Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.
You don't get it. Apple doesn't need to make an "offer" for the discussions to break down.
Apple: We want to sell the iPhone through China Mobile, but you will need to split the contract profits.
CM: We don't split profits. And our customers won't buy a locked phone.
Apple: This idea would benefit us both. AT&T in the US projected profits of a gazillion dollars in the first year, and 6 gazillion in the second year, with year-on-year growth for the duration of the contract.
CM: This is not the US market. Our customers will not buy a locked phone without the intention of hacking it. Our customers do not sign on to 18 month contracts. We will sell your iPhone just like we sell any other phones. Unlocked, with a contract-free option.
Apple: No. We will only sell the iPhone through you if we can share the profits. And the phone must be locked, with an 18 month contract.
CM: Well then I guess you won't sell it through us.
I have a strong belief that something exactly like this went down.
Apple could could be making it tougher for the unlockers and jailbreakers. But they aren't.
Instead of bricking unlocked phone with each and every update they went out of their way and warned that a particular firmware update would brick unlocked iPhones. And then, with the next firmware update they fixed the phones that were bricked.
Instead of tweaking the OS with each update to screw with third party apps Apple does nothing.
No, Apple is not concerned or upset about unlocking or jailbreaking the iPhones.
Apple could could be making it tougher for the unlockers and jailbreakers. But they aren't.
Instead of bricking unlocked phone with each and every update they went out of their way and warned that a particular firmware update would brick unlocked iPhones. And then, with the next firmware update they fixed the phones that were bricked.
Instead of tweaking the OS with each update to screw with third party apps Apple does nothing.
No, Apple is not concerned or upset about unlocking or jailbreaking the iPhones.
Could it be that we are all correct in that locked or unlocked this is a win-win for Apple? Unlocked they get cash in hand, while locked the cash take another route. They get paid no matter what happens as long as the phone is purchased.
You don't get it. Apple doesn't need to make an "offer" for the discussions to break down.
Apple: We want to sell the iPhone through China Mobile, but you will need to split the contract profits.
CM: We don't split profits. And our customers won't buy a locked phone.
Apple: This idea would benefit us both. AT&T in the US projected profits of a gazillion dollars in the first year, and 6 gazillion in the second year, with year-on-year growth for the duration of the contract.
CM: This is not the US market. Our customers will not buy a locked phone without the intention of hacking it. Our customers do not sign on to 18 month contracts. We will sell your iPhone just like we sell any other phones. Unlocked, with a contract-free option.
Apple: No. We will only sell the iPhone through you if we can share the profits. And the phone must be locked, with an 18 month contract.
CM: Well then I guess you won't sell it through us.
I have a strong belief that something exactly like this went down.
tonton,
You are making the assumption that it is Apple that is driving this business model. It could be ATT. To keep iPhones off of T-Mobiles' network ATT could had insisted that Apple not sell unlocked phones anywhere in the world. (Yes I know about Germany, but that was by court order not by agreement.) If so, your conversation may had gone the way you wrote but there would had been no way that Apple could had agreed to China Mobiles' terms.
You are making the assumption that it is Apple that is driving this business model. It could be ATT. To keep iPhones off of T-Mobiles' network ATT could had insisted that Apple not sell unlocked phones anywhere in the world. (Yes I know about Germany, but that was by court order not by agreement.) If so, your conversation may had gone the way you wrote but there would had been no way that Apple could had agreed to China Mobiles' terms.
I tend to agree with tonton. As pointed out, Finland had a chance for the iPhone but as it was not 3G, it is illegal to have as long as it is tied to a subscription. The Finns would not change the law to suit Apple so there was nothing further to discuss. When Nokia released the N95 here, many operators tried to tie it with a subscription but many opted to pay full price for it rather than being tied down for 24 months.
Could it be that we are all correct in that locked or unlocked this is a win-win for Apple? Unlocked they get cash in hand, while locked the cash take another route. They get paid no matter what happens as long as the phone is purchased.
But we are talking about two piles of cash here. The first pile is the initial purchase. Apple gets that if the phone stays locked or is unlocked. The second pile is a monthly fee that Apple gets only with locked phones. And as I pointed out earlier this is a substantial amount. It appears that Apple isn't very upset about losing portions of this second pile.
But if this second pile cash that Apple is not collecting is from purchases in countries were Apple does not have a network partner, it doesn't exist and Apple is not losing anything. Plus they do get to collect the first pile of cash.
But if this second pile cash that Apple is not collecting is from purchases in countries were Apple does not have a network partner, it doesn't exist and Apple is not losing anything. Plus they do get to collect the first pile of cash.
Yes, the old "bird in the hand" argument.
If Apple can get x amount for sure vs. x amount based on an variables (AT&T signing up people, people willing to switc, etc....), Apple said "show me the money".
I tend to agree with tonton. As pointed out, Finland had a chance for the iPhone but as it was not 3G, it is illegal to have as long as it is tied to a subscription. The Finns would not change the law to suit Apple so there was nothing further to discuss. When Nokia released the N95 here, many operators tried to tie it with a subscription but many opted to pay full price for it rather than being tied down for 24 months.
sapporobaby
I don't think we are far apart here, just coming at it from different angles. Your example of Finland doesn't mater if by contract with ATT Apple can not sell unlocked iPhones. Apple would approach networks everywhere, including Finland, with locked phones and the ATT business model. If, like in Finland, it is illegal to sell locked phones Apple and the local network would be unable to come to an agreement and Apple would not be able to sell iPhones in that country.
I am getting stronger in my belief that locking the iPhones is an ATT idea. They, with their local competitiveness, are the only beneficiaries to the locked iPhone.
I don't think we are far apart here, just coming at it from different angles. Your example of Finland doesn't mater if by contract with ATT Apple can not sell unlocked iPhones. Apple would approach networks everywhere, including Finland, with locked phones and the ATT business model. If, like in Finland, it is illegal to sell locked phones Apple and the local network would be unable to come to an agreement and Apple would not be able to sell iPhones in that country.
I am getting stronger in my belief that locking the iPhones is an ATT idea. They, with their local competitiveness, are the only beneficiaries to the locked iPhone.
Hi aresee,
Our angles have converged. I am 2.9239348384776 blazillion percet sure that AT&T is behind this. If Apple is true to its mantra of "Think Different", they would like nothing less than to have unlocked phones by the millions out there. However, I will say that I think in there desire to enter the market, they made a deal with the devil. It could be that they were unsure of the selling potential of the device and wanted to spread the risk. Now that the iPhone is a hit, Apple has shown they do not really need any operator to sell iPhones.
No, I didn't miss the point. I just didn't address that point. I was replying to nvidia who didn't see what the financial analysts were afraid of. I pointed out that 1.3 billion dollars in potentially lost revenue would make any financial analyst look up and take notice.
Now as far as the rest of the discussion. In another thread I wondered who first presented the idea that Apple should get ongoing monthly fees for every iPhone account. Apple or ATT? Was Apple squeezing ATT for more money at the cost of cutting their customer base? Or did ATT offer ongoing fees as a way to bribe Apple to stay out of the gray market? Who benefits by the locking/unlocking of the iPhones?
The simple point that I was making is that a high percentage of unlocked iPhone sales are sales that Apple would never have had if the iPhone had been impossible to unlock. Therefore there is no 1.3 billion lost revenue as that figure assumes that those unlocking their iPhones would otherwise have taken a legitimate partner carrier contract.
This is hilarious. Courtesy of Google, just below the posting of the 1 million unlocked iPhones there's on my computer an ad for unlocking the iPhone.
OF COURSE there are so many unlocked phones. Here in Europe I have a several friends who use the iPhone, cracked and unlocked. Apple must have foreseen this when they decided to go exclusive on the rest of the world, which was stupid.
Give us a 3G/HSDPA, unlocked iPhone with open software platform and then take over the market completely.
The simple point that I was making is that a high percentage of unlocked iPhone sales are sales that Apple would never have had if the iPhone had been impossible to unlock. Therefore there is no 1.3 billion lost revenue as that figure assumes that those unlocking their iPhones would otherwise have taken a legitimate partner carrier contract.
Ah, but that's not the way the money people in the record industry, Hollywood and Wall Street see it. They focus on that 1.3 billion in uncollected revenue and see it as a loss. They see all you unlockers as thieves. Now you and I (and maybe Apple) see this as an outside revenue source bring in extra money that would not have been there if it wasn't for the unlockers.
BTW, last week a non-Mac news organization (was it the NYT?) ran an article that the unlocking hackers were getting inside help. Maybe the blue-box ethos hasn't gone completely away.
