iPhone: AT&T deal under scrutiny by government, Verizon

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 124
    donlphidonlphi Posts: 214member
    This is all about some ____________ lawyer looking to get an iPHONE but doesn't want to switch carriers. It has nothing to do with what is right or "just". The consumer is getting screwed regardless of the carrier. I wanted an iPHONE, I made the switch. This is the same thing I would have had to do if I wanted a RAZR back when they first came out. The same could be said about the Samsung A900 I had. It was offered exclusively through Sprint. If I were a Cingular customer when that phone came out (and didn't realize it was a poor excuse of a RAZR knock-off) I would have had to switch carriers.



    I think most phones are pretty exclusive when it comes to which carrier they go to... at first.



    If you list all the available phones how many of them work on every network? Include the crappy freebies you can get for buying a T-Shirt with your carriers logo on the front.



    I love my iPHONE, it's unfortunate we can't connect with EV-DO and make the thing purr like a kitten, but quite frankly, it is pretty good with the EDGE network and amazing with the wi-fi connectivity. Don't knock it until you own it. \



    As for the legal BS, it doesn't matter what happens unless you work for APPLE or AT&T.
  • Reply 62 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There hasn't been a sudden change. The contract between consumer and AT&T is 2 years, the contract between Apple and AT&T is 5 years.



    Nope, I'm not referring to the consumer contract. I'm referring to the length of the ATT-Apple exclusive:





    Wednesday, July 04, 2007



    Apple has signed up top U.S. telecoms operator AT&T Inc. (T) in an exclusive deal for at least two years to sell the phone in the United States, where customers willing to sign a two-year contract are expected to pay $500 to $600 for a handset.



    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288049,00.html





    By Kristin Graham July 2, 2007




    ...a significant portion will switch to AT&T, as it is the only cellular service permitted to sell the iPhone for two years. Polls have shown that nearly 40% of those planning to buy the iPhone are not yet AT&T customers.




    http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ne-review.aspx







    Both are very recent articles. I'm sure I can find more if I felt like.



    .
  • Reply 63 of 124
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    Nope, I'm not referring to the consumer contract. I'm referring to the length of the ATT-Apple exclusive:





    Wednesday, July 04, 2007



    Apple has signed up top U.S. telecoms operator AT&T Inc. (T) in an exclusive deal for at least two years to sell the phone in the United States, where customers willing to sign a two-year contract are expected to pay $500 to $600 for a handset.



    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288049,00.html





    By Kristin Graham July 2, 2007




    ...a significant portion will switch to AT&T, as it is the only cellular service permitted to sell the iPhone for two years. Polls have shown that nearly 40% of those planning to buy the iPhone are not yet AT&T customers.




    http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...ne-review.aspx







    Both are very recent articles. I'm sure I can find more if I felt like.



    .



    AI and many other, more reputable sites than Fox News, are reporting 5 years. I beleive Verizon also stated that Apple suggested a 5 year contract.



    PS: I just checked foxews.com expecting to find an alternate story reporting the common 5 year exclusive deal but was able to find one. I think Fox News is the only one to not be reporting the 5 year deal.
  • Reply 64 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Can you site any sources that proves this? I know it has been speculated but look at a good hard the ROKR. It's a very poor device in both HW and SW. This limitation may have been a one imposed by Motorola due to significant speed issues with "iTunes" on the ROKR accessing the numerous files files from its DB. Did Apple even create the app for the ROKR or just let Motorola's programmers in on how it needs to be done in order to sync with iTunes properly?



    This 4-page article will give you some good background:



    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.11/phone.html



    Its really not a great technical feat to have over 100 songs on a phone... even back in '05, solip.



    .
  • Reply 65 of 124
    murphywebmurphyweb Posts: 295member
    This is just usual crap from politicians with nothing better to do, it happens all the time and when the individuals realise what an ass they have made of themselves we will hear no more of it. I however think there is a real issue here but am smart enough to realise that in a capitalist economy the market will address any issues in due course.



