No. We have every right to sound off if we're not happy with things, and we're going to carry on.
You have every right to "sound off" but I have every right to ask you not too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neondiet
We are the consumers. We do not exist for the benefit of Apple (or anyone else for that matter) conversely Apple would not exist if it were not for us. We have a voice, and the right to use it and to vote with our wallets. Apple should ignore us at their peril.
You are consumers, if Apple want to ignore you then so be it. They should be free to do that and free to sell their product through whoever they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neondiet
Rubbish. Orange for example already has an EDGE network. UK consumers would have had a better experience with the iPhone if Apple had chosen them over O2. But Apple just followed the money instead.
Like I said above you may be correct, if Orange did then I stand corrected. Personally I was one of Oranges first customers within the first 5k I believe. But I left them for 02 for the phone. its called choice Apple choose to sell it on 02 I choose to buy it you choose not to. Deal with it
Quote:
Originally Posted by neondiet
Yes it IS different, very different. And 18 month contracts are NOT standard in the UK. I live here, and I've never had to sign a contract greater than 12 months in my life. You are talking out of your backside!
Everything is different to some degree, 18 month contracts are the standards being applied within the UK. Sorry but you are just plain wrong. 18 month contracts are being placed upon people renewing unless specifically complained about same for new contracts. Please see below all are default 18 months. As the networks slowly remove 12 not wanting to jump the gun on each other and force people to another network.
I am a big Apple fan - but their attempt to re-invent the phone market as a new player with one single phone was arrogant, un-called for, and it will fail if they do not move. And somehow they deserve it - taking choice away from customers is a bad thing.
Another person who has missed the reasons for the Apple/Telco deals. Let's step back and look at the landscape at the end of last year. Based on rumours that Apple was toying with a phone, and knowing how Apple came to control the digital music business because of a great model, the telcos and other phone makers panicked and it became clear that IF Apple simply released a phone, that there would be buyers, certainly, but NO CARRIERS. No one wanted Apple in their play pen.
Thus, the Apple /Telco deals that guaranteed that the iPhone would at least get a foot-hold.
Now, the gutless wonders who sat on the sidelines, like Vodafone, now want to play because, surprise,, surprise, the iphone is a hit.
The fact that Europeans are used to free phones, unlocked, etc may not matter, as the iPhone is here to stay and the European courts will decide what the telcos have to do. Apple has succeeded and even if they are cut off from the revenue stream from the telcos, it may not be that big a hit in the long run. But bravo, to Apple and the carriers who played -- the mindless, unadventurous who didn't and are now crying foul-- I wouldn't use them as a carrier if they were the last one on Earth, They are just trying to capitalize on the pioneers' gutsy foray after the risks appeared to be minimal. Weak as dishwater!
So, you too have let the "me, myself and I" factor become the more important issue here-- and not that Apple and ATT eg, did something great. This was not about limiting choice for the sake of it, as your post suggests Apple loves to do, but rather it is about succeeding in a viciously hostile environment-- a point clearly missed by the European critics, who nearly always fail to equate reward with risk-- just give to me free and to hell with how you might succeed. Myopic to say the least.
Thus, the Apple /Telco deals that guaranteed that the iPhone would at least get a foot-hold.
Now, the gutless wonders who sat on the sidelines, like Vodafone, now want to play because, surprise,, surprise, the iphone is a hit.
Quite correct. First, the telcos tried to blockade Apple out of the cell phone business. Then, they tried (and are still trying) to copy Apple out of the business. Now, they are trying to sue Apple out of the handset business. The EU does not hold the moral high ground over American business. They are, in fact, exactly like American business in this respect. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. Truth be told, suing is the highest form of flattery. If you can't beat them, and you can't join them, sue them. Way to go EU telecom. You have just admitted that Apple is eating your lunch.
I know, it isn't Apple's responsibility to change the entire cell phone industry in the U.S. But how about this: In the U.S., the reason most people get locked into contracts is because the phone becomes subsidized, so the consumer's buying power goes up and they can get a fancier phone. Apple has arguably made matters WORSE now. They have introduced a new concept of
customer gets locked into contract
gets locked to a single provider (AT&T has stated they will not unlock iPhones as they will other handsets after contract termination)
and still have to pay full price for the hardware!
Suppose for a second that the Apple intended to sell the iPhone for eg $800 but then went to AT&T and asked them: You can have it for $800 and then subsidize it down to $400 or we sell it to you for $400 and we get 20% of your revenue for the next two years.
- Advantage for AT&T, only their SIMs will be allowed to work in the devices for x years.
- Advantage for Apple: they can claim that the iPhone only costs $400 (and sell it themselves for that price) and they have control of the price preventing it being eroded by special offers (maintains the perceived value of the product better).
If anywhere in the world the iPhone is sold unlocked that deal breaks down. First the unlocked version will have to be sold at $800, that destroys the notion of uniform ('low') price and takes some pricing power away from Apple. And it takes the exclusivity away from the carrier.
I am all for unlocked iPhones but aggressive subsidizing will destroy some of the value of the iPhone.
Another person who has missed the reasons for the Apple/Telco deals. Let's step back and look at the landscape at the end of last year. Based on rumours that Apple was toying with a phone, and knowing how Apple came to control the digital music business because of a great model, the telcos and other phone makers panicked and it became clear that IF Apple simply released a phone, that there would be buyers, certainly, but NO CARRIERS. No one wanted Apple in their play pen.
Thus, the Apple /Telco deals that guaranteed that the iPhone would at least get a foot-hold.
Now, the gutless wonders who sat on the sidelines, like Vodafone, now want to play because, surprise,, surprise, the iphone is a hit.
The fact that Europeans are used to free phones, unlocked, etc may not matter, as the iPhone is here to stay and the European courts will decide what the telcos have to do. Apple has succeeded and even if they are cut off from the revenue stream from the telcos, it may not be that big a hit in the long run. But bravo, to Apple and the carriers who played -- the mindless, unadventurous who didn't and are now crying foul-- I wouldn't use them as a carrier if they were the last one on Earth, They are just trying to capitalize on the pioneers' gutsy foray after the risks appeared to be minimal. Weak as dishwater!
So, you too have let the "me, myself and I" factor become the more important issue here-- and not that Apple and ATT eg, did something great. This was not about limiting choice for the sake of it, as your post suggests Apple loves to do, but rather it is about succeeding in a viciously hostile environment-- a point clearly missed by the European critics, who nearly always fail to equate reward with risk-- just give to me free and to hell with how you might succeed. Myopic to say the least.