Comments
Steve Jobs said this speculation was wrong because they hadn't yet made an offer to a Chinese carrier for the iPhone.
You don't get it. Apple doesn't need to make an "offer" for the discussions to break down.
Apple: We want to sell the iPhone through China Mobile, but you will need to split the contract profits.
CM: We don't split profits. And our customers won't buy a locked phone.
Apple: This idea would benefit us both. AT&T in the US projected profits of a gazillion dollars in the first year, and 6 gazillion in the second year, with year-on-year growth for the duration of the contract.
CM: This is not the US market. Our customers will not buy a locked phone without the intention of hacking it. Our customers do not sign on to 18 month contracts. We will sell your iPhone just like we sell any other phones. Unlocked, with a contract-free option.
Apple: No. We will only sell the iPhone through you if we can share the profits. And the phone must be locked, with an 18 month contract.
CM: Well then I guess you won't sell it through us.
I have a strong belief that something exactly like this went down.
Instead of bricking unlocked phone with each and every update they went out of their way and warned that a particular firmware update would brick unlocked iPhones. And then, with the next firmware update they fixed the phones that were bricked.
Instead of tweaking the OS with each update to screw with third party apps Apple does nothing.
No, Apple is not concerned or upset about unlocking or jailbreaking the iPhones.
Apple could could be making it tougher for the unlockers and jailbreakers. But they aren't.
Instead of bricking unlocked phone with each and every update they went out of their way and warned that a particular firmware update would brick unlocked iPhones. And then, with the next firmware update they fixed the phones that were bricked.
Instead of tweaking the OS with each update to screw with third party apps Apple does nothing.
No, Apple is not concerned or upset about unlocking or jailbreaking the iPhones.
Could it be that we are all correct in that locked or unlocked this is a win-win for Apple? Unlocked they get cash in hand, while locked the cash take another route. They get paid no matter what happens as long as the phone is purchased.
You don't get it. Apple doesn't need to make an "offer" for the discussions to break down.
Apple: We want to sell the iPhone through China Mobile, but you will need to split the contract profits.
CM: We don't split profits. And our customers won't buy a locked phone.
Apple: This idea would benefit us both. AT&T in the US projected profits of a gazillion dollars in the first year, and 6 gazillion in the second year, with year-on-year growth for the duration of the contract.
CM: This is not the US market. Our customers will not buy a locked phone without the intention of hacking it. Our customers do not sign on to 18 month contracts. We will sell your iPhone just like we sell any other phones. Unlocked, with a contract-free option.
Apple: No. We will only sell the iPhone through you if we can share the profits. And the phone must be locked, with an 18 month contract.
CM: Well then I guess you won't sell it through us.
I have a strong belief that something exactly like this went down.
tonton,
You are making the assumption that it is Apple that is driving this business model. It could be ATT. To keep iPhones off of T-Mobiles' network ATT could had insisted that Apple not sell unlocked phones anywhere in the world. (Yes I know about Germany, but that was by court order not by agreement.) If so, your conversation may had gone the way you wrote but there would had been no way that Apple could had agreed to China Mobiles' terms.
tonton,
You are making the assumption that it is Apple that is driving this business model. It could be ATT. To keep iPhones off of T-Mobiles' network ATT could had insisted that Apple not sell unlocked phones anywhere in the world. (Yes I know about Germany, but that was by court order not by agreement.) If so, your conversation may had gone the way you wrote but there would had been no way that Apple could had agreed to China Mobiles' terms.
I tend to agree with tonton. As pointed out, Finland had a chance for the iPhone but as it was not 3G, it is illegal to have as long as it is tied to a subscription. The Finns would not change the law to suit Apple so there was nothing further to discuss. When Nokia released the N95 here, many operators tried to tie it with a subscription but many opted to pay full price for it rather than being tied down for 24 months.
Could it be that we are all correct in that locked or unlocked this is a win-win for Apple? Unlocked they get cash in hand, while locked the cash take another route. They get paid no matter what happens as long as the phone is purchased.
But we are talking about two piles of cash here. The first pile is the initial purchase. Apple gets that if the phone stays locked or is unlocked. The second pile is a monthly fee that Apple gets only with locked phones. And as I pointed out earlier this is a substantial amount. It appears that Apple isn't very upset about losing portions of this second pile.
