Apple's approach to market with the iPhone really rubs me up the wrong way. I want the consumer choice that I get from all the other mobile phone vendors. Further more, Apple's revenue sharing scheme with its carrier of choice stinks. When the music labels spoke out and claimed they should get a revenue share from iPod sales, we all jumped up and down, blew raspberries and called them greedy scum sucking parasites. How is Apple behaving any different with the iPhone? It's greedy, it's an abuse of power from Apple, and it doesn't benefit the consumer.
I'm totally disappointed that the carriers in Europe didn't show more backbone; club together and collectively tell Apple where they could shove it until they were prepared to play fair.
I'm in the UK and I've still not got an iPhone yet. Purely because I'm not sure that I want to endorse Apple in this way with my hard earned cash. I'll probably go for an iPod Touch instead.
dreyfus2, it's interesting how the basis of your argument is the assumption that Apple is SOLELY to blame for the current situation, and how you use the EU iTunes Store case as an example. You clearly don't know the facts of that case, so let me refresh your memory:
In court Apple said they wanted all along to implement an EU-wide iTunes Store, but the performance rights societies of each country where Apple does business were against it, and the laws regarding collection of royalties for the labels and fees for music publishers are chaotic at best. Apple's hands were tied.
No need to refresh my memory - I have been there. Apple took the easy way out - and most people in the commission were realising it, but decided to give them some time to settle it. You can force the entire music industry to agree to 99 cents per song, but you cannot promote identical pricing across Europe? Big laughter. The pricing differences across Europe are below Apple's income from selling songs from the store. Apple is the reseller here and they have to do the job. The pricing from the record companies is not that much different - even in developing countries the price for a legal CD is consistently between 10 and 12 EUR. No need for all that jazz at all.
Apple has repeatedly stated the reasons for going with a single carrier; it allowed them to do certain things with the iPhone that wouldn't be possible if the phone were available with multiple carriers, like visual voicemail, which happens to be one of the iPhone's major selling points. If YOU choose not to believe or agree with this reasoning that is your choice, but it's been documented to death.
??? Documenting something proves anything? Since when? Visual voicemail is an extremely simple feature - nicely implemented and a shame for the mobile carriers that Apple needed to invent it - but it does not require anything special at all. Safari is a major selling point, eliminating a separate iPod and not missing calls when listening to music is a major selling point, visual voice mail is a gimmick - serious people with positive credit like me answer the phone.
Why is that so hard for guys like you to accept? People like yourself who are Apple haters who try to disguise it with statements like "I'm an Apple user for x years", or "I have invested x amount of money in Apple products" I find personally extremely irritating.
I hope you have good medical insurance. Paranoia can be healed.
You do know that Vodafone, like it's US arm Verizon, was the FIRST carrier Apple approached, because it wanted a European-wide partner? Vodafone, like Verizon, messed that up, and are now most likely experiencing the backlash via the amount of inquiries from Vodafone customers who want to cancel their Vodafone contracts to go to T-Mobile.
They messed up by rejecting to pay 30% of the service fees to a company providing no service? Yeah - if I would be a Vodafone shareholder, I would make damn sure they do not.
Let's talk about anti-Consumer practices in Germany:
1. Why can't I pay an early termination fee if I want to cancel my contract with my current provider?
2. Why do I have to have the Logo of my provider on my phone, even if I don't want it? (the dreaded "branding")
3. Why do I have to have branded software on my phone that is usually inferior to the software that originally came with the phone?
1. - Correct, you cannot. Companies can demand that you prove to be unable to fulfil your contract (e.g. being unemployed and collecting welfare money). This is actually a protection for companies from people blindly signing everything and makes a lot of sense. You cannot just turn around and say "eat that contract" - you have to prove that your financial situation does not allow you to maintain it. Therefore you get extremely favourable exit conditions if you are indeed broke. The process is also not really embarrassing - you have to apply for social money or unemployment money anyhow, the same people will assist with that paperwork for free.