You could try to tell that to some people that have to pay off 300% of the market value of their house and cannot even sell it for 100%.
Where did the 300% $$ go? Did they choose to live above their means??? And now they have to suffer the consequences??????
It SUCKS to be an adult doesn't it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neondiet
When the music labels spoke out and claimed they should get a revenue share from iPod sales, we all jumped up and down, blew raspberries and called them greedy scum sucking parasites. How is Apple behaving any different with the iPhone? It's greedy, it's an abuse of power from Apple, and it doesn't benefit the consumer.
In both these cases (ipod and iphone) Apple is the one who innovated, and made a product that people want. Now, companies losing money (Big Music and Voda) want a share in Apple's success.
You can buy another mp3 player, you can buy another cell phone.
I don't get why it's greedy to invent and sell something that people want.
If you want it so bad, suck it up and pay the price.
I want to travel to France every weekend to see family, but the big bad airlines are forcing me to stay here with their ticket-tied-to-their-airline plans, and their greedy high ticket prices! Woe is me, can I has some guvment aid?
As someone who uses an unlocked, jailbroken iPhone on T-Mobile USA every day, I read this thread with great amusement. The irony is so thick I need a machete to walk through it.
Apple is completely free to create onerous and execrable contracts (and dubiously legal EULAs) attached to its phone, to make as much money as it can.
I am completely free to buy the phone and use it how I please--including unlocking, or disassembly for use as Christmas ornaments.
Once I can't use it in the way that I intend, I'll put it up on eBay and buy an unlocked Nokia with the proceeds.
Hmm, what is your agenda? Adobe and Tivoli charge "foreign" customers some 200-250% for everything.
Apple - even if I dislike it a lot, everybody wants cheaper - is fully within the regular margins. They do not really overcharge more than anybody else - and keeping some fluctuation reserve is normal business conduct. I certainly will continue to buy things with an Apple logo - I can buy a Mac Pro with 8 cores for less than what the entire competition offers, great engineering, great design and best support in the industry - no problem here. I will not pay an iPhone at the current German conditions, but I do not appreciate to be hi-jacked. Nobody here did ask for an Apple boycott and I suggest, there are a few dozen companies that would deserve that more. Is your last name still Ballmer?
My agenda is getting people to invoke change through consumer action, not government interference. If Adobe is worse than Apple then I strongly suggest people outside the USA stop buying their products. People will still need to produce printed and web based content so that provides a perfect opportunity for competition. Any company with a decent product that charges local prices should clean up in the marketplace. Given that Europe is much bigger than the US and Asia much bigger again, a competitor that charges even American prices on the other side of the oceans could wipe out all memories of Adobe within 2 years.
Any company that wants to sell worldwide needs to think worldwide. The alternative is sticking to the American market and the limitations that imposes.
You have every right to "sound off" but I have every right to ask you not too.
Of cause you do. Don't expect me (or anyone else) to take any notice of you though.
Quote:
You are consumers, if Apple want to ignore you then so be it. They should be free to do that and free to sell their product through whoever they want.
I never said they weren't free to do that. I'm referring to consumer choice and the leverage applied by consumer buying power. If you think Apple are blind to that, then I refer you back to the sudden price drop that Apple applied to the iPhone only a few months after launch and the voucher offer that went with it. That was a direct result of Apple getting it wrong and taking big steps to make sure that the price point was right with consumers to keep iPhone momentum going. They didn't do that out of generosity, they did that because the iPhone wasn't selling as they wanted it. That's consumer power in action!
Quote:
Everything is different to some degree, 18 month contracts are the standards being applied within the UK. Sorry but you are just plain wrong. 18 month contracts are being placed upon people renewing unless specifically complained about same for new contracts. Please see below all are default 18 months. As the networks slowly remove 12 not wanting to jump the gun on each other and force people to another network.
Your two examples both disprove your point. Maybe you should have read them better. The first offers both 12 and 18 month contracts. The second offers 12, 18 and 24 month contracts. Neither offer any evidence that 18 month contracts are becoming the industry norm or that 12 month contracts are going away. What you can read from both those sites is that the vendors involved are getting smarter, and offering different price points at different length contracts in order to appeal to a broader customer base. Nothing more sinister than that. So you can put your tin foil hat back in its box.
Sorry but you are wrong. I am well aware that there are more manufacturers then Apple and more operators. BUT - if you do want an iPhone you HAVE to obey by the monopolistic structure. You can not obtain the iPhone with an e-Plus, O2 or Vodafone subscription or on its own and put in the card that you as the consumer want to put in.
This is not a monopoly. What would be the point of companies spending their own resources to develop innovative products if they were forced by law to share that innovation with competitors.
I think what this boils down to is that everyone knows the iPhone is a great product. And don't like the business model Apple has set up for it. Which is fine you don't have to like it. But Apple should be free to assign any business model it chooses for its own products.
Apple is not free to block its competitors from creating their own phones that directly compete with the iPhone. e-Plus, O2, and Vodofone are free to create a phone that competes with the iPhone. The truth is most of you complaining do not have faith that they can produce a phone as good as the iPhone. Essentially you feel Apple has a monopoly on the freedom to use an excellent phone.
It is not in the price range of an N95. I can go to O2 right now and pick up an N95 for free with a £30 a month plan. The iPhone is £270. That is its biggest problem here. There is no way it can do well with this huge price premium.
I see. The regular price of the N95 was approx. 760 EUR (unlocked) when it was released here (it came down quite a bit during the last two months, you can easily find it unlocked for 450 EUR by now). Some other "luxury" mobiles like the various editions of the Nokia 8800 have been selling unlocked between 800 and 1000 EUR - and did sell well (no, I have no figures, but there was significant waiting time when ordering and there are tons of second hand ones on eBay now, so somebody did buy).
I am confident the iPhone would sell very well at 700 (or maybe even 800 EUR) unlocked. Of course they cannot keep that price level up forever, but this is normally no issue, as the next model will take over the price point rather soon. They do that with all equipment, it would also work for a phone.
Another person who has missed the reasons for the Apple/Telco deals. Let's step back and look at the landscape at the end of last year. Based on rumours that Apple was toying with a phone, and knowing how Apple came to control the digital music business because of a great model, the telcos and other phone makers panicked and it became clear that IF Apple simply released a phone, that there would be buyers, certainly, but NO CARRIERS. No one wanted Apple in their play pen.
