So far all we've accomplished is spreading more wealth to the wealthy. When do we actually get to the part where the evil Robin Hood comes in and shares it with the poor. People raise the specter of government taking money from the hard work rich and give it to people who do nothing, but we never really seem to get to that part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Who says you have to have a socialist government, to try and pass socialist laws?
Last time I looked, the USA was a Republic with democratic ideals until the government started buying into banks, investment firms, auto manufacturers, electing a president who believes the wealth of others should be taken by the government for the government to decide who gets what (called "spread the wealth around" - to which if anyone is in agreement with that I say, show me where you happily relinquished more of your paycheck to your government then what was already taken out by them?)... Thought so.
It's really really a lot of fun to see how you people on the little big plant U.S.A. interprete the world.
Yes, competition is baaaaad for the consumer. Of course! I guess the next best thing for the consumer Barrack Obama should introduce to tie bying a new car to GM or Ford. Cause competition is bad - it would end with no American car manufacturer left on the market.
Well, have you all had been tied to buy Lehman Brothers Papers, too? Maybe some in the forum are too tied to the believe everything that works in NY City or L.A. also works in the rest of the world - and is exactly what anyone had waited for.
You shall prevail - but keep us out of it. Regards from a (by the way) non-socialist Europe.
Actually, Apple is probably able to leverage the popularity of the iPhone to get an exclusive carrier to pay more per phone because it would allow them to differentiate their service and increase their market share. Apple gains by a higher profit margin, the carrier gains by stealing customers away from their rivals.
If multilple carriers offered the iPhone then it is no longer a differentiater, and any one carrier will not be willing to pay Apple as much per phone because it is no longer a lever for increasing marketshare.
Apple could potentially make up for the lost profit per phone by selling more phones through multiple carriers, but then that also makes the iPhone a commodity which hurts its value down the road and could turn into a downward spiral like the RAZR.
RAZR was a very mismanaged product though.
I don't see this commodity issue, I can buy iPods from just about anywhere, has that really hurt Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
The whole continent in general and in comparison leans towards socialism.
Socialist tendencies.
Whether they choose to call themselves socialist is altogether a different fish.
A duck may not call itself a duck, but it's still a duck.
haha, can you tell it's dinner time.
I don't think you're applying the right terminology here. Other countries on the continent being socialist doesn't make a said country socialist. Might as well be hurling more soundbites that imply guilt by association. Regulatory intervention in itself doesn't mean socialism, conflating the two dilutes the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The reason the iPhone even exists is because of AT&T. Apple did not have a prototype of the phone to show AT&T when they agreed to carry it. AT&T just went on faith that Apple could produce a great phone.
AT&T did not force stipulations on Apple as to the hardware on the phone or force Apple to tie the phone into AT&T services. These are all common practices of every major carrier.
AT&T allowed the iPhone to have unlimited data at a comparatively low price. AT&T does not charge extra for services such as visual voice mail, GPS, media downloads as Verizon and other carriers do.
I doubt that an iPhone wouldn't be possible without a carrier. Maybe makes it easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Who says you have to have a socialist government, to try and pass socialist laws?
Last time I looked, the USA was a Republic with democratic ideals until the government started buying into banks, investment firms, auto manufacturers, electing a president who believes the wealth of others should be taken by the government for the government to decide who gets what (called "spread the wealth around" - to which if anyone is in agreement with that I say, show me where you happily relinquished more of your paycheck to your government then what was already taken out by them?)... Thought so.
I'd say that tends to undermine your above statement! Oops, again...
If someone doesn't believe that the US has a history of socialism, they're probably not paying attention or are trying to ignore it. The difference is only a matter of degree. Also, that "other guy" for president was also proponent of the same "spread the wealth" measure within the last decade.
At least in the US, the iPhone as it is today would not have been possible if it had been open to every carrier.
I'm skeptical of that. The only thing that might have been different is visual voicemail and that the buyers would pay more, and sold fewer units. But Apple fans are accustomed to paying more as the entry fee anyway.