2. - Because there is a list price for every phone in Germany. If VF offers the N95 for 795,- EUR without a contract and for 300,- EUR with contract and branding, it should be obvious to most human beings that the 300,- EUR variant comes with a contract and branding. By the way - thanks to European consumer laws you can order the entire junk online and return it for 14 days with no questions asked. If you need more than 14 days to find out that a phone is branded - I am lost...
3 - see 2. As long as you do not damage the phone, even if you buy it in a shop, you can return it. Most carriers will not even ask questions within 14 days.
I'm quite sure that in Apple's negotiations with Vodafone, a big sticking point was Apple's refusal to allow the iPhone to be branded by Vodafone, letting them dictate how the phone's software will be implemented as they do with all other phone manufacturers. The fact that T-Mobile sells the iPhone unbranded is IMO very pro-consumer.
This restraining order initiated by Vodafone is the bigest case of sour grapes that I've seen in a very long time, and to categorize it as anything else than that (and lay the blame on Apple) is silly.
You could have a point about that branding thing - I do not know at all, but it is likely. I cannot imagine though that VF was valuing that higher than the potential loss of subscribers - nobody can be that much nuts. It is a simple thing really - Apple played James Dean and VF did not bite. That is normal business. Now they realised that the public is annoyed by Apple (for valid reasons IMHO, but your opinion is obviously different) - they saw their chance (maybe they have waited for it, sure). The media is full with T-Mobile's lunatic charges and the iPhone's shortcomings (some I agree with, some are obviously made up), of course there is always a good percentage of people being envious of other people being able to buy 600 EUR phones with 1600 EUR contracts, and the mandatory contract issue is a real issue. They brought it up and it will make its way though courts... Apple could have avoided that easily - they will sell an unlocked phone in France in less than two weeks; doing the same thing in Germany that case would have been dismissed in minutes. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I really do believe that Apple would not loose money, but make more money doing this. At least in Europe that is. We also have subsidized phones when entering a contract and many people do enter contracts. The big difference is that no one is forced to enter a contract to get a particular phone and not as many are willing to do so.
It is also fairly common to get a cell phone from your employer and if you are working in a company with 10,000 employes it might be hard to tell them to renegotiate their contracts because you want to use an iPhone.
Offering the iPhone without a contract at a higher price would sell more phones.
I am no big fan of large governments or over-regulating. But I'm also impatient.
I can as suggested tell Apple that I don't like their business model by not buying an iPhone. And hopefully Apple will in a few months time se that this isn't going the way they hoped. "We aren't selling as many phones as we could, maybe we should offer it without a contract". And a few months later I might be able to by an iPhone, woho!
The thing is that there are some maybe's and hopefully's in this as well as a lot of waiting for me. Apple might not recognize that they are making a mistake or they might be stubborn? And you will probably argue that that is their choice.
I believe that the governments first priority is to server it's citizens. We believe in regulations that are beneficiary to consumers and at the same time doesn't cause unwarranted harm to corporations, and this is where our cultures differ. We don't see this as causing unwarranted harm to Apple, you seem to do.
If I am to believe that what I read here is the true feelings of the people of U.S.A. then I really don't see your objections? We would not cause Apple to loose money, and we are not forcing our free choice of phones on you. Apple are free to keep their business model in U.S.A., a model that you seem to prefer.
/NonCommieEuropean
"Good or service" in your citation clearly refers to categories, not specific implementations.
Apple and T-Mobile are not the only sellers of phones or phone infrastructure in Germany, hence, they are not a monopoly-- any more than BMW is a monopoly because it doesn't make its "I-Drive" system available to Audi or Porche.
By your definition of "monopoly", every manufacturer of goods and services that came up with a market differentiating wrinkle would be obliged to share that competitive advantage, since to do otherwise would deny others that particular "experience".