I have not missed anything. You are applying US market conditions to the rest of the world, and this does not work.
In Europe you do not need a Telco to market or support a mobile, you put it in a box, say with which GSM networks it is compatible and what the price is. You could also just tell people, if you want visual voicemail, you need to book tariff xyz with T-Mobile. Almost every mobile here sells with "features" marked as being carrier-dependant, people do know that. The iPhone does work with regular voicemail systems, you do not miss one single feature from your chosen provider.
GSM is a standard. You do not need a carriers support or authorisation to release or market a mobile at all. You need the regulatory approvals, and that's it.
In Germany there is no mandatory link between mobiles and networks. A lot of the Telcos do only offer a very limited selection of mobiles and are normally far behind with new models. Some carriers like Vodafone also cripple the software and put their ugly logo into everything. Most people do not want that. We are used to buy mobiles without contract from electronic shops, computer shops, online shops, the bakery or eBay. For most people looking for an advanced phone, the Telco is the last place they would look at.
It is possible that the AT&T deal was good (or required) for getting the iPhone out in the US. In Europe these exclusive deals only limit the phones potential, break the law and annoy people. If they try the same thing in Asia, it will be a disaster.
I am confident the iPhone would sell very well at 700 (or maybe even 800 EUR) unlocked. Of course the cannot keep that price level up forever, but this is normally no issue, as the next model will take over the price point rather soon. They do that with all equipment, it would also work for a phone.
From what I've seen I think this misses what Apple plans to do with the iPhone. They are not following the same model as Nokia and all the rest. The prices go down before an entirely new phone is launched with new functions and updates hardware.
Apple will make major updates to the OS adding functionality for two years. Which is something no other mobile phone manufacture does. That is what will allow Apple to continue selling the hardware at a high price.
From what I've seen I think this misses what Apple plans to do with the iPhone. They are not following the same model as Nokia and all the rest. The prices go down before an entirely new phone is launched with new functions and updates hardware.
Apple will make major updates to the OS adding functionality for two years. Which is something no other mobile phone manufacture does. That is what will allow Apple to continue selling the hardware at a high price.
Hmm, you are right - just, I doubt that this model is really working out:
- Apple TV (same accounting model): one meagre update (adding YouTube) in the beginning and now, silence
- The only significant update to the iPhone so far was the addition of the Wifi Store (something that makes Apple money) - not impressive overall
- After they release the SDK and third parties will generate applications that can be legally installed, Apple will not invest a dime in developing applications, that are widely available and accepted by the users
- Other phone makers DO deliver phone updates, they might not do that accounting exercise mandated by US SEC. All my Nokia and Sony Ericsson smartphones received free software updates. So Apple is not doing anything new here either. Other phones do run an OS too. They simply pull their hair trying to find an argument why the iPhone is special and mandates a different contract model, but there is no argument. It is a regular GSM phone, nothing else (great design, gorgeous UI, a little short on features).
- You really think they will be able to sell the iPhone for the same price with that argument? Once there is a 3G model for the same price? Or simply another 2G model with better BT, camera and more memory? How will they market that? Get less for more? I just do not see that. People who always buy the latest and greatest mobiles over here, buy at least one per year - 2 year software updates do not justify a dime.
Hmm, you are right - just, I doubt that this model is really working out:
I think we need to give it more time to see what they do. 6 months isn't very long.
Quote:
Apple TV (same accounting model): one meagre update (adding YouTube) in the beginning and now, silence
I think Apple wants to set up a rental service for ATV. The movie/tv studios are afraid of Apple taking as much control over movie downloads as they have over music. At this point they are not sure of ATV future direction, which is why Jobs has called it a hobby.
I agree however Apple is needlessly allowing ATV to flounder. Apple should partner with Netflix to offer a download rental service. They are both missing pieces the other needs. Netflix has a huge rental catalogue and a large consumer base. Apple has the hardware needed to deliver content from online to television.
Quote:
The only significant update to the iPhone so far was the addition of the Wifi Store (something that makes Apple money) - not impressive overall
Most of the updates have been firmware and security fixes. Major portions of the OS have been rewritten since the iPhone was launched in June. I don't have a problem with them shoring up the OS before introducing more major feature upgrades.
Quote:
After they release the SDK and third parties will generate applications that can be legally installed, Apple will not invest a dime in developing applications, that are widely available and accepted by the users
How do you know that? iPhone sales are accounted for over a 24 month period so they could continue to update the phone. I doubt Apple did this for no reason.
Quote:
Other phone makers DO deliver phone updates, they might not do that accounting exercise mandated by US SEC. All my Nokia and Sony Ericsson smartphones received free software updates. So Apple is not doing anything new here either. Other phones do run an OS too.
I know other phones have OS. Are these updates bug fixes or do they actually add major functionality at no extra cost that wasn't available previously? Apple representatives have stated most of the complaints of missing features are software updates that will be addressed in the future,
Quote:
They simply pull their hair trying to find an argument why the iPhone is special and mandates a different contract model, but there is no argument. It is a regular GSM phone, nothing else (great design, gorgeous UI, a little short on features).
I don't think its that hard to understand. They want control over pricing and end user experience. Something that no other phone manufacturer has control over.
Revenue from service contracts could be justified to cover the expense of rewriting the OS and developing new features and services for the iPhone. As an example the Google Maps widget did not come from Google. Apple wrote the app using Google API's.
Quote:
You really think they will be able to sell the iPhone for the same price with that argument? Once there is a 3G model for the same price? Or simply another 2G model with better BT, camera and more memory.
No that's not what I meant. I'm saying the price of the current 8GB iPhone is likely to never decrease below where it is now. When Apple introduces a new phone they will discontinue the current 8GB iPhone and replace it with the new model at the same price.
They will not follow the same route of Nokia of releasing a phone at a high premium price which over time decreases until it is offered free with contract. Then releasing a new phone at a high premium price which will follow the same path.
In Europe these exclusive deals only limit the phones potential, break the law and annoy people. If they try the same thing in Asia, it will be a disaster.
The irony of your statement is the reason Apple has tied the phone to one carrier is so the customer can use Google Maps, Stock, YouTube, watch movies and listen to music without being charged more for each feature.
I still cannot see why the law has any say in whether mobile phones are sold by one carrier or them all. The market should be left to decide.
