I think we need to give it more time to see what they do. 6 months isn't very long.
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
All true - and would be nice. I would just say after marketing the device with continuous software updates being a feature (and justifying part of the price, which is not exactly cheap) - they could have done a few things in the meantime (allow use of the USB port for disks, add more features to slideshows, support additional video formats etc.). Paying for a feature and not receiving anything, does not feel right (even if it is only a hobby).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
I have no problem with it either. I was only summing up what has happened so far. Neither software fixes nor an Web Store front-end would have required that accounting approach. Let's see what they will add next - might of course change everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
I do not know that and I did not mean they will not add anything, just - looking at some of the available applications for hacked phones, Apple would have to invest a lot of time to really better them significantly (not true for all of them of course).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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,
At least for my P910i I have received substantial updates, alternate menu systems, games (no need for them, but still), many more themes and ringtones, improved syncing, better Web browser (not as good as Safari, but better than nothing) - all free, plus SE has a dedicated Web site with even more free stuff. If this does compare to what Apple will offer over 24 months, I do not know. We will see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
Hmm, that does not really work. A network is a network - there is no different user experience between T-Mobile, O2 and Vodafone at all. Their network coverage differs, but that is a local thing - works for some and not for others.
Good point about that expenses and service contracts - and exactly my point about being not transparent. Who is paying for what here and who do I pay? Apple wants 399 for the Phone and promises 24 months of updates - so, to the buyer, this is covered by the 399, right? It is not part of the contract, that T-Mobile pays anything to Apple at all (everybody knows, but it does not say so anywhere). Apple is the manufacturer, and gets the sales price - still, they put all responsibility for service and maintenance on T-Mobile (which as the reseller would have to provide 24 months mandatory implied warranty anyhow) - I am not even an Apple customer here (knowing T-Mobile service, that alone is a reason not to buy). So, if T-Mobile cancels my contract (maybe because I do not pay - will not happen, just an example) - I still paid the full price of the phone and 24 months of updates, right? T-Mobile cannot even claim their expenses (what they still have to pay to Apple) from me, as these are hidden in the contract and I sit there with a 399 EUR brick. Who wins here? This entire model is designed for trouble for all parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
OK, sorry, I misunderstood. I have no problems with that approach, it will just be interesting to see, how the market will deal with a single niche product with less than 1% market share, that wants to turn things upside down... Apple users are somewhat used to it - but Apple's market share here is not really great. A lot of people will wait forever for the price to come down, as this holds true for any other phone.
Good for Germany. Maybe more European markets will do the same. Apple screwed customers by going the at&t-only route. It's unfriendly to Apple loyalists, and just plain un-American.
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.
They do that too, but only for subsidised and branded phones. The deal is: you get the phone for free (or much cheaper than retail), therefore you accept these restrictions for the period of the contract. Once the contract is up, you can demand them to unlock the phone and load the unrestricted software.
If you subscribe to a plan without demanding a subsidised phone, you get a SIM, the services you pay for and bring your own phone.
The iPhone is not subsidised - there is only one price, and this is automatically the full retail price (if it is not, they would have to tell you the full retail price and also optionally sell it for that price unlocked). Apple is the only phone maker that tries to sell a phone for the full price and still restricts it, not even allowing unlocking after 24 months. They break absolutely every rule for doing business in the mobile market here.
Hmm, that does not really work. A network is a network - there is no different user experience between T-Mobile, O2 and Vodafone at all. Their network coverage differs, but that is a local thing - works for some and not for others.
So you are telling me in Germany the same phone will operate and cost the same across all services. No one changes features or charges extra for anything?
Quote:
I still paid the full price of the phone and 24 months of updates, right? T-Mobile cannot even claim their expenses (what they still have to pay to Apple) from me, as these are hidden in the contract and I sit there with a 399 EUR brick. Who wins here? This entire model is designed for trouble for all parties.
I'm not sure where it matters to the consumer if T-Mobile pays Apple a percentage of their rate. But you know when you sign the contract that if you stop paying the bill your phones service will be disconnected. I'm not sure how that differs from any other phone under contract.
Quote:
The iPhone is not subsidised - there is only one price, and this is automatically the full retail price
The carrier payment is the subsidization if its used to pay for continued software updates for the phone.
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. The comparison with i-Drive/BMW is therefore without relevance.
What "one" tends to forget in this very emotional discussion is that the iPhone is a piece of hardware and that T-Mobile is (kindda like) software. As much as you have the right as a consumer to have you computer unbundled of Windows (judgments to that respect in both France and Germany) because you want to install Linux instead - I as the consumer should have the right to unbundle the iPhone from T-Mobile and put in a (say) Vodafone card.
Why is it that no one on this forum thinks that getting rid of Windows to the benefit (?) of Linux is -per se- a bad thing, yet when holy Apple is concerned there seems to be a vortex around common sense ? Visual voicemail (the only generic app that requires T-Mobile) is like the Windows Media Player. If I don't want it i should be able to do without....
I think you just have an eccentric idea of what "monopoly" means, at least as a legal concept.
There have been judgments regarding Windows because of its overwhelming predominance as a desktop operating system and Microsoft's willingness to abuse that predominance to force vendors and consumers to use MS products. As in, MS abused its monopoly position to maintain that monopoly, by driving other vendors out of the market (bundling IE, using coercive tactics against vendors who wanted to offer PCs with another OS installed, etc).