Sorry but you are wrong. I am well aware that there are more manufacturers then Apple and more operators. BUT - if you do want an iPhone you HAVE to obey by the monopolistic structure. You can not obtain the iPhone with an e-Plus, O2 or Vodafone subscription or on its own and put in the card that you as the consumer want to put in. The comparison with i-Drive/BMW is therefore without relevance.
What "one" tends to forget in this very emotional discussion is that the iPhone is a piece of hardware and that T-Mobile is (kindda like) software. As much as you have the right as a consumer to have you computer unbundled of Windows (judgments to that respect in both France and Germany) because you want to install Linux instead - I as the consumer should have the right to unbundle the iPhone from T-Mobile and put in a (say) Vodafone card.
Why is it that no one on this forum thinks that getting rid of Windows to the benefit (?) of Linux is -per se- a bad thing, yet when holy Apple is concerned there seems to be a vortex around common sense ? Visual voicemail (the only generic app that requires T-Mobile) is like the Windows Media Player. If I don't want it i should be able to do without....
Also offer an unlock service through the SP which is based on a flat rate of ?30 once they have been with the SP for 6 months OR if the customer pays out their whole contract.
They will comply with all european rules for mobile handsets and that will end the moaning.
(they can justify the price as they can say that to recover manufacturing costs and 10 years of R & D costs that is why they are on a 18 month contract etc etc)
To put this to bed all Apple need to do is put the iPhone out there off contract (highlighting that visual voicemail ONLY works with a supported carrier on a specific contract) and charge ?1000 for the iPhone. (£725)
Also offer an unlock service through the SP which is based on a flat rate of ?30 once they have been with the SP for 6 months OR if the customer pays out their whole contract.
They will comply with all european rules for mobile handsets and that will end the moaning.
(they can justify the price as they can say that to recover manufacturing costs and 10 years of R & D costs that is why they are on a 18 month contract etc etc)
Gee-wizz. I dont want your calculator. Let's pls be realistic here and take the O2 contract @ 35 UKP, which is 30 UKP w/o VAT. Assuming that O2 was a sucker for the deal and is handing 30% to Apple this equates to 8.90 UKP/month or 160 UKP for the 18 months (which is 250 Euro BTW)
Where you get the 450 quid premium from is beyond me.
Each customer is supposed to pay for his/her contract anyway - but where HE/SHE wants to.
I am no bloody cheapskate - my monthly phone bill is 180 Euro thank you very much ( I am being robbed) and I can afford full price phones (I have to as I live in Belgium) so I am not whining at all.
I am just a strong advocate of freedom of choice and it's nor my role nor my place to be Apple bashing at all. Hell - I probably equate to 0.5% of the yearly revenue the ITS generates back here as I personally think that the combo iPod/ITS is good (no hassle for music....)
I am just hacked off that Aples policies force me either to not have one or buy a jailbroken/hacked/soon to be bricked phone from a dodgy trader @ 999 Euro, which i am not going to do for obvious reasons. I like my statutory warranty of 2 years (thank you Europe :-) )
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).
You've never tried to get a mortgage in the UK then?
+ The contract terms are too onerous
+ There's no 3G
+ There's no MMS
+ It's too expensive
+ The camera's not very good
+ It's got poor reviews compared to devices from other manufacturers
I don't think we need legal battles to sort this issue out - until they beef it up a bit, the iPhone looks like it's heading towards being a flop in Europe all on it's own.
Selling a person a product and not giving him/her ownership is scam.
Well if you read your software agreements in order to be able to post this in the first place, you must have been scamed
cos you don't own your software either!
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.
Still, some people say that it is especially blind when the Landgericht Hamburg is involved...
Well if you read your software agreements in order to be able to post this in the first place, you must have been scamed
cos you don't own your software either!
You might not own the software. But you do own a license which in turn you can legally sell. Yeah there are EULA that forbid this - but once again European regulation super seeds this and you CAN indeed sell your software again. Totally legal.