The only people who are annoyed are people who don't use T-Mobile. Vodofone, O2 and the others need to develop good phones and compete.
The irony of your statement is the reason Apple has tied the phone to one carrier is so the customer can use Google Maps, Stock, YouTube, watch movies and listen to music without being charged more for each feature.
I still cannot see why the law has any say in whether mobile phones are sold by one carrier or them all. The market should be left to decide.
The only people who are annoyed are people who don't use T-Mobile. Vodofone, O2 and the others need to develop good phones and compete.
I can get a data and hotspot flat rate from literally any carrier - nothing more is required to make use of these features.
Exclusive bundling of a product and a service between two companies is a cartel (it does limit the consumers choice and gives the parties full control over service levels and pricing). Offering the bundle at good conditions and optionally would be free market - if they are convinced that the product is good - why blackmail people?
The market can only decide IF it has choices, under the current model there are no choices. A cartel is the opposite of a free market, not a result. The court will make sure the market can make a decision - not remove that freedom. The mobile market in the US is a perversion of the free market, not an unavoidable consequence. IMHO, politicians and judges there do not do their job. But as I do not live there... they can of course do as they please.
Carriers do not develop phones here - they resell phones (with branding or without), some might do in the future, but they do not have to. The business model used by Apple and T-Mobile is illegal, and it will be stopped sooner or later. Of course Telekom has a lot of lobbyists and there are multiple ways to delay things. There are massive rumours in the meantime, that T-Mobile will sell the phone unlocked as early as this week. They know exactly that they are wrong.
No, you are wrong here. I AM using T-Mobile (forever) and I am still annoyed. I - on average - buy 2 phones per year, that is 3-4 phones in 24 months. I spend a lot of time on construction sites and the things simply do not look good after a while. According to the current model, I would have to get the XL tariff (89,- EUR * 24 months), pay 25 EUR activation fee plus 399 EUR for the phone (equals 2,560 EUR = 3,788 USD) and this will still not cover all my calls - I will have to pay 29 cents/min for exceeding the allotment (which is a horror price - 3 times more expensive than prepaid rates). I will need a second SIM and contract to use my MacBook Pro on the road (as the iPhone does not work as a modem), and another telephone to use outside Germany, as I cannot put another SIM into the iPhone. And even if I would be willing to do all that (I am not) - what would I do, if I need a new phone after 6 months? Add another 24 months contract? T-Mobile will not sell me another iPhone at 399,- without a contract, as they would have to pay fees to Apple for it, but I do not get a second contract, so they do not make more money... That entire model does not fit. That is a special case, yes. But a lot of people have special cases, that is why every other provider offers choices, just not for the iPhone.
Apple could sell me 4 iPhones at 700-800 EUR in 24 months and I would continue to get my contract (the tariffs I want, not the ones they offer for the iPhone) from T-Mobile. Both parties would make more money, not less, and everybody would be happy. Now they will get nothing (unless they move).
They really needed somebody to sue them, to do the right thing. Does not make a good impression.
I assume because this godly, reality distorted design is so great, Apple is:
- selling more Macs, since you can use other peripherals than what is listed on their own compatibility list
- selling more computers, since they run Windows
- selling a non proportional amount of iTunes Plus titles that play elsewhere
Apple does design great products - I agree. But their patronising approach to tell others what they have to want is more often than not a major PITA. I still do need a modem in my notebook, I want a mobile phone that can be used as a modem and I think it is a pain that I cannot go into an Apple shop (own or reseller) and buy a machine with BTO options (you want Airport in a Mac Pro - how unprofessional... you have to wait son). No, they are far far from doing everything right.
They exclusively sell and maintain the iPhone (which requires a computer to work at all) via e.g. T-Mobile, a company having no knowledge about computers (no matter if OS X or Windows), cannot assist with anything (not even their own products) and you claim that this equals "tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from" Sorry, I really do not want to play the "fanboy" argument... but I am stunned now
I neither implied the design was god-like nor Apple do everything right though your inferiority complex is touching. I suspect it underpins the reason why you feel more qualified than Apple to know what a good product should be and how it should be delivered. Personally I've never produced a world-beating technology product so I'm happy to leave the details to those who have.
Funny, you consider 'patronising' to be a company with proven design excellence daring to tell YOU what to do. Maybe you think car manufacturers deciding you should drive whilst sitting down, facing front to be 'arrogant', 'patronising' or just a personal afront to you knowing better.
Personally I think companies offering choices solely to appeal to my intellectual vanity whilst actually distracting me with, largely irrelevant, detail into buying an inferior product 'patronising'. Then again I'm the kind of bloke who walks into Subway and says 'I'll have one of those please' - fat chance!
From your first three comments; I doubt that people buy expandability-restricted products specifically to add peripherals, most of us consumers realise we don't need them especially with Apple's 'arrogant' inclusion of all those extras we don't need. Yes I'm sure Windows compatibility allows people to overcome their initial misconception that computers need to run Windows software though most realise pretty soon that neither bootcamp nor windows were ever required. Never seen iTunes Plus figures - is that another assumption?
I can get a data and hotspot flat rate from literally any carrier - nothing more is required to make use of these features.
Admittedly I don't know how it works in Europe. In the US mobile services regularly add software that block features built into the phone so that they can charge for them. Its difficult for me to believe no Euro company practices the same policy.
Quote:
Exclusive bundling of a product and a service between two companies is a cartel (it does limit the consumers choice and gives the parties full control over service levels and pricing).
This isn't true because Apple nor T-Mobile are doing business in a vacuum. The iPhone still has to be featured and priced to compete in a market where people are free to choose from hundreds of phones.
Quote:
Offering the bundle at good conditions and optionally would be free market - if they are convinced that the product is good - why blackmail people?
Blackmail? What part of the iPhone business model is manipulative or deceitful?
Quote:
The market can only decide IF it has choices, under the current model there are no choices. A cartel is the opposite of a free market, not a result. The court will make sure the market can make a decision - not remove that freedom.
The market has the choice to not buy an iPhone. I see nothing good about the law forcing a mobile phone to be sold for multiple carriers when their is so much choice.
Quote:
The mobile market in the US is a perversion of the free market, not an unavoidable consequence. IMHO, politicians and judges there do not do their job.