You'll notice there has been no court mandated "opening up" of the Apple platform (ordering Apple to provide a version of OS X that can run on stock PCs or ordering Apple to allow its machines to run another OS) because Apple has no monopoly position to exploit. This, despite the fact that your are obliged to buy a machine and software from Apple to have the "Apple experience".
This notion you have that a monopoly can be established by limiting the availability of a "style" of product to a given vendor, regardless of that vendor's relative percentage of the market, is really just completely indefensible.
Apple making a deal with a single carrier may run athwart of some European law, custom, or regulation, but whatever that may be it certainly has nothing to do with monopolistic practices.
So you are telling me in Germany the same phone will operate and cost the same across all services. No one changes features or charges extra for anything?
Yes, if it is (or once it is) unlocked. Of course there are extra charges, but they are not related to the particular phone. I can e.g. book a separate domestic flat rate for a fee, a tariff option for free calls on weekends, or a "favourite 5" option for a reduced rate to my mostly dialled numbers. None of these features is implemented in the phone, they are tied to the SIM card, which I can put into any phone. The phone and the network are completely separate items. The network follows a standard and the SIM cards are standardised too - you can use any card with any device and any tariff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I'm not sure where it matters to the consumer if T-Mobile pays Apple a percentage of their rate. But you know when you sign the contract that if you stop paying the bill your phones service will be disconnected. I'm not sure how that differs from any other phone under contract.
The difference is transparency - the phone is one item and the service is one item - 2 companies, 2 items. I am entitled to know what I pay to each of them, to make an educated decision if each of the parties offers an acceptable price. If the phone is priced well and the service is not - I can buy the phone and choose a different provider, or vice versa. This transparency is demanded by law.
Of course it differs from another contract. If I pay any other phone, it is my property. I can e.g. sell it, when I buy a new phone (or to cover bills), or use it on any other network. It is not possible to sell an iPhone, because people will not be able to sign up for the tariff without buying a new one and cannot use it without that tariff. So, other than using it for 24 months, the device has literally zero value. Any other phone under contract will also be unlocked when the contract is up.
Laws and legislation aside, there's clearly something that Europeans don't like about the iPhone because here in the UK, I don't know a single person who has one or even wants one. Everyone I've spoken to about them complains that:
+ The contract terms are too onerous
+ There's no 3G
+ There's no MMS
+ It's too expensive
+ The camera's not very good
+ It's got poor reviews compared to devices from other manufacturers
I don't think we need legal battles to sort this issue out - until they beef it up a bit, the iPhone looks like it's heading towards being a flop in Europe all on it's own.
I guess you didn't hear that the iPhone was O2's fastest selling device ever when it was released in the UK. The iPhone is selling just fine in the UK, as it continues to do here in the US.
Yes, if it is (or once it is) unlocked. Of course there are extra charges, but they are not related to the particular phone. None of these features is implemented in the phone, they are tied to the SIM card, which I can put into any phone. The phone and the network are completely separate items. The network follows a standard and the SIM cards are standardised too - you can use any card with any device and any tariff.
Th problem is that you look at the general phone/ mobile service relationship and want Apple to follow that same example. The disconnect is that Apple is not following what others have done. Apple wants to provide a consistent user experience with the iPhone. They don't want differing sets of rules with various mobile service providers. I don't see a problem with them following that business model. It should be left to the consumer to decide if they like what Apple is offering or not.
Quote:
The difference is transparency - the phone is one item and the service is one item - 2 companies, 2 items. I am entitled to know what I pay to each of them, to make an educated decision if each of the parties offers an acceptable price.
The cost of the iPhone is clearly provided by Apple and the cost of the service is clearly provided by T-Mobile. What you are not privy to is how Apple or T-Mobile divides the money you pay them. We don't know that information for most of what we buy.
Quote:
Of course it differs from another contract. If I pay any other phone, it is my property. I can e.g. sell it, when I buy a new phone (or to cover bills), or use it on any other network. It is not possible to sell an iPhone, because people will not be able to sign up for the tariff without buying a new one and cannot use it without that tariff. So, other than using it for 24 months, the device has literally zero value.
This a quite presumptuous and a bit dramatic. The iPhone is not terminally locked to Apple's partner. Its pretty easy to sell an iPhone. It is possible and fairly easy to unlock the iPhone and use with another carrier.
Despite it being the fastest selling device ever on O2, there is considerably less buzz here in the UK than in the US. Like has already been said in the thread the are too many strings attached and it's not all it's cracked up to be technology wise.
Locking down to one network supplier just loses you a huge slice of customers immediatly, give internet and techy cowbows the incentive to find a way to get around your locking mechanism and make themselves a quick buck at your expense and it's also a bad move PR wise. Why should people be forced to sign with O2? They want a phone not a new airtime supplier
Despite it being the fastest selling device ever on O2, there is considerably less buzz here in the UK than in the US. Like has already been said in the thread the are too many strings attached and it's not all it's cracked up to be technology wise.
Locking down to one network supplier just loses you a huge slice of customers immediatly, give internet and techy cowbows the incentive to find a way to get around your locking mechanism and make themselves a quick buck at your expense and it's also a bad move PR wise. Why should people be forced to sign with O2? They want a phone not a new airtime supplier
Saif
That maybe true , but the one thing the internet and the techy cowbows ( cowboys , perