This is called the law of unintended consequences. Which is why government has to be very careful in laws that it passes and why courts have to be careful as to which precedents it sets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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?
This kind of deal just help the big to become bigger.
This kind of deal doesn't help anything or anyone to get bigger. You can look at Italy --- non-exclusive iphone deal with 2 carriers --- so what, iphone plans are expensive (with some of the smallest data allowance in the world, 250 MB).
The worst iphone deals in the world --- Norway (2 carriers), Denmark (3 carriers), France (3 carriers), the original announced deal from Canada (3 carriers).
The best iphone deals in the world --- Hong Kong (6 carriers) and UK (5 carriers).
Is the issue really that you can only buy an iPhone directly from Orange (in other words, it has nothing to do with who you get wireless service from)?
What's to keep the quaint little cafe on the corner from saying Apple needs to let them sell iPhones too?
That table also confirms that Orange offers an authorized unlocking service.
According to Orange policy last time I checked, the unlock was available at any time upon customer request. If the customer requests an unlock within the first 6 months of buying the iPhone, Orange charges a fee for the unlocking service; after the customer has owned the iPhone for more than 6 months, Orange will provide the unlock free of charge on request. (This in no way removes the obligation for the customer to continue to live up to their obligations for the full life of their service contract, if any, with Orange. It only means that, until their contract with Orange expires, they can also temporarily plug in a different carrier's SIM card.)
People who bought a totally unencumbered French iPhone, actually bought the iPhone outright (thus paying an unsubsidized price in exchange for not having to commit to a term contract) and then paid a additional unlocking fee to have the SIM lock removed before 6 months was up.
So, in that respect, French consumers already have the option of bringing the iPhone with them to whichever carrier they want - they just have to buy it from Orange, use the authorized unlocking service Orange and Apple already provide, and then bring it with them to whichever carrier they wish.
Thus, this issue really does have nothing to do with who you get your wireless service from, and is all about where you buy the headset in the first place.
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.
I cant believe we are even having this conversation, 'france has socialist tendencies', is as true a statement as 'the earth revolves around the sun'.
Its well documented, the current government are even trying to shake off some of their old socialist values, so even the people that govern the country admit it.
By your reasoning, it's impossible to describe anything as anything. I'm not even sure I could describe you as 'wrong' as you are not actually complete and unequivocally wrong. However by my reasoning you are 90% wrong , as such the word 'wrong' would apply.
Personally don't agree with this decision. Not from a self-benefiting position, but as a 'who is right' view, I'd say Apple has the right to sell their product under whatever conditions they want. Nobody is FORCING consumers to buy it!
I understand that after a consumer buys a subsidized iPhone and completes the contract, they should be allowed to unlock it, because they have now fully paid for the phone.
On top of this, they are demanding this to occur IMMEDIATELY? Oh, come on.
Personally don't agree with this decision. Not from a self-benefiting position, but as a 'who is right' view, I'd say Apple has the right to sell their product under whatever conditions they want. Nobody is FORCING consumers to buy it!
I understand that after a consumer buys a subsidized iPhone and completes the contract, they should be allowed to unlock it, because they have now fully paid for the phone.
On top of this, they are demanding this to occur IMMEDIATELY? Oh, come on.
The consumer already can have the SIM lock removed immediately. They just have to pay an early unlocking fee.
This is not about consumer rights. This is a case of one business complaining that another business has (what they consider to be) an unfair competitive advantage.
I cant believe we are even having this conversation, 'france has socialist tendencies', is as true a statement as 'the earth revolves around the sun'.
Its well documented, the current government are even trying to shake off some of their old socialist values, so even the people that govern the country admit it.
By your reasoning, it's impossible to describe anything as anything. I'm not even sure I could describe you as 'wrong' as you are not actually complete and unequivocally wrong. However by my reasoning you are 90% wrong , as such the word 'wrong' would apply.
Having a true conclusion doesn't mean it's still good to use bad arguments to back up the conclusion. I was pointing out some of the silliness of those arguments.
That depends, generally the most coveted phone are exclusive to a carrier
That still doesn't make sense.
That's still an abberation because of a backwards industry, it doesn't really prove anything. Would the Mac platform be more coveted if it were tied to Comcast? Or tied to a specific electricity provider?
This is not about consumer rights. This is a case of one business complaining that another business has (what they consider to be) an unfair competitive advantage.
Good for the french. Phone companies are not supposed to compete with your based on a cool phone and then trap you into crappy service/over priced based on having an exclusive phone. Phone service should be something you choose based on price, coverage, and customer service.
