Faux News reports that in a related development, GM is filing suit in Federal court to strike down Toyota's exclusive distribution agreement with its own dealers. "This exclusivity is clearly anti-competitive in nature," said a GM spokesperson familiar with the matter. "We view the ability to sell Toyotas at GM dealers as an essential step toward our corporate survival."
It's not about where you BUY an item. Look at music. iTunes and Walmart each have their exclusives, but nobody really cares, because all Walmart CDs can be imported to into iTunes, and all iTunes songs can be burnt to CD.
Now in your example, if Toyota were selling cars that only ran on roads built by one specific construction company, then people would have reason to be upset.
If AT&T can get away with illegally wiretapping its customers, I don't think it will have any problem with this one.
huh? What the hell are you talking about? (and don't say activities under the Patriot Act, that have been upheld by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court for years).
One can debate the need for such wiretaps, but claiming they are illegal is dubious at best.
huh? What the hell are you talking about? (and don't say activities under the Patriot Act, that have been upheld by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court for years).
One can debate the need for such wiretaps, but claiming they are illegal is dubious at best.
Oh crap, abandon ship - I wouldn't even get started on this one if I were you - it's already leaning political and this'll just push it over the edge...
The issue is that it's still not an essential service ... but nobody is going to take them to court for excessive profiteering because you are choosing the buy their product .
What the hell is the deal with taking ANYBODY to the government because they feel they made "too much money" over ANYTHING?!?
We used to have something in this country called Freedom. It's why people came from around the world - sometimes on the most poorly put together boats imaginable - risking their lives to end up on our shores.
Why in God's name are we smothering Freedom to death with busy-body, nimrod bureaucracy? Are we all - as a nation - on crack?
Oh crap, abandon ship - I wouldn't even get started on this one if I were you - it's already leaning political and this'll just push it over the edge...
True, perhaps better discussed over a couple of beers in some casual pub (Then a friendly game of pool afterword).
True, perhaps better discussed over a couple of beers in some casual pub (Then a friendly game of pool afterword).
Hmm, pool or darts - I'll take darts! Let's hope there aren't any Brits reading right now because I'm sure they'd beat the heck out of me. I did beat a Brit (a league cricket player) once when we agreed to play left handed tho! (I'm oddly ambidextrous so that probably helped )
Or maybe it's because people are waiting for the new iphone to launch?
My prediction: iPhone will be over 50% for the third quarter, then back to upper 40% for the fourth, then down to 30ish% for the remaining quarters while people wait for the next new iphone.
While one would expect iPhone demand to wane the further out we are from the previous release date and the closer we are to the next release date, I think there may be another rather accidental factor at play here. In the early part of 2009 there was a lot of buzz around President Obama's Blackberry and his desire to keep it, which resulted in a large amount of free publicity for RIM, and no doubt a lot of interest in Blackberries. This is something that is unlikely to be repeated, and seldom (or perhaps never) mentioned in connection with RIM's Q1 & Q2 sales numbers.
As far as this very welcome investigation into wireless carrier practices goes, I hope they will also be examining the issue of wireless network neutrality, in addition to other aforementioned practices that are anticompetitive and harmful to consumers.
What the hell is the deal with taking ANYBODY to the government because they feel they made "too much money" over ANYTHING?!?
We used to have something in this country called Freedom. It's why people came from around the world - sometimes on the most poorly put together boats imaginable - risking their lives to end up on our shores.
Why in God's name are we smothering Freedom to death with busy-body, nimrod bureaucracy? Are we all - as a nation - on crack?
I wasn't agreeing with the idea of them ruling on essential services, I'm just saying that even in the current political landscape it won't go anywhere because it's not an essential service.
Well, if the exclusivity is henceforth banned by the law, then I suspect that the customer price for the iPhone may increase. Even if the iPhone will be available with more carriers, it may certainly lead to an increase in the price point. This is more so possible, despite a 2-year contract with the carrier.
In that case, the killer could be the data plan charges, and full-fledged services like the tethering, and MMS support.
Well, if the exclusivity is henceforth banned by the law, then I suspect that the customer price for the iPhone may increase. Even if the iPhone will be available with more carriers, it may certainly lead to an increase in the price point. This is more so possible, despite a 2-year contract with the carrier.
In that case, the killer could be the data plan charges, and full-fledged services like the tethering, and MMS support.
I don't see any reason to expect this at all. If anything, availability from multiple carriers will lead to an increase in the subsidy and decreases in the rate plans, as carriers compete to provide the lowest entry point and TCO.
You're right. I'm tendering my resignation now and divorcing my wife. I must have an iPhone!
Haha
And you have the freedom to make that choice.
I think people who live in rural areas with no cell service should sue the government for allowing companies to skip areas where people live. Then the government can force the companies to build cell towers for those families.......then they can sue the company for being a monopoly in that area and charging unfair prices. Then the government steps in again and takes over the company.
You could also say that if there was no civilization at all. The very purpose of government is to force life to be as fair as it can be. That includes being fair to businesses as well as consumers, so the trick is neither over- nor under-regulating.