Apart from Visual Voicemail, what exactly have AT&T done that is so "integrated" with the iPhone?
What AT&T brought to the table, and what they deserve to be rewarded for, was the willingness to co-operate with a handset vendor instead of dictating to them. Indeed, they signed up on blind faith - not even having seen the product until right before launch.
It was unprecedented in US wireless history.
Just look at the jerks at Verizon - the latest BlackBerries don't have Wifi - are you kidding me? And people are whining about AT&T?
As stupid a ruling as this is, as others have pointed out Apple has done what they needed to do with the exclusive contracts - they have broken the stranglehold on carriers dictating what the handset makers can do, and shown that there is still plenty of money to be made by being customer focused. So yes, at this point the exclusive agreements are probably not needed.
But it's still a boneheaded decision with equally lame reasoning. If Apple was the sole handset provider out there, it might make sense.
Whatever - it's France and the EU - what do you expect. Thank god they aren't the primary world market or no one would ever have any incentive to innovate or take risks.
I don't think you're applying the right terminology here. Other countries on the continent being socialist doesn't make a said country socialist. Might as well be hurling more soundbites that imply guilt by association. Regulatory intervention in itself doesn't mean socialism, conflating the two dilutes the term.
Regulation plays a large part in socialism..
From Dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED by the community as a whole."
In-fact everything in that sentence applies to France to more of an extent than average. They may not be as socialist as others, but they still socialist by comparison.
Personally, I absolutely love it when some old-fashioned right-wing capitalist company gets blind-sided by decent modern European laws designed to give the consumers a chance for a change.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
Except that the problem of competitiveness has nothing to do with Apple in the first place.
France has 3 national carriers --- that's not enough competition to begin with. And France doesn't allow foreign companies to own a wireless carrier, so all 3 national carriers are owned by French companies.
Bring in a foreign company or two and give them a fourth and a fifth national wireless license --- that will do a lot better for the French people.
All of the carriers have policies to lock phones and software into its proprietary services. Especially smart phones. Verizon would not allow WiFi on the BB Storm. Verizon would not have allowed Google Maps or iTunes on the iPhone, that would conflict with their own services.
Most every phone has the name of the carrier written directly on it. The iPhone is one of only an extremely few phones this is not required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I'm skeptical of that. The only thing that might have been different is visual voicemail and that the buyers would pay more, and sold fewer units. But Apple fans are accustomed to paying more as the entry fee anyway.
Except that the problem of competitiveness has nothing to do with Apple in the first place.
France has 3 national carriers --- that's not enough competition to begin with. And France doesn't allow foreign companies to own a wireless carrier, so all 3 national carriers are owned by French companies.
Bring in a foreign company or two and give them a fourth and a fifth national wireless license --- that will do a lot better for the French people.
The French don't mind owning companies in other countries either.
I find it ignorant the lack of understanding some people have for other people's laws, whether or not they make sense. Capitalism and Socialism are not incompatible and aren't even on the same scale. The opposite of Socialism is Fascism. There are economic ideals and then there are political ideals.
An exclusive deal can support the ideals of the capitalism if that privilege is not abused. There is a fine line between responsible capitalism and destructive capitalism. The state of the current US economy is an example of the latter.
I am actually for non-exclusive deals since it means I can have the phone of my choice with the provider of my choice. From a consumer's point of view this is really good. Maybe a good compromise would be to allow phone companies to have exclusive deals, but limit the length in time in which they can be signed for.
I have an iPhone, but I am in Canada, but I didn't get it with Fido or Rogers. Because I was not happy with the data plans they offered (and the contract length) I have restricted myself to wi-fi only data access (search the web on how to do this). I do lose visual voice mail too, but for the way I use the iPhone this is not a big loss.
From Dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED by the community as a whole."
In-fact everything in that sentence applies to France to more of an extent than average. They may not be as socialist as others, but they still socialist by comparison.
It's common knowledge im afraid.
That is misapplied reasoning. Regulation is part of all forms of government, not just socialist ones. If I took your view, I might as well call all governments socialist.