    Forget for a moment the first 3 month sales of the iPhone, this is no way guaranteed to be a benchmark for future sales, all those on these boards who believe that are deluded. The Apple fans who would buy the phone regardless would have bought one within the first 3 months, it is what happens over the next 21 months that will make or break the iphone. It is the "normal' mobile phone users who will decide the future when their current contracts are up for renewal. Do they pay $600 and sign up for 24 months for an iphone or do they pay a highly subsidised price for one of the many other phones on the market now or the iPhone copies that will no doubt flood the market from the japanese manufacturers over the course of the next year.



    We can all have our opinions but in the end as always the market will make the decision, if Apple's route to market can show a sustained growth in sales then they may well make a success out of it, but there is a big chance they may also have to re-evaluate this route if sales slow down, talk to other carriers, reduce the price etc...



    Personally i would not dream of paying US$600 for a phone that ties me into a 24 month contract, now matter how much i love apple products. And this is the real test for Apple, what most people still want from a mobile device is the ability to make voice calls, send texts and take a few photographs. This is not an opinion btw, this is a fact based on the one billion handsets that will be sold in the world this year, the vast majority are not smart phones by any stretch of the imagination.



    But will enough people buy an iphone to make this venture a success? Who knows, the only thing i do know is that the government will not decide this, the consumer will. So to the people who think the consumer is getting a bad deal by all of this then you know what to do, don't buy one! But you cannot claim the consumer gets a bad deal as the consumer will always dictate the market. Its as bad as all these idiots who complain about WalMart but yet still shop there citing "But we have got no choice" ! Bollocks, shop somewhere else, if everyone did it there would be no monopoly.
  • Reply 66 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    AI and many other, more reputable sites than Fox News, are reporting 5 years. I beleive Verizon also stated that Apple suggested a 5 year contract.



    Yeah, I read the same articles as you. But many of those articles seem to be from a few weeks back, at least. Given the mix of recent articles, the issue seems to be more unclear now.



    Quote:

    PS: I just checked foxews.com expecting to find an alternate story reporting the common 5 year exclusive deal but was able to find one. I think Fox News is the only one to not be reporting the 5 year deal.



    No, Motley Fool, the investing site, was the source of the other quote.



    And, if you want to hear from Reuters (a reputable source, I'd think):



    Apple was criticized in the United States for striking an exclusive deal of at least two years with the largest U.S. telecoms network operator, AT&T Corp, because some customers might suffer weak signal strength despite paying $499-$599 for a handset on top of a pricey two-year contract.



    http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...5?pageNumber=2



    The date on that article? July 5, 2007.



    Sorry solip, but something really does seems to be up. \



    .
  • Reply 67 of 124
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


    Personally i would not dream of paying US$600 for a phone that ties me into a 24 month contract, now matter how much i love apple products.



    I guess you haven't heard that there is NO CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT for buying an iPhone. Now, if you want to have a voice plan with your iPhone then you do need to sign up with AT&T, but again, there is NO CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT. Just simply put in an SSN like 999-99-9999 or use one with a very poor credit rating, like Wilcos. Of course, you'll be paying higher monthly fees that those with a contract but that is to be expected.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


    And this is the real test for Apple, what most people still want from a mobile device is the ability to make voice calls, send texts and take a few photographs. This is not an opinion btw, this is a fact based on the one billion handsets that will be sold in the world this year, the vast majority are not smart phones by any stretch of the imagination. But will enough people buy an iphone to make this venture a success?



    I don't know if what people currently own can be construed as to what people ideally want. I know I have hated, save for the Blackberry, every "smartphone" I have tested due to it's confusing interface. The Blackberry was not a good fit for me as its excessive focus on enterprise business does not fit my needs.



    Yet I decided to buy an iPhone site unseen because it's specs matched my needs. Full internet, video iPod and simple syncing in an eay to use device is what I was after and what I've wanted for a long time.