To those who say this stiffles innovation, your wrong. With Apple now competing on all french networks, other comapanies must innovate faster to stop everyone from switching to an iPhone. In fact Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HTC will need to push harder to convince people their phones are better than the iPhone.
I think America would be in a better economic state if we had more regulation. Ronald Reagon was key in removing regulation that had been implemented starting with FDR after the great depression. Look at what year of deregulation by Reagon, Bush & Bush have caused...
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.
Maybe if the politicians who espouse such high ethics with regards to helping those "less successful" for a lack of a better term, did, in fact practice what they preached. I might be more sympathetic to your argument.
But when the Vice-President elect, Joe Biden, says it's time to step up to the plate and be more patriotic when paying more taxes when he on average gave 0.2% to charity versus US households that donated to charity averaging about 3% of their incomes. Then, YES, I raise the specter of government politicians who say that the rich need to give more, when in reality, when those same politicians are not in the spotlight their true colors come out!
"When do we actually get to the part where the evil Robin Hood comes in and shares it with the poor."
To which I say, when does one "pay" enough?
This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
However, people seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
Then there is the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
Good for the french. Phone companies are not supposed to compete with your based on a cool phone and then trap you into crappy service/over priced based on having an exclusive phone. Phone service should be something you choose based on price, coverage, and customer service.
To those who say this stiffles innovation, your wrong. With Apple now competing on all french networks, other comapanies must innovate faster to stop everyone from switching to an iPhone. In fact Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HTC will need to push harder to convince people their phones are better than the iPhone.
I think America would be in a better economic state if we had more regulation. Ronald Reagon was key in removing regulation that had been implemented starting with FDR after the great depression. Look at what year of deregulation by Reagon, Bush & Bush have caused...
Actually it's very BAD for the French --- because it addresses absolutely NOTHING.
There is not enough competition in France --- 3 national carriers (all French owned) and they were found guilty of price fixing.
I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this statement. The current reality is that the best phones are tied to carriers. The Mac is not tied with any internet service provider, I'm not sure how that is applicable.
Can you name a phone that navigated through the politics of all of the carriers and retained the same freedom and functionality with them all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
That still doesn't make sense.
That's still an abberation because of a backwards industry, it doesn't really prove anything. Would the Mac platform be more coveted if it were tied to Comcast? Or tied to a specific electricity provider?
Since when has the iPhone become a necessity of life? Where were these concerns before the iPhone came along? Surely there were, and continue to be, other phones that are exclusive to other carriers. Singling out the iPhone because it's "desired" (vs "necessary") is not something any government should be involved in (in my opinion). I have no problem with government ensuring that the necessities of life are equality available to all. This means electrcity, water, and even phone service. But not which handset you should have access to. Being able to make a phone call is a necessity. Being able to do so on a fancy phone is not.
And if you are going to make exclusive handset contracts illegal because you want fair competition, then you need to make ALL exlusive handset contracts illegal. Otherwise while you are making it "fair" for other companies, you are being unfair to Apple, whose product and business model you are then dictating. How is that any better than the current situation?
Government shouldn't step in because one company is jealous that another company can sell the iPhone and they can't. Apple is in no way interfering with their ability to partner with another phone manufacture and innovate something better.
This isn't about competition, unfair advanage, or even protecting consumers. It's about jealousy, pure and simple. Yes, I'm jealous that I can't get an iPhone because I don't want to switch to ATT. But I'm not going to file a lawsuit or call my congressman about it.
Good for the french. Phone companies are not supposed to compete with your based on a cool phone and then trap you into crappy service/over priced based on having an exclusive phone. Phone service should be something you choose based on price, coverage, and customer service.
I agree with your last sentance, pointing out that you are saying the the handset you get with your phone service is NOT a criteria to use to make your choice. Therefore, this is neither good nor bad for the Frech as the iPhone is irrelevant. The iPhone is a luxury item, not something you are entitled to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
To those who say this stiffles innovation, your wrong. With Apple now competing on all french networks, other comapanies must innovate faster to stop everyone from switching to an iPhone. In fact Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HTC will need to push harder to convince people their phones are better than the iPhone.
The problem with that statement is that it's not Nokia, Sony, or HTC who filed the lawsuit. it's another carrier who complained. I think this has no effect on handset innovation either way. Whether the iPhone is on one network or all of them, Nokia, etc, will need to innovate to compete with it. So you don't need government involved here, either.
Comments
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?
The amount of fail in this thread is astonishing.
MacExpo is not organized by Apple. And it was clear last year that it would be the last.
The amount of fail in this thread is astonishing.