All of the carriers have policies to lock phones and software into its proprietary services. Especially smart phones. Verizon would not allow WiFi on the BB Storm. Verizon would not have allowed Google Maps or iTunes on the iPhone, that would conflict with their own services.
Most every phone has the name of the carrier written directly on it. The iPhone is one of only an extremely few phones this is not required.
That is called inside the box thinking. One does not have to buy the phone from the carrier.
Apple could just say "Screw France" and take their toys and go home. No French Apple Stores, No online presence in France, No Apple iPhones, ipods or anything else.
Mail all the Apple customers in France a nice later blaming their government and welcome them to find a duty free shop! Blast the EU newspapers with advertisements and press releases announcing the news of the French pull out.
If it was my business I sure as heck would consider it an option. Especially since I was already selling such huge quantities of product outside of lonely France. Apple doesn't need France. France needs Apple.
Of course, the board of directors and the stock holders wouldn't be too happy... But I bet money someone is looking at the option and just how much business they would really lose.
That is so dumd, you just don't know how Apple is happy of this decision, it's been a year since Apple regreted his exclusive partnership with Orange, and just look at the new country : no exclisive partnership.
The French don't mind owning companies in other countries either.
They are not exactly playing fair themselves.
That's correct.
If you look at the best iphone deals in the whole world --- it's Hong Kong (6 carriers) and UK (5 carriers).
The iphone's worldwide launch has taught the world that all those idiotic simlocking laws don't do anything for consumer benefits. The number of carriers is the first thing you should look for.
I agree shouldn't be able to lock phones here either
The problem is that once you pass laws to that effect it becomes a slippery slope. Is every exclusive partnership then illegal or just the high profile ones? A special washing machine only available at Home Depot not Lowe's? Exclusive movie tie-in toys in Happy Meals? Where do you draw the line?
It is better to allow the carrier lock than to start treading into those gray areas. Forcing Apple open the iPhone to all carriers is bad in my opinion, not because of what it means for Apple or the consumer but for the precedents it sets for government interference in free enterprise in general. I say let the free market determine the outcome.
Comments
Who says you have to have a socialist government, to try and pass socialist laws?
Last time I looked, the USA was a Republic with democratic ideals until the government started buying into banks, investment firms, auto manufacturers, electing a president who believes the wealth of others should be taken by the government for the government to decide who gets what (called "spread the wealth around" - to which if anyone is in agreement with that I say, show me where you happily relinquished more of your paycheck to your government then what was already taken out by them?)... Thought so.
It will be interesting to see if it has any kind of rippling effect?
Skip
Ripping effect, dude is the iphone the only phone to be tied to a carrier in the world?
Yes, competition is baaaaad for the consumer. Of course! I guess the next best thing for the consumer Barrack Obama should introduce to tie bying a new car to GM or Ford. Cause competition is bad - it would end with no American car manufacturer left on the market.
Well, have you all had been tied to buy Lehman Brothers Papers, too? Maybe some in the forum are too tied to the believe everything that works in NY City or L.A. also works in the rest of the world - and is exactly what anyone had waited for.
You shall prevail - but keep us out of it. Regards from a (by the way) non-socialist Europe.
Actually, Apple is probably able to leverage the popularity of the iPhone to get an exclusive carrier to pay more per phone because it would allow them to differentiate their service and increase their market share. Apple gains by a higher profit margin, the carrier gains by stealing customers away from their rivals.
If multilple carriers offered the iPhone then it is no longer a differentiater, and any one carrier will not be willing to pay Apple as much per phone because it is no longer a lever for increasing marketshare.
Apple could potentially make up for the lost profit per phone by selling more phones through multiple carriers, but then that also makes the iPhone a commodity which hurts its value down the road and could turn into a downward spiral like the RAZR.
RAZR was a very mismanaged product though.
I don't see this commodity issue, I can buy iPods from just about anywhere, has that really hurt Apple?
The whole continent in general and in comparison leans towards socialism.
Socialist tendencies.