    Jobs stated that he wants to capture 1% of the cell market by the end of 2008. That is 10M iPhones. But what percent is 10M of the smartphone market? Or the expensive $350+ cell phone market?
  • Reply 68 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by McDave View Post


    I'm an outsider so I don't have first hand experience of AT&T's service the comments seem pretty damning though. I would have thought one of the most powerful electronics brands around wouldn't have entered into an agreement with such a poor carrier without some strict SLAs.



    Of course the inevitable breach of such SLAs could let Apple out of the tie-in prematurely especially after another carrier had become more agreeable to accommodating handset-driven services over their network.



    I think I'm hearing you.





    It's one possible scenario. Not saying its a certainty, by any means.



    Nor am I saying that ATT is a terrible carrier. Just terribly average. \





    .
  • Reply 69 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    ...simply put in an SSN like 999-99-9999 or use one with a very poor credit rating, like Wilcos.



    ZING! Nicely done.



    .
  • Reply 70 of 124
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    Yeah, I read the same articles as you. But many of those articles seem to be from a few weeks back, at least. Given the mix of recent articles, the issue seems to be more unclear now.







    No, Motley Fool, the investing site, was the source of the other quote.



    And, if you want to hear from Reuters (a reputable source, I'd think):



    Apple was criticized in the United States for striking an exclusive deal of at least two years with the largest U.S. telecoms network operator, AT&T Corp, because some customers might suffer weak signal strength despite paying $499-$599 for a handset on top of a pricey two-year contract.



    http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...5?pageNumber=2



    The date on that article? July 5, 2007.



    Sorry solip, but something really does seems to be up. \



    .



    I'm not familiar with Motely Fool and with their DNS name being fool.com I didn't even check them out.



    Rueters I do know and I would like to point out that they say "of at least two years" which is exactly what I'd expect to see from a respectable source.



    You may be on to something here, but I still feel that the deal is for 5 years. A two year deal just doesn't make much sense to me.
  • Reply 71 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I'm not familiar with Motely Fool and with their DNS name being fool.com I didn't even check them out.



    Rueters I do know and I would like to point out that they say "of at least two years" which is exactly what I'd expect to see from a respectable source.



    You may be on to something here, but I still feel that the deal is for 5 years. A two year deal just doesn't make much sense to me.





    That's odd... a 5 year deal just doesn't make sense to me, at least from Apple's point of view.



    Why would Apple want to be limited to selling through only one carrier in the US market for an extremely long period of time? Both Sprint and Verizon are nearly as large as ATT. Even 'little' T-Mobile has around 25 million customers, many of whom likely want an iPhone.



    Sure, some will switch to ATT just to get the iPhone. But others, happy with their present service, will say no. And no one carrier has great service everywhere. There are plenty of areas that have poor enough ATT service that folks residing there won't have the option of getting the iPhone. Those are potential sales, lost. But if the iPhone were multi-carrier, that wouldn't be so. \



    I think Apple, being Apple, was looking to the future when it negotiated with ATT/Cingular. And because they did, its my strong hunch that the exclusive period is for two years, with an option for five. I'm thinking Apple won't be exercising that option, and likely never intended to.





    .
  • Reply 72 of 124
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    Why would Apple want to be limited to selling through only one carrier in the US market for an extremely long period of time? Both Sprint and Verizon are nearly as large as ATT. Even 'little' T-Mobile has around 25 million customers, many of whom likely want an iPhone.



    I don't think 5 years is a long time. I think it's a perfect amount of time for the iPhone platform to mature and for Apple to get a handle on the cell market. They can also bank on the monthly revenue generated by AT&T's payments for "the privilege of being the sole US iPhone carrier." Without this the iPhone may cost several hundred dollars more than it does now.



    If Apple came out with two unlocked phones--one for GSM and CDMA--or one WorldMode phone they immediately up their production and R&D costs for now having to deal with both radios. They also lose any monthly revenue from a lack of contracts and are unable to forward the cellphone market by adding features like Visual Voicemail, though this is really just a benefit to the consumer.



    Also, if Apple released an unlocked phone then carriers like Verizon (assuming it was CDMA) may decide to cripple many features of the phone like they do with so many others.