If the question is whether these exclusivity agreements benefit customers, the answer is obviously no. How could they? There's no reason why a consumer would choose to limit certain handsets to certain carriers.
I don't think Apple has any great love of AT&T. Apple wanted to sell a single iPhone model with worldwide compatibility. By being by far the largest GSM carrier in the US, AT&T got the iPhone almost by default. If Verizon was GSM, Verizon would have got it. To get it while being CDMA Verizon would have had to make it worth Apple's while to change their single-technology plan and they couldn't do that.
Wasn't one of the issues with the iPhone initially that Apple said it needed to test out visual voice-mail? So if a small company wants to use the iPhone, it would need GSM and have a system that supports visual voice-mail. At least, that's my understanding. Seems like a lot of extra set-up and potential upgrades that these small companies would need, and I'm not sure they could actually afford.
I wasn't agreeing with the idea of them ruling on essential services, I'm just saying that even in the current political landscape it won't go anywhere because it's not an essential service.
In the "current political landscape", take nothing for granted.
Let me go off-topic for a minute to show just how upside-down things are: Just a few weeks ago, pensioners who thought they were making safe investments with a car company (because their investment was backed by secured assets) got hosed over.
For young-uns out there that don't know what a "secured asset" is, let me give you an example. You want to buy your first car, or maybe your first home, but you don't have all the money right now? Simple - get a loan. The reason that people are willing to loan you money for something like that is that a) if all goes well and you pay it all off, they make a profit on the loan interest, and b) worst comes to worst and you can't pay off the loan, they have rights that will enable them to get their money back.
In this example they'd probably direct that the item be sold (and you get whatever excess money is made from the sale). In other situations, they might use their rights instead to force management changes at a company. In any event, they have rights - a "bundle of rights" - that were negotiated up front as terms of the loan.
That's what a "secured asset" is. This is the kind of thing that made the economy tick - people putting their money to work for them. They put their money at risk, but not TOO much risk. If the money was at too much risk, the money would be stuffed away in a mattress instead. You wouldn't be buying your first car, your first home, and companies wouldn't be making capital investments. It's those investments, by the way, that give shmucks like you, me, and the schmoe down the street a job.
All that is out the window now. We, as a nation, are on crack.
Or maybe it's because people are waiting for the new iphone to launch?
My prediction: iPhone will be over 50% for the third quarter, then back to upper 40% for the fourth, then down to 30ish% for the remaining quarters while people wait for the next new iphone.
That seems most likely. We?ve seen constant ebbs and flows around the iPhone?s release cycles.
Comments
Faux News reports that in a related development, GM is filing suit in Federal court to strike down Toyota's exclusive distribution agreement with its own dealers. "This exclusivity is clearly anti-competitive in nature," said a GM spokesperson familiar with the matter. "We view the ability to sell Toyotas at GM dealers as an essential step toward our corporate survival."
It's not about where you BUY an item. Look at music. iTunes and Walmart each have their exclusives, but nobody really cares, because all Walmart CDs can be imported to into iTunes, and all iTunes songs can be burnt to CD.
Now in your example, if Toyota were selling cars that only ran on roads built by one specific construction company, then people would have reason to be upset.
Apple had a second chance to rule a market and they screw it up by ignoring the business market and catering only to consumers.
Exchange support is built into the iPhone OS. And aren't most businesses that deploy Blackberries to their staffs under contract?
If AT&T can get away with illegally wiretapping its customers, I don't think it will have any problem with this one.
huh? What the hell are you talking about? (and don't say activities under the Patriot Act, that have been upheld by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court for years).
One can debate the need for such wiretaps, but claiming they are illegal is dubious at best.
huh? What the hell are you talking about? (and don't say activities under the Patriot Act, that have been upheld by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court for years).
One can debate the need for such wiretaps, but claiming they are illegal is dubious at best.
Oh crap, abandon ship - I wouldn't even get started on this one if I were you - it's already leaning political and this'll just push it over the edge...
The issue is that it's still not an essential service ... but nobody is going to take them to court for excessive profiteering because you are choosing the buy their product .
What the hell is the deal with taking ANYBODY to the government because they feel they made "too much money" over ANYTHING?!?
We used to have something in this country called Freedom. It's why people came from around the world - sometimes on the most poorly put together boats imaginable - risking their lives to end up on our shores.
Why in God's name are we smothering Freedom to death with busy-body, nimrod bureaucracy? Are we all - as a nation - on crack?
BTW you do have a choice.
Where to live
Where to work
If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move! :
You're right. I'm tendering my resignation now and divorcing my wife. I must have an iPhone!
Oh crap, abandon ship - I wouldn't even get started on this one if I were you - it's already leaning political and this'll just push it over the edge...
True, perhaps better discussed over a couple of beers in some casual pub (Then a friendly game of pool afterword).
True, perhaps better discussed over a couple of beers in some casual pub (Then a friendly game of pool afterword).
Hmm, pool or darts - I'll take darts!
Or maybe it's because people are waiting for the new iphone to launch?