Whether they choose to call themselves socialist is altogether a different fish.
A duck may not call itself a duck, but it's still a duck.
haha, can you tell it's dinner time.
I don't think you're applying the right terminology here. Other countries on the continent being socialist doesn't make a said country socialist. Might as well be hurling more soundbites that imply guilt by association. Regulatory intervention in itself doesn't mean socialism, conflating the two dilutes the term.
The reason the iPhone even exists is because of AT&T. Apple did not have a prototype of the phone to show AT&T when they agreed to carry it. AT&T just went on faith that Apple could produce a great phone.
AT&T did not force stipulations on Apple as to the hardware on the phone or force Apple to tie the phone into AT&T services. These are all common practices of every major carrier.
AT&T allowed the iPhone to have unlimited data at a comparatively low price. AT&T does not charge extra for services such as visual voice mail, GPS, media downloads as Verizon and other carriers do.
I doubt that an iPhone wouldn't be possible without a carrier. Maybe makes it easier.
Who says you have to have a socialist government, to try and pass socialist laws?
Last time I looked, the USA was a Republic with democratic ideals until the government started buying into banks, investment firms, auto manufacturers, electing a president who believes the wealth of others should be taken by the government for the government to decide who gets what (called "spread the wealth around" - to which if anyone is in agreement with that I say, show me where you happily relinquished more of your paycheck to your government then what was already taken out by them?)... Thought so.
I'd say that tends to undermine your above statement! Oops, again...
If someone doesn't believe that the US has a history of socialism, they're probably not paying attention or are trying to ignore it. The difference is only a matter of degree. Also, that "other guy" for president was also proponent of the same "spread the wealth" measure within the last decade.
I doubt that an iPhone wouldn't be possible without a carrier. Maybe makes it easier.
At least in the US, the iPhone as it is today would not have been possible if it had been open to every carrier.
I'm skeptical of that. The only thing that might have been different is visual voicemail and that the buyers would pay more, and sold fewer units. But Apple fans are accustomed to paying more as the entry fee anyway.
we should have the same thing here in the US.
I agree shouldn't be able to lock phones here either
Apart from Visual Voicemail, what exactly have AT&T done that is so "integrated" with the iPhone?
What AT&T brought to the table, and what they deserve to be rewarded for, was the willingness to co-operate with a handset vendor instead of dictating to them. Indeed, they signed up on blind faith - not even having seen the product until right before launch.
It was unprecedented in US wireless history.
Just look at the jerks at Verizon - the latest BlackBerries don't have Wifi - are you kidding me? And people are whining about AT&T?
As stupid a ruling as this is, as others have pointed out Apple has done what they needed to do with the exclusive contracts - they have broken the stranglehold on carriers dictating what the handset makers can do, and shown that there is still plenty of money to be made by being customer focused. So yes, at this point the exclusive agreements are probably not needed.
But it's still a boneheaded decision with equally lame reasoning. If Apple was the sole handset provider out there, it might make sense.
Whatever - it's France and the EU - what do you expect. Thank god they aren't the primary world market or no one would ever have any incentive to innovate or take risks.
I don't think you're applying the right terminology here. Other countries on the continent being socialist doesn't make a said country socialist. Might as well be hurling more soundbites that imply guilt by association. Regulatory intervention in itself doesn't mean socialism, conflating the two dilutes the term.
Regulation plays a large part in socialism..
From Dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED by the community as a whole."
In-fact everything in that sentence applies to France to more of an extent than average. They may not be as socialist as others, but they still socialist by comparison.
It's common knowledge im afraid.
Personally, I absolutely love it when some old-fashioned right-wing capitalist company gets blind-sided by decent modern European laws designed to give the consumers a chance for a change.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
Except that the problem of competitiveness has nothing to do with Apple in the first place.
France has 3 national carriers --- that's not enough competition to begin with. And France doesn't allow foreign companies to own a wireless carrier, so all 3 national carriers are owned by French companies.
Bring in a foreign company or two and give them a fourth and a fifth national wireless license --- that will do a lot better for the French people.