But if this second pile cash that Apple is not collecting is from purchases in countries were Apple does not have a network partner, it doesn't exist and Apple is not losing anything. Plus they do get to collect the first pile of cash.
But if this second pile cash that Apple is not collecting is from purchases in countries were Apple does not have a network partner, it doesn't exist and Apple is not losing anything. Plus they do get to collect the first pile of cash.
Yes, the old "bird in the hand" argument.
If Apple can get x amount for sure vs. x amount based on an variables (AT&T signing up people, people willing to switc, etc....), Apple said "show me the money".
I tend to agree with tonton. As pointed out, Finland had a chance for the iPhone but as it was not 3G, it is illegal to have as long as it is tied to a subscription. The Finns would not change the law to suit Apple so there was nothing further to discuss. When Nokia released the N95 here, many operators tried to tie it with a subscription but many opted to pay full price for it rather than being tied down for 24 months.
sapporobaby
I don't think we are far apart here, just coming at it from different angles. Your example of Finland doesn't mater if by contract with ATT Apple can not sell unlocked iPhones. Apple would approach networks everywhere, including Finland, with locked phones and the ATT business model. If, like in Finland, it is illegal to sell locked phones Apple and the local network would be unable to come to an agreement and Apple would not be able to sell iPhones in that country.
I am getting stronger in my belief that locking the iPhones is an ATT idea. They, with their local competitiveness, are the only beneficiaries to the locked iPhone.
sapporobaby
I don't think we are far apart here, just coming at it from different angles. Your example of Finland doesn't mater if by contract with ATT Apple can not sell unlocked iPhones. Apple would approach networks everywhere, including Finland, with locked phones and the ATT business model. If, like in Finland, it is illegal to sell locked phones Apple and the local network would be unable to come to an agreement and Apple would not be able to sell iPhones in that country.
I am getting stronger in my belief that locking the iPhones is an ATT idea. They, with their local competitiveness, are the only beneficiaries to the locked iPhone.
Hi aresee,
Our angles have converged. I am 2.9239348384776 blazillion percet sure that AT&T is behind this. If Apple is true to its mantra of "Think Different", they would like nothing less than to have unlocked phones by the millions out there. However, I will say that I think in there desire to enter the market, they made a deal with the devil. It could be that they were unsure of the selling potential of the device and wanted to spread the risk. Now that the iPhone is a hit, Apple has shown they do not really need any operator to sell iPhones.
I don't think we'll get an official iPhone release anywhere in Asia, except maybe Japan, until that happens.
No, I didn't miss the point. I just didn't address that point. I was replying to nvidia who didn't see what the financial analysts were afraid of. I pointed out that 1.3 billion dollars in potentially lost revenue would make any financial analyst look up and take notice.
Now as far as the rest of the discussion. In another thread I wondered who first presented the idea that Apple should get ongoing monthly fees for every iPhone account. Apple or ATT? Was Apple squeezing ATT for more money at the cost of cutting their customer base? Or did ATT offer ongoing fees as a way to bribe Apple to stay out of the gray market? Who benefits by the locking/unlocking of the iPhones?
The simple point that I was making is that a high percentage of unlocked iPhone sales are sales that Apple would never have had if the iPhone had been impossible to unlock. Therefore there is no 1.3 billion lost revenue as that figure assumes that those unlocking their iPhones would otherwise have taken a legitimate partner carrier contract.
OF COURSE there are so many unlocked phones. Here in Europe I have a several friends who use the iPhone, cracked and unlocked. Apple must have foreseen this when they decided to go exclusive on the rest of the world, which was stupid.
Give us a 3G/HSDPA, unlocked iPhone with open software platform and then take over the market completely.
/p
The simple point that I was making is that a high percentage of unlocked iPhone sales are sales that Apple would never have had if the iPhone had been impossible to unlock. Therefore there is no 1.3 billion lost revenue as that figure assumes that those unlocking their iPhones would otherwise have taken a legitimate partner carrier contract.
Ah, but that's not the way the money people in the record industry, Hollywood and Wall Street see it. They focus on that 1.3 billion in uncollected revenue and see it as a loss. They see all you unlockers as thieves. Now you and I (and maybe Apple) see this as an outside revenue source bring in extra money that would not have been there if it wasn't for the unlockers.
BTW, last week a non-Mac news organization (was it the NYT?) ran an article that the unlocking hackers were getting inside help. Maybe the blue-box ethos hasn't gone completely away.