    An unlocked iPhone turns a device designed to turn the cell market (from the network to the hardware to the software) into a device that becomes a short-lived "Ooh!" factor in HW and SW but quickly fades away as cool, but highly flawed device like the Newton.
  • Reply 73 of 124
    t.lot.lo Posts: 6member
    It's funny to read this from a European perspective - especially from all you free market evangelists out there. This is a classic example of a market failure. Some people here wrote that the carrier lock-in is good for innovation, but the contrary is the case as you can see with the carriers blocking useful functions just to make more money to force you into paid services.



    In Europe you generally do not have locked phones - except for pre-paid contracts. It seems that the American cellphone market is one of the most restrictive in the world.



    I always by my phone separately and have a contract that I can cancel within 8 days. I can buy any (GSM) phone in the world and if I see a cheaper carrier I can switch in no time - without any cancellation fee. Most European carriers are even moving away from the subsidized cell phone model. They don't want it anymore.



    This is also were Apple potentially runs into trouble with their negotiations with European carriers. I'm curious what model they will adopt over here...



    It's also quite interesting that the American market has this "airtime" model, meaning that you even pay if you receive a call. It doesn't work like this in most other places. In Europe, if you are called you don't pay a dime - the caller pays a higher fee than if he would call you on your landline. Which is great because it actually encourages people to talk longer on their phone.



    t.lo
  • Reply 74 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don't think 5 years is a long time.



    Considering iPhone sales lost by not being multi-carrier, 5 years is an eternity.



    Quote:

    I think it's a perfect amount of time for the iPhone platform to mature and for Apple to get a handle on the cell market.



    Apple's been getting a handle on the cell market since '05 and the ROKR. They'll be hitting Europe in a few months, and Asia next year. If they don't have a good handle by then, they're going to be in for a bit of a rough ride.



    Quote:

    They can also bank on the monthly revenue generated by AT&T's payments for "the privilege of being the sole US iPhone carrier." Without this the iPhone may cost several hundred dollars more than it does now.



    Apple would likely seek a cut of the monthlies from any carrier they do business with. The whole point of the ATT deal is to give them a cudgel (ATT's short-term success at the cost of its competitors) with which to force such a concession.



    And there's really no way the iPhone can cost 'several hundred dollars' more. If Apple charged $1000-1500 for it, it would flop. Only the diehards would buy it then.



    Quote:

    If Apple came out with two unlocked phones--one for GSM and CDMA--or one WorldMode phone they immediately up their production and R&D costs for now having to deal with both radios.



    First off, I don't think Apple is going to go the unlocked route, unless of course it was mandated by the government.



    Second off, making two versions isn't terribly tough. Many companies already do this... the RAZR is one example. It's not like Apple has to re-invent the wheel- the chipsets needed are widely available, the issues are well-known.



    Quote:

    They also lose any monthly revenue from a lack of contracts and are unable to forward the cellphone market by adding features like Visual Voicemail, though this is really just a benefit to the consumer.



    If they are forced to go unlocked, perhaps, because that removes their leveage. But what if the govt doesn't step in, and Apple simply offers the same deal to other carriers that they offered to ATT?



    Given the huge initial success of the iPhone, plus a feeling that 'this is where the future is headed', plus the iPhone's ability to drive data plan adoption, carriers that were previously intransigent (hi Verizon) may be reconsidering, even if it means giving a cut of the monthlies to Apple.



    And I know Sprint is getting pretty desperate right now.





    Quote:

    Also, if Apple released an unlocked phone then carriers like Verizon (assuming it was CDMA) may decide to cripple many features of the phone like they do with so many others. This is not for the consumer.



    Again, who knows if Apple is going to be forced to go unlocked. Also, Verizon has released phones on its network that were NOT crippled, such as the Nokia 6256i (a phone I own).



    Quote:

    An unlocked iPhone turns a device that is made to change the cell industry from the network to the hardware and the software into a device that becomes a short-lived "Ooh!" factor in HW and SW but quickly fades away as cool, but highly flawed device like the Newton.