Most every phone has the name of the carrier written directly on it. The iPhone is one of only an extremely few phones this is not required.
I'm skeptical of that. The only thing that might have been different is visual voicemail and that the buyers would pay more, and sold fewer units. But Apple fans are accustomed to paying more as the entry fee anyway.
Except that the problem of competitiveness has nothing to do with Apple in the first place.
France has 3 national carriers --- that's not enough competition to begin with. And France doesn't allow foreign companies to own a wireless carrier, so all 3 national carriers are owned by French companies.
Bring in a foreign company or two and give them a fourth and a fifth national wireless license --- that will do a lot better for the French people.
The French don't mind owning companies in other countries either.
They are not exactly playing fair themselves.
An exclusive deal can support the ideals of the capitalism if that privilege is not abused. There is a fine line between responsible capitalism and destructive capitalism. The state of the current US economy is an example of the latter.
I am actually for non-exclusive deals since it means I can have the phone of my choice with the provider of my choice. From a consumer's point of view this is really good. Maybe a good compromise would be to allow phone companies to have exclusive deals, but limit the length in time in which they can be signed for.
I have an iPhone, but I am in Canada, but I didn't get it with Fido or Rogers. Because I was not happy with the data plans they offered (and the contract length) I have restricted myself to wi-fi only data access (search the web on how to do this). I do lose visual voice mail too, but for the way I use the iPhone this is not a big loss.
Regulation plays a large part in socialism..
From Dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED by the community as a whole."
In-fact everything in that sentence applies to France to more of an extent than average. They may not be as socialist as others, but they still socialist by comparison.
It's common knowledge im afraid.
That is misapplied reasoning. Regulation is part of all forms of government, not just socialist ones. If I took your view, I might as well call all governments socialist.
All of the carriers have policies to lock phones and software into its proprietary services. Especially smart phones. Verizon would not allow WiFi on the BB Storm. Verizon would not have allowed Google Maps or iTunes on the iPhone, that would conflict with their own services.
Most every phone has the name of the carrier written directly on it. The iPhone is one of only an extremely few phones this is not required.
That is called inside the box thinking. One does not have to buy the phone from the carrier.
Apple could just say "Screw France" and take their toys and go home. No French Apple Stores, No online presence in France, No Apple iPhones, ipods or anything else.
Mail all the Apple customers in France a nice later blaming their government and welcome them to find a duty free shop! Blast the EU newspapers with advertisements and press releases announcing the news of the French pull out.
If it was my business I sure as heck would consider it an option. Especially since I was already selling such huge quantities of product outside of lonely France. Apple doesn't need France. France needs Apple.
Of course, the board of directors and the stock holders wouldn't be too happy... But I bet money someone is looking at the option and just how much business they would really lose.
That is so dumd, you just don't know how Apple is happy of this decision, it's been a year since Apple regreted his exclusive partnership with Orange, and just look at the new country : no exclisive partnership.
The French don't mind owning companies in other countries either.
They are not exactly playing fair themselves.
That's correct.
If you look at the best iphone deals in the whole world --- it's Hong Kong (6 carriers) and UK (5 carriers).
The iphone's worldwide launch has taught the world that all those idiotic simlocking laws don't do anything for consumer benefits. The number of carriers is the first thing you should look for.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that the iPhone would not be what it is today, if Apple had offered it to all carriers.
That is called inside the box thinking. One does not have to buy the phone from the carrier.
I agree shouldn't be able to lock phones here either
The problem is that once you pass laws to that effect it becomes a slippery slope. Is every exclusive partnership then illegal or just the high profile ones? A special washing machine only available at Home Depot not Lowe's? Exclusive movie tie-in toys in Happy Meals? Where do you draw the line?
It is better to allow the carrier lock than to start treading into those gray areas. Forcing Apple open the iPhone to all carriers is bad in my opinion, not because of what it means for Apple or the consumer but for the precedents it sets for government interference in free enterprise in general. I say let the free market determine the outcome.
This kind of deal just help the big to become bigger.