Its easy to take shots at the US. But there must be some balance. The law is obligated to to help balance fair competition in the marketplace. Its not the role of law to force companies to use business models that some people will like. Companies should be free to develop superior products and form alliances with whomever they choose. Who are the people who decide what are fair business models and why do they get to decide for everyone else?
Comments
No. We have every right to sound off if we're not happy with things, and we're going to carry on.
You have every right to "sound off" but I have every right to ask you not too.
We are the consumers. We do not exist for the benefit of Apple (or anyone else for that matter) conversely Apple would not exist if it were not for us. We have a voice, and the right to use it and to vote with our wallets. Apple should ignore us at their peril.
You are consumers, if Apple want to ignore you then so be it. They should be free to do that and free to sell their product through whoever they want.
Rubbish. Orange for example already has an EDGE network. UK consumers would have had a better experience with the iPhone if Apple had chosen them over O2. But Apple just followed the money instead.
Like I said above you may be correct, if Orange did then I stand corrected. Personally I was one of Oranges first customers within the first 5k I believe. But I left them for 02 for the phone. its called choice Apple choose to sell it on 02 I choose to buy it you choose not to. Deal with it
Yes it IS different, very different. And 18 month contracts are NOT standard in the UK. I live here, and I've never had to sign a contract greater than 12 months in my life. You are talking out of your backside!
Everything is different to some degree, 18 month contracts are the standards being applied within the UK. Sorry but you are just plain wrong. 18 month contracts are being placed upon people renewing unless specifically complained about same for new contracts. Please see below all are default 18 months. As the networks slowly remove 12 not wanting to jump the gun on each other and force people to another network.
http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/monthlyplan
http://www.o2.co.uk/mobilestariffs/t...monthlytariffs
I live here
<---- And I do not ?
I am a big Apple fan - but their attempt to re-invent the phone market as a new player with one single phone was arrogant, un-called for, and it will fail if they do not move. And somehow they deserve it - taking choice away from customers is a bad thing.
Another person who has missed the reasons for the Apple/Telco deals. Let's step back and look at the landscape at the end of last year. Based on rumours that Apple was toying with a phone, and knowing how Apple came to control the digital music business because of a great model, the telcos and other phone makers panicked and it became clear that IF Apple simply released a phone, that there would be buyers, certainly, but NO CARRIERS. No one wanted Apple in their play pen.
Thus, the Apple /Telco deals that guaranteed that the iPhone would at least get a foot-hold.
Now, the gutless wonders who sat on the sidelines, like Vodafone, now want to play because, surprise,, surprise, the iphone is a hit.
The fact that Europeans are used to free phones, unlocked, etc may not matter, as the iPhone is here to stay and the European courts will decide what the telcos have to do. Apple has succeeded and even if they are cut off from the revenue stream from the telcos, it may not be that big a hit in the long run. But bravo, to Apple and the carriers who played -- the mindless, unadventurous who didn't and are now crying foul-- I wouldn't use them as a carrier if they were the last one on Earth, They are just trying to capitalize on the pioneers' gutsy foray after the risks appeared to be minimal. Weak as dishwater!
So, you too have let the "me, myself and I" factor become the more important issue here-- and not that Apple and ATT eg, did something great. This was not about limiting choice for the sake of it, as your post suggests Apple loves to do, but rather it is about succeeding in a viciously hostile environment-- a point clearly missed by the European critics, who nearly always fail to equate reward with risk-- just give to me free and to hell with how you might succeed. Myopic to say the least.
Thus, the Apple /Telco deals that guaranteed that the iPhone would at least get a foot-hold.
Now, the gutless wonders who sat on the sidelines, like Vodafone, now want to play because, surprise,, surprise, the iphone is a hit.
Quite correct. First, the telcos tried to blockade Apple out of the cell phone business. Then, they tried (and are still trying) to copy Apple out of the business. Now, they are trying to sue Apple out of the handset business. The EU does not hold the moral high ground over American business. They are, in fact, exactly like American business in this respect. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. Truth be told, suing is the highest form of flattery. If you can't beat them, and you can't join them, sue them. Way to go EU telecom. You have just admitted that Apple is eating your lunch.
I know, it isn't Apple's responsibility to change the entire cell phone industry in the U.S. But how about this: In the U.S., the reason most people get locked into contracts is because the phone becomes subsidized, so the consumer's buying power goes up and they can get a fancier phone. Apple has arguably made matters WORSE now. They have introduced a new concept of
Suppose for a second that the Apple intended to sell the iPhone for eg $800 but then went to AT&T and asked them: You can have it for $800 and then subsidize it down to $400 or we sell it to you for $400 and we get 20% of your revenue for the next two years.
- Advantage for AT&T, only their SIMs will be allowed to work in the devices for x years.
- Advantage for Apple: they can claim that the iPhone only costs $400 (and sell it themselves for that price) and they have control of the price preventing it being eroded by special offers (maintains the perceived value of the product better).
If anywhere in the world the iPhone is sold unlocked that deal breaks down. First the unlocked version will have to be sold at $800, that destroys the notion of uniform ('low') price and takes some pricing power away from Apple. And it takes the exclusivity away from the carrier.
I am all for unlocked iPhones but aggressive subsidizing will destroy some of the value of the iPhone.
Another person who has missed the reasons for the Apple/Telco deals. Let's step back and look at the landscape at the end of last year. Based on rumours that Apple was toying with a phone, and knowing how Apple came to control the digital music business because of a great model, the telcos and other phone makers panicked and it became clear that IF Apple simply released a phone, that there would be buyers, certainly, but NO CARRIERS. No one wanted Apple in their play pen.
Thus, the Apple /Telco deals that guaranteed that the iPhone would at least get a foot-hold.
Now, the gutless wonders who sat on the sidelines, like Vodafone, now want to play because, surprise,, surprise, the iphone is a hit.
The fact that Europeans are used to free phones, unlocked, etc may not matter, as the iPhone is here to stay and the European courts will decide what the telcos have to do. Apple has succeeded and even if they are cut off from the revenue stream from the telcos, it may not be that big a hit in the long run. But bravo, to Apple and the carriers who played -- the mindless, unadventurous who didn't and are now crying foul-- I wouldn't use them as a carrier if they were the last one on Earth, They are just trying to capitalize on the pioneers' gutsy foray after the risks appeared to be minimal. Weak as dishwater!