My prediction: iPhone will be over 50% for the third quarter, then back to upper 40% for the fourth, then down to 30ish% for the remaining quarters while people wait for the next new iphone.
While one would expect iPhone demand to wane the further out we are from the previous release date and the closer we are to the next release date, I think there may be another rather accidental factor at play here. In the early part of 2009 there was a lot of buzz around President Obama's Blackberry and his desire to keep it, which resulted in a large amount of free publicity for RIM, and no doubt a lot of interest in Blackberries. This is something that is unlikely to be repeated, and seldom (or perhaps never) mentioned in connection with RIM's Q1 & Q2 sales numbers.
As far as this very welcome investigation into wireless carrier practices goes, I hope they will also be examining the issue of wireless network neutrality, in addition to other aforementioned practices that are anticompetitive and harmful to consumers.
......Then a friendly game of pool.....
Is there such a thing?
What the hell is the deal with taking ANYBODY to the government because they feel they made "too much money" over ANYTHING?!?
We used to have something in this country called Freedom. It's why people came from around the world - sometimes on the most poorly put together boats imaginable - risking their lives to end up on our shores.
Why in God's name are we smothering Freedom to death with busy-body, nimrod bureaucracy? Are we all - as a nation - on crack?
I wasn't agreeing with the idea of them ruling on essential services, I'm just saying that even in the current political landscape it won't go anywhere because it's not an essential service.
... I hope they will also be examining the issue of wireless network neutrality...
As if they, honestly, have even the slightest clue what that means... I'm not being a cynic - just honest...
In that case, the killer could be the data plan charges, and full-fledged services like the tethering, and MMS support.
As if they, honestly, have even the slightest clue what [wireless network neutrality] means... I'm not being a cynic - just honest...
They may not, but at least some of their staff do. Never underestimate the influence of congressional staff.
Well, if the exclusivity is henceforth banned by the law, then I suspect that the customer price for the iPhone may increase. Even if the iPhone will be available with more carriers, it may certainly lead to an increase in the price point. This is more so possible, despite a 2-year contract with the carrier.
In that case, the killer could be the data plan charges, and full-fledged services like the tethering, and MMS support.
I don't see any reason to expect this at all. If anything, availability from multiple carriers will lead to an increase in the subsidy and decreases in the rate plans, as carriers compete to provide the lowest entry point and TCO.
You're right. I'm tendering my resignation now and divorcing my wife. I must have an iPhone!
Haha
And you have the freedom to make that choice.
I think people who live in rural areas with no cell service should sue the government for allowing companies to skip areas where people live. Then the government can force the companies to build cell towers for those families.......then they can sue the company for being a monopoly in that area and charging unfair prices. Then the government steps in again and takes over the company.
Life is not always fair.
You could also say that if there was no civilization at all. The very purpose of government is to force life to be as fair as it can be. That includes being fair to businesses as well as consumers, so the trick is neither over- nor under-regulating.
If the question is whether these exclusivity agreements benefit customers, the answer is obviously no. How could they? There's no reason why a consumer would choose to limit certain handsets to certain carriers.
I don't think Apple has any great love of AT&T. Apple wanted to sell a single iPhone model with worldwide compatibility. By being by far the largest GSM carrier in the US, AT&T got the iPhone almost by default. If Verizon was GSM, Verizon would have got it. To get it while being CDMA Verizon would have had to make it worth Apple's while to change their single-technology plan and they couldn't do that.
I wasn't agreeing with the idea of them ruling on essential services, I'm just saying that even in the current political landscape it won't go anywhere because it's not an essential service.
In the "current political landscape", take nothing for granted.
Let me go off-topic for a minute to show just how upside-down things are: Just a few weeks ago, pensioners who thought they were making safe investments with a car company (because their investment was backed by secured assets) got hosed over.
For young-uns out there that don't know what a "secured asset" is, let me give you an example. You want to buy your first car, or maybe your first home, but you don't have all the money right now? Simple - get a loan. The reason that people are willing to loan you money for something like that is that a) if all goes well and you pay it all off, they make a profit on the loan interest, and b) worst comes to worst and you can't pay off the loan, they have rights that will enable them to get their money back.
In this example they'd probably direct that the item be sold (and you get whatever excess money is made from the sale). In other situations, they might use their rights instead to force management changes at a company. In any event, they have rights - a "bundle of rights" - that were negotiated up front as terms of the loan.
That's what a "secured asset" is. This is the kind of thing that made the economy tick - people putting their money to work for them. They put their money at risk, but not TOO much risk. If the money was at too much risk, the money would be stuffed away in a mattress instead. You wouldn't be buying your first car, your first home, and companies wouldn't be making capital investments. It's those investments, by the way, that give shmucks like you, me, and the schmoe down the street a job.
All that is out the window now. We, as a nation, are on crack.
Or maybe it's because people are waiting for the new iphone to launch?
My prediction: iPhone will be over 50% for the third quarter, then back to upper 40% for the fourth, then down to 30ish% for the remaining quarters while people wait for the next new iphone.
That seems most likely. We?ve seen constant ebbs and flows around the iPhone?s release cycles.