    Again, it really comes down to unlocked vs 'multicarrier via the same deal that was offered to ATT'. I really can't tell you what the Feds are going to do on that one, though from what they're intending to do with the soon-to-be auctioned 700 MHz band (analog TV spectrum that is being freed up as TV goes digital), it seems that they're hot to promote 'device openess'.



    Which, yeah, would seem to be setting a precedent that could expand later.



    .
  • Reply 75 of 124
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


    Or is it because you're too f_____ stupid to know the difference between "democratic" and "democrat"?







    Say what? It's the Democratic Party. Democrat was a derrogatory term used by the Federalists against the Jeffersonians and now the Republicans against the Democratic Party (usually as an adjective but also to shorten the name to Democrat Party) to imply something less than a...well...democratic party.



    Who's too f-ing stupid now? Other than meddling democrats of course?



    Vinea
  • Reply 76 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by t.lo View Post


    It's also quite interesting that the American market has this "airtime" model, meaning that you even pay if you receive a call. It doesn't work like this in most other places. In Europe, if you are called you don't pay a dime - the caller pays a higher fee than if he would call you on your landline. Which is great because it actually encourages people to talk longer on their phone.

    t.lo





    Uh, yeah, except for the fact that European voice rates tend to be quite a LOT higher than in the US. Which is why texting is so popular over there... its cheaper to text than to talk.



    Your usage patterns reflect this:



    Irish Vodafone customers' consumption of voice minutes remained higher than the European average: Vodafone Ireland customers used on average 222 voice minutes each month in the quarter ended 31 March 2007 versus a European average of 142.



    http://www.electricnews.net/article/10077221.html



    Wanna know how many voice minutes Americans use on average per month? Over 700.



    Even doubling the Euro average of 142 voice minutes to reflect free incoming calls (i.e. only one calling party is charged), Americans still talk more than twice as much as Euros do, on average. And for a bit less money (Vodaphone ARPU, in Ireland anyway, is ~45 Euros, or over $60 US. Typical US carrier ARPU is around $50.)



    And, if you're a big fan of free incoming calls even so, Sprint does offer that in the US.



    I'm not saying that the American cellular model doesn't have its problems... it most definitely does. But expensive voice minutes isn't one of them. We actually have it really good there.



    .
  • Reply 77 of 124
    addicted44addicted44 Posts: 830member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trevorlsciact View Post


    That is a load of BS. What it drives is customer lock-ins, that is it's very purpose, and it is anticompetitive. What drives competition is a level playing field. To be fair it is the fault of the consumer who has (collectively) bent over and taken it from the cell phone companies.



    Americans need to start looking beyond their own borders occassionally. America consistently gets the worst phones on the planet (the iphone is an exception, simply because Apple understands the US market better than any other in the world, and only Apple was capable of making a product like the iphone). Even when the US gets good phones from around the planet, they are consistently crippled, and do not live up to their potential.



    For e.g. The Razr. All over the world, outside the US, the Razr was being sold with iTunes, allowing users to download as many songs onto it as they wanted. Except, in the US, the carriers did not allow the razr to carry itunes, so in the US only the rokr series had itunes on it. It was a completely ridiculous situation, ensuring that the best selling phone in the US was still not half as good as its brethren abroad.
  • Reply 78 of 124
    robin hoodrobin hood Posts: 513member
    I'd say part of the reason why average voice minute usage in Europe is lower than in the US are:



    1. Unlimited free incoming calls.

    2. Higher cell phone penetration. In Ireland, it's at 110% right now. That's bound to have an effect on how many minutes are used. And if you do sign a 12-month contract here, most networks will give you free unlimited mobile to mobile calls within their network, or free unlimited weekend calls to all networks.
  • Reply 79 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Who's too f-ing stupid now? Other than meddling democrats of course?



    I'm sorry but, until January 2009, our current President owns the patent on f-ing stupid.... and he isn't licensing.



    .
  • Reply 80 of 124
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Sry, double post.



    .
Sign In or Register to comment.