So, you too have let the "me, myself and I" factor become the more important issue here-- and not that Apple and ATT eg, did something great. This was not about limiting choice for the sake of it, as your post suggests Apple loves to do, but rather it is about succeeding in a viciously hostile environment-- a point clearly missed by the European critics, who nearly always fail to equate reward with risk-- just give to me free and to hell with how you might succeed. Myopic to say the least.
Bang there you have it.
You could try to tell that to some people that have to pay off 300% of the market value of their house and cannot even sell it for 100%.
Where did the 300% $$ go? Did they choose to live above their means??? And now they have to suffer the consequences??????
It SUCKS to be an adult doesn't it.
When the music labels spoke out and claimed they should get a revenue share from iPod sales, we all jumped up and down, blew raspberries and called them greedy scum sucking parasites. How is Apple behaving any different with the iPhone? It's greedy, it's an abuse of power from Apple, and it doesn't benefit the consumer.
In both these cases (ipod and iphone) Apple is the one who innovated, and made a product that people want. Now, companies losing money (Big Music and Voda) want a share in Apple's success.
You can buy another mp3 player, you can buy another cell phone.
I don't get why it's greedy to invent and sell something that people want.
If you want it so bad, suck it up and pay the price.
I want to travel to France every weekend to see family, but the big bad airlines are forcing me to stay here with their ticket-tied-to-their-airline plans, and their greedy high ticket prices! Woe is me, can I has some guvment aid?
Someone must have peed in my cereal this morning
Apple is completely free to create onerous and execrable contracts (and dubiously legal EULAs) attached to its phone, to make as much money as it can.
I am completely free to buy the phone and use it how I please--including unlocking, or disassembly for use as Christmas ornaments.
Once I can't use it in the way that I intend, I'll put it up on eBay and buy an unlocked Nokia with the proceeds.
Hmm, what is your agenda? Adobe and Tivoli charge "foreign" customers some 200-250% for everything.
Apple - even if I dislike it a lot, everybody wants cheaper - is fully within the regular margins. They do not really overcharge more than anybody else - and keeping some fluctuation reserve is normal business conduct. I certainly will continue to buy things with an Apple logo - I can buy a Mac Pro with 8 cores for less than what the entire competition offers, great engineering, great design and best support in the industry - no problem here. I will not pay an iPhone at the current German conditions, but I do not appreciate to be hi-jacked. Nobody here did ask for an Apple boycott and I suggest, there are a few dozen companies that would deserve that more. Is your last name still Ballmer?
My agenda is getting people to invoke change through consumer action, not government interference. If Adobe is worse than Apple then I strongly suggest people outside the USA stop buying their products. People will still need to produce printed and web based content so that provides a perfect opportunity for competition. Any company with a decent product that charges local prices should clean up in the marketplace. Given that Europe is much bigger than the US and Asia much bigger again, a competitor that charges even American prices on the other side of the oceans could wipe out all memories of Adobe within 2 years.
Any company that wants to sell worldwide needs to think worldwide. The alternative is sticking to the American market and the limitations that imposes.
You have every right to "sound off" but I have every right to ask you not too.
Of cause you do. Don't expect me (or anyone else) to take any notice of you though.
You are consumers, if Apple want to ignore you then so be it. They should be free to do that and free to sell their product through whoever they want.
I never said they weren't free to do that. I'm referring to consumer choice and the leverage applied by consumer buying power. If you think Apple are blind to that, then I refer you back to the sudden price drop that Apple applied to the iPhone only a few months after launch and the voucher offer that went with it. That was a direct result of Apple getting it wrong and taking big steps to make sure that the price point was right with consumers to keep iPhone momentum going. They didn't do that out of generosity, they did that because the iPhone wasn't selling as they wanted it. That's consumer power in action!
Everything is different to some degree, 18 month contracts are the standards being applied within the UK. Sorry but you are just plain wrong. 18 month contracts are being placed upon people renewing unless specifically complained about same for new contracts. Please see below all are default 18 months. As the networks slowly remove 12 not wanting to jump the gun on each other and force people to another network.
Your two examples both disprove your point. Maybe you should have read them better. The first offers both 12 and 18 month contracts. The second offers 12, 18 and 24 month contracts. Neither offer any evidence that 18 month contracts are becoming the industry norm or that 12 month contracts are going away. What you can read from both those sites is that the vendors involved are getting smarter, and offering different price points at different length contracts in order to appeal to a broader customer base. Nothing more sinister than that. So you can put your tin foil hat back in its box.
Sorry but you are wrong. I am well aware that there are more manufacturers then Apple and more operators. BUT - if you do want an iPhone you HAVE to obey by the monopolistic structure. You can not obtain the iPhone with an e-Plus, O2 or Vodafone subscription or on its own and put in the card that you as the consumer want to put in.
This is not a monopoly. What would be the point of companies spending their own resources to develop innovative products if they were forced by law to share that innovation with competitors.
I think what this boils down to is that everyone knows the iPhone is a great product. And don't like the business model Apple has set up for it. Which is fine you don't have to like it. But Apple should be free to assign any business model it chooses for its own products.
Apple is not free to block its competitors from creating their own phones that directly compete with the iPhone. e-Plus, O2, and Vodofone are free to create a phone that competes with the iPhone. The truth is most of you complaining do not have faith that they can produce a phone as good as the iPhone. Essentially you feel Apple has a monopoly on the freedom to use an excellent phone.
It is not in the price range of an N95. I can go to O2 right now and pick up an N95 for free with a £30 a month plan. The iPhone is £270. That is its biggest problem here. There is no way it can do well with this huge price premium.
I see. The regular price of the N95 was approx. 760 EUR (unlocked) when it was released here (it came down quite a bit during the last two months, you can easily find it unlocked for 450 EUR by now). Some other "luxury" mobiles like the various editions of the Nokia 8800 have been selling unlocked between 800 and 1000 EUR - and did sell well (no, I have no figures, but there was significant waiting time when ordering and there are tons of second hand ones on eBay now, so somebody did buy).
I am confident the iPhone would sell very well at 700 (or maybe even 800 EUR) unlocked. Of course they cannot keep that price level up forever, but this is normally no issue, as the next model will take over the price point rather soon. They do that with all equipment, it would also work for a phone.
Another person who has missed the reasons for the Apple/Telco deals. Let's step back and look at the landscape at the end of last year. Based on rumours that Apple was toying with a phone, and knowing how Apple came to control the digital music business because of a great model, the telcos and other phone makers panicked and it became clear that IF Apple simply released a phone, that there would be buyers, certainly, but NO CARRIERS. No one wanted Apple in their play pen.