Yes I know that, but the organisers have cancelled it BECAUSE Apple have decided not to attend the show. i.e. Apple have withdrawn from MacExpo Paris.
Free market ?
This kind of deal just help the big to become bigger.
This kind of deal doesn't help anything or anyone to get bigger. You can look at Italy --- non-exclusive iphone deal with 2 carriers --- so what, iphone plans are expensive (with some of the smallest data allowance in the world, 250 MB).
The worst iphone deals in the world --- Norway (2 carriers), Denmark (3 carriers), France (3 carriers), the original announced deal from Canada (3 carriers).
The best iphone deals in the world --- Hong Kong (6 carriers) and UK (5 carriers).
I didn't know. This table says it's locked to the carrier.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1937
Is the issue really that you can only buy an iPhone directly from Orange (in other words, it has nothing to do with who you get wireless service from)?
What's to keep the quaint little cafe on the corner from saying Apple needs to let them sell iPhones too?
That table also confirms that Orange offers an authorized unlocking service.
According to Orange policy last time I checked, the unlock was available at any time upon customer request. If the customer requests an unlock within the first 6 months of buying the iPhone, Orange charges a fee for the unlocking service; after the customer has owned the iPhone for more than 6 months, Orange will provide the unlock free of charge on request. (This in no way removes the obligation for the customer to continue to live up to their obligations for the full life of their service contract, if any, with Orange. It only means that, until their contract with Orange expires, they can also temporarily plug in a different carrier's SIM card.)
People who bought a totally unencumbered French iPhone, actually bought the iPhone outright (thus paying an unsubsidized price in exchange for not having to commit to a term contract) and then paid a additional unlocking fee to have the SIM lock removed before 6 months was up.
So, in that respect, French consumers already have the option of bringing the iPhone with them to whichever carrier they want - they just have to buy it from Orange, use the authorized unlocking service Orange and Apple already provide, and then bring it with them to whichever carrier they wish.
Thus, this issue really does have nothing to do with who you get your wireless service from, and is all about where you buy the headset in the first place.
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.
I cant believe we are even having this conversation, 'france has socialist tendencies', is as true a statement as 'the earth revolves around the sun'.
Its well documented, the current government are even trying to shake off some of their old socialist values, so even the people that govern the country admit it.
By your reasoning, it's impossible to describe anything as anything. I'm not even sure I could describe you as 'wrong' as you are not actually complete and unequivocally wrong. However by my reasoning you are 90% wrong , as such the word 'wrong' would apply.
I understand that after a consumer buys a subsidized iPhone and completes the contract, they should be allowed to unlock it, because they have now fully paid for the phone.
On top of this, they are demanding this to occur IMMEDIATELY? Oh, come on.
No MacExpo in France anymore, as Apple have withdrawn maybe the iPhone will be next!!!
This is like saying there won't be any more consumer electronics because there is no more E3.
Personally don't agree with this decision. Not from a self-benefiting position, but as a 'who is right' view, I'd say Apple has the right to sell their product under whatever conditions they want. Nobody is FORCING consumers to buy it!
I understand that after a consumer buys a subsidized iPhone and completes the contract, they should be allowed to unlock it, because they have now fully paid for the phone.
On top of this, they are demanding this to occur IMMEDIATELY? Oh, come on.
The consumer already can have the SIM lock removed immediately. They just have to pay an early unlocking fee.
This is not about consumer rights. This is a case of one business complaining that another business has (what they consider to be) an unfair competitive advantage.
I cant believe we are even having this conversation, 'france has socialist tendencies', is as true a statement as 'the earth revolves around the sun'.
Its well documented, the current government are even trying to shake off some of their old socialist values, so even the people that govern the country admit it.
By your reasoning, it's impossible to describe anything as anything. I'm not even sure I could describe you as 'wrong' as you are not actually complete and unequivocally wrong. However by my reasoning you are 90% wrong , as such the word 'wrong' would apply.
Having a true conclusion doesn't mean it's still good to use bad arguments to back up the conclusion. I was pointing out some of the silliness of those arguments.
gets blind-sided by decent modern European laws
Now THAT'S an oxymoron if I have ever seen one...
designed to give the consumers a chance for a change
In this case, how exactly is this law doing that?
That depends, generally the most coveted phone are exclusive to a carrier
That still doesn't make sense.
That's still an abberation because of a backwards industry, it doesn't really prove anything. Would the Mac platform be more coveted if it were tied to Comcast? Or tied to a specific electricity provider?