I have not missed anything. You are applying US market conditions to the rest of the world, and this does not work.
In Europe you do not need a Telco to market or support a mobile, you put it in a box, say with which GSM networks it is compatible and what the price is. You could also just tell people, if you want visual voicemail, you need to book tariff xyz with T-Mobile. Almost every mobile here sells with "features" marked as being carrier-dependant, people do know that. The iPhone does work with regular voicemail systems, you do not miss one single feature from your chosen provider.
GSM is a standard. You do not need a carriers support or authorisation to release or market a mobile at all. You need the regulatory approvals, and that's it.
In Germany there is no mandatory link between mobiles and networks. A lot of the Telcos do only offer a very limited selection of mobiles and are normally far behind with new models. Some carriers like Vodafone also cripple the software and put their ugly logo into everything. Most people do not want that. We are used to buy mobiles without contract from electronic shops, computer shops, online shops, the bakery or eBay. For most people looking for an advanced phone, the Telco is the last place they would look at.
It is possible that the AT&T deal was good (or required) for getting the iPhone out in the US. In Europe these exclusive deals only limit the phones potential, break the law and annoy people. If they try the same thing in Asia, it will be a disaster.
I am confident the iPhone would sell very well at 700 (or maybe even 800 EUR) unlocked. Of course the cannot keep that price level up forever, but this is normally no issue, as the next model will take over the price point rather soon. They do that with all equipment, it would also work for a phone.
From what I've seen I think this misses what Apple plans to do with the iPhone. They are not following the same model as Nokia and all the rest. The prices go down before an entirely new phone is launched with new functions and updates hardware.
Apple will make major updates to the OS adding functionality for two years. Which is something no other mobile phone manufacture does. That is what will allow Apple to continue selling the hardware at a high price.
From what I've seen I think this misses what Apple plans to do with the iPhone. They are not following the same model as Nokia and all the rest. The prices go down before an entirely new phone is launched with new functions and updates hardware.
Apple will make major updates to the OS adding functionality for two years. Which is something no other mobile phone manufacture does. That is what will allow Apple to continue selling the hardware at a high price.
Hmm, you are right - just, I doubt that this model is really working out:
- Apple TV (same accounting model): one meagre update (adding YouTube) in the beginning and now, silence
- The only significant update to the iPhone so far was the addition of the Wifi Store (something that makes Apple money) - not impressive overall
- After they release the SDK and third parties will generate applications that can be legally installed, Apple will not invest a dime in developing applications, that are widely available and accepted by the users
- Other phone makers DO deliver phone updates, they might not do that accounting exercise mandated by US SEC. All my Nokia and Sony Ericsson smartphones received free software updates. So Apple is not doing anything new here either. Other phones do run an OS too. They simply pull their hair trying to find an argument why the iPhone is special and mandates a different contract model, but there is no argument. It is a regular GSM phone, nothing else (great design, gorgeous UI, a little short on features).
- You really think they will be able to sell the iPhone for the same price with that argument? Once there is a 3G model for the same price? Or simply another 2G model with better BT, camera and more memory? How will they market that? Get less for more? I just do not see that. People who always buy the latest and greatest mobiles over here, buy at least one per year - 2 year software updates do not justify a dime.
Hmm, you are right - just, I doubt that this model is really working out:
I think we need to give it more time to see what they do. 6 months isn't very long.
Apple TV (same accounting model): one meagre update (adding YouTube) in the beginning and now, silence
I think Apple wants to set up a rental service for ATV. The movie/tv studios are afraid of Apple taking as much control over movie downloads as they have over music. At this point they are not sure of ATV future direction, which is why Jobs has called it a hobby.
I agree however Apple is needlessly allowing ATV to flounder. Apple should partner with Netflix to offer a download rental service. They are both missing pieces the other needs. Netflix has a huge rental catalogue and a large consumer base. Apple has the hardware needed to deliver content from online to television.
The only significant update to the iPhone so far was the addition of the Wifi Store (something that makes Apple money) - not impressive overall
Most of the updates have been firmware and security fixes. Major portions of the OS have been rewritten since the iPhone was launched in June. I don't have a problem with them shoring up the OS before introducing more major feature upgrades.
After they release the SDK and third parties will generate applications that can be legally installed, Apple will not invest a dime in developing applications, that are widely available and accepted by the users
How do you know that? iPhone sales are accounted for over a 24 month period so they could continue to update the phone. I doubt Apple did this for no reason.
Other phone makers DO deliver phone updates, they might not do that accounting exercise mandated by US SEC. All my Nokia and Sony Ericsson smartphones received free software updates. So Apple is not doing anything new here either. Other phones do run an OS too.
I know other phones have OS. Are these updates bug fixes or do they actually add major functionality at no extra cost that wasn't available previously? Apple representatives have stated most of the complaints of missing features are software updates that will be addressed in the future,
They simply pull their hair trying to find an argument why the iPhone is special and mandates a different contract model, but there is no argument. It is a regular GSM phone, nothing else (great design, gorgeous UI, a little short on features).
I don't think its that hard to understand. They want control over pricing and end user experience. Something that no other phone manufacturer has control over.
Revenue from service contracts could be justified to cover the expense of rewriting the OS and developing new features and services for the iPhone. As an example the Google Maps widget did not come from Google. Apple wrote the app using Google API's.
You really think they will be able to sell the iPhone for the same price with that argument? Once there is a 3G model for the same price? Or simply another 2G model with better BT, camera and more memory.
No that's not what I meant. I'm saying the price of the current 8GB iPhone is likely to never decrease below where it is now. When Apple introduces a new phone they will discontinue the current 8GB iPhone and replace it with the new model at the same price.
They will not follow the same route of Nokia of releasing a phone at a high premium price which over time decreases until it is offered free with contract. Then releasing a new phone at a high premium price which will follow the same path.
In Europe these exclusive deals only limit the phones potential, break the law and annoy people. If they try the same thing in Asia, it will be a disaster.
The irony of your statement is the reason Apple has tied the phone to one carrier is so the customer can use Google Maps, Stock, YouTube, watch movies and listen to music without being charged more for each feature.
I still cannot see why the law has any say in whether mobile phones are sold by one carrier or them all. The market should be left to decide.
The only people who are annoyed are people who don't use T-Mobile. Vodofone, O2 and the others need to develop good phones and compete.
The irony of your statement is the reason Apple has tied the phone to one carrier is so the customer can use Google Maps, Stock, YouTube, watch movies and listen to music without being charged more for each feature.
I still cannot see why the law has any say in whether mobile phones are sold by one carrier or them all. The market should be left to decide.
The only people who are annoyed are people who don't use T-Mobile. Vodofone, O2 and the others need to develop good phones and compete.
I can get a data and hotspot flat rate from literally any carrier - nothing more is required to make use of these features.
Exclusive bundling of a product and a service between two companies is a cartel (it does limit the consumers choice and gives the parties full control over service levels and pricing). Offering the bundle at good conditions and optionally would be free market - if they are convinced that the product is good - why blackmail people?
The market can only decide IF it has choices, under the current model there are no choices. A cartel is the opposite of a free market, not a result. The court will make sure the market can make a decision - not remove that freedom. The mobile market in the US is a perversion of the free market, not an unavoidable consequence. IMHO, politicians and judges there do not do their job. But as I do not live there... they can of course do as they please.
Carriers do not develop phones here - they resell phones (with branding or without), some might do in the future, but they do not have to. The business model used by Apple and T-Mobile is illegal, and it will be stopped sooner or later. Of course Telekom has a lot of lobbyists and there are multiple ways to delay things. There are massive rumours in the meantime, that T-Mobile will sell the phone unlocked as early as this week. They know exactly that they are wrong.
No, you are wrong here. I AM using T-Mobile (forever) and I am still annoyed. I - on average - buy 2 phones per year, that is 3-4 phones in 24 months. I spend a lot of time on construction sites and the things simply do not look good after a while. According to the current model, I would have to get the XL tariff (89,- EUR * 24 months), pay 25 EUR activation fee plus 399 EUR for the phone (equals 2,560 EUR = 3,788 USD) and this will still not cover all my calls - I will have to pay 29 cents/min for exceeding the allotment (which is a horror price - 3 times more expensive than prepaid rates). I will need a second SIM and contract to use my MacBook Pro on the road (as the iPhone does not work as a modem), and another telephone to use outside Germany, as I cannot put another SIM into the iPhone. And even if I would be willing to do all that (I am not) - what would I do, if I need a new phone after 6 months? Add another 24 months contract? T-Mobile will not sell me another iPhone at 399,- without a contract, as they would have to pay fees to Apple for it, but I do not get a second contract, so they do not make more money... That entire model does not fit. That is a special case, yes. But a lot of people have special cases, that is why every other provider offers choices, just not for the iPhone.
Apple could sell me 4 iPhones at 700-800 EUR in 24 months and I would continue to get my contract (the tariffs I want, not the ones they offer for the iPhone) from T-Mobile. Both parties would make more money, not less, and everybody would be happy. Now they will get nothing (unless they move).
They really needed somebody to sue them, to do the right thing. Does not make a good impression.
I assume because this godly, reality distorted design is so great, Apple is:
- selling more Macs, since you can use other peripherals than what is listed on their own compatibility list
- selling more computers, since they run Windows
- selling a non proportional amount of iTunes Plus titles that play elsewhere
Apple does design great products - I agree. But their patronising approach to tell others what they have to want is more often than not a major PITA. I still do need a modem in my notebook, I want a mobile phone that can be used as a modem and I think it is a pain that I cannot go into an Apple shop (own or reseller) and buy a machine with BTO options (you want Airport in a Mac Pro - how unprofessional... you have to wait son). No, they are far far from doing everything right.
They exclusively sell and maintain the iPhone (which requires a computer to work at all) via e.g. T-Mobile, a company having no knowledge about computers (no matter if OS X or Windows), cannot assist with anything (not even their own products) and you claim that this equals "tying together a broader spectrum of hardware, software & services to deliver a real workable solution which the vast majority of consumers will and do benefit from"
I neither implied the design was god-like nor Apple do everything right though your inferiority complex is touching. I suspect it underpins the reason why you feel more qualified than Apple to know what a good product should be and how it should be delivered. Personally I've never produced a world-beating technology product so I'm happy to leave the details to those who have.
Funny, you consider 'patronising' to be a company with proven design excellence daring to tell YOU what to do. Maybe you think car manufacturers deciding you should drive whilst sitting down, facing front to be 'arrogant', 'patronising' or just a personal afront to you knowing better.
Personally I think companies offering choices solely to appeal to my intellectual vanity whilst actually distracting me with, largely irrelevant, detail into buying an inferior product 'patronising'. Then again I'm the kind of bloke who walks into Subway and says 'I'll have one of those please' - fat chance!
From your first three comments; I doubt that people buy expandability-restricted products specifically to add peripherals, most of us consumers realise we don't need them especially with Apple's 'arrogant' inclusion of all those extras we don't need. Yes I'm sure Windows compatibility allows people to overcome their initial misconception that computers need to run Windows software though most realise pretty soon that neither bootcamp nor windows were ever required. Never seen iTunes Plus figures - is that another assumption?
McD
I can get a data and hotspot flat rate from literally any carrier - nothing more is required to make use of these features.
Admittedly I don't know how it works in Europe. In the US mobile services regularly add software that block features built into the phone so that they can charge for them. Its difficult for me to believe no Euro company practices the same policy.
Exclusive bundling of a product and a service between two companies is a cartel (it does limit the consumers choice and gives the parties full control over service levels and pricing).
This isn't true because Apple nor T-Mobile are doing business in a vacuum. The iPhone still has to be featured and priced to compete in a market where people are free to choose from hundreds of phones.
Offering the bundle at good conditions and optionally would be free market - if they are convinced that the product is good - why blackmail people?
Blackmail? What part of the iPhone business model is manipulative or deceitful?
The market can only decide IF it has choices, under the current model there are no choices. A cartel is the opposite of a free market, not a result. The court will make sure the market can make a decision - not remove that freedom.
The market has the choice to not buy an iPhone. I see nothing good about the law forcing a mobile phone to be sold for multiple carriers when their is so much choice.
The mobile market in the US is a perversion of the free market, not an unavoidable consequence. IMHO, politicians and judges there do not do their job.
Its easy to take shots at the US. But there must be some balance. The law is obligated to to help balance fair competition in the marketplace. Its not the role of law to force companies to use business models that some people will like. Companies should be free to develop superior products and form alliances with whomever they choose. Who are the people who decide what are fair business models and why do they get to decide for everyone else?