This is not about consumer rights. This is a case of one business complaining that another business has (what they consider to be) an unfair competitive advantage.
more info here
i agree that this is about business
but allowing businesses to compete fairly with one another is key to consumer rights
..if this isn't done, the large businesses just get bigger and bigger and we end up with monopolies.
i find it strange that after the massive and negative consequences of a lack of regulation in the US
people are still against some form regulation !?
sure we don't want a nanny state
but we need controlling bodies in all areas of life (sport, driving, medicine, schooling, food, advertising, appliances etc etc)
why not business ? (after recent experience this should be especially business)
and those people are the first to comment about poor government or regulation after something bad goes wrong... like a $50b loss
To those who say this stiffles innovation, your wrong. With Apple now competing on all french networks, other comapanies must innovate faster to stop everyone from switching to an iPhone. In fact Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HTC will need to push harder to convince people their phones are better than the iPhone.
I think America would be in a better economic state if we had more regulation. Ronald Reagon was key in removing regulation that had been implemented starting with FDR after the great depression. Look at what year of deregulation by Reagon, Bush & Bush have caused...
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.
Maybe if the politicians who espouse such high ethics with regards to helping those "less successful" for a lack of a better term, did, in fact practice what they preached. I might be more sympathetic to your argument.
But when the Vice-President elect, Joe Biden, says it's time to step up to the plate and be more patriotic when paying more taxes when he on average gave 0.2% to charity versus US households that donated to charity averaging about 3% of their incomes. Then, YES, I raise the specter of government politicians who say that the rich need to give more, when in reality, when those same politicians are not in the spotlight their true colors come out!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...inancial_N.htm
"When do we actually get to the part where the evil Robin Hood comes in and shares it with the poor."
To which I say, when does one "pay" enough?
This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
However, people seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
Then there is the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
For current numbers...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Good for the french. Phone companies are not supposed to compete with your based on a cool phone and then trap you into crappy service/over priced based on having an exclusive phone. Phone service should be something you choose based on price, coverage, and customer service.
To those who say this stiffles innovation, your wrong. With Apple now competing on all french networks, other comapanies must innovate faster to stop everyone from switching to an iPhone. In fact Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HTC will need to push harder to convince people their phones are better than the iPhone.
I think America would be in a better economic state if we had more regulation. Ronald Reagon was key in removing regulation that had been implemented starting with FDR after the great depression. Look at what year of deregulation by Reagon, Bush & Bush have caused...
Actually it's very BAD for the French --- because it addresses absolutely NOTHING.
There is not enough competition in France --- 3 national carriers (all French owned) and they were found guilty of price fixing.
http://www.itu.int/ituweblogs/treg/C...ce+Fixing.aspx
They don't have ETF --- they have to pay the balance of the contract to get out of cell phone contracts.
Can you name a phone that navigated through the politics of all of the carriers and retained the same freedom and functionality with them all?
That still doesn't make sense.
That's still an abberation because of a backwards industry, it doesn't really prove anything. Would the Mac platform be more coveted if it were tied to Comcast? Or tied to a specific electricity provider?
And if you are going to make exclusive handset contracts illegal because you want fair competition, then you need to make ALL exlusive handset contracts illegal. Otherwise while you are making it "fair" for other companies, you are being unfair to Apple, whose product and business model you are then dictating. How is that any better than the current situation?
Government shouldn't step in because one company is jealous that another company can sell the iPhone and they can't. Apple is in no way interfering with their ability to partner with another phone manufacture and innovate something better.
This isn't about competition, unfair advanage, or even protecting consumers. It's about jealousy, pure and simple. Yes, I'm jealous that I can't get an iPhone because I don't want to switch to ATT. But I'm not going to file a lawsuit or call my congressman about it.
Good for the french. Phone companies are not supposed to compete with your based on a cool phone and then trap you into crappy service/over priced based on having an exclusive phone. Phone service should be something you choose based on price, coverage, and customer service.
I agree with your last sentance, pointing out that you are saying the the handset you get with your phone service is NOT a criteria to use to make your choice. Therefore, this is neither good nor bad for the Frech as the iPhone is irrelevant. The iPhone is a luxury item, not something you are entitled to.
To those who say this stiffles innovation, your wrong. With Apple now competing on all french networks, other comapanies must innovate faster to stop everyone from switching to an iPhone. In fact Nokia, Sony Ericsson, HTC will need to push harder to convince people their phones are better than the iPhone.
The problem with that statement is that it's not Nokia, Sony, or HTC who filed the lawsuit. it's another carrier who complained. I think this has no effect on handset innovation either way. Whether the iPhone is on one network or all of them, Nokia, etc, will need to innovate to compete with it. So you don't need government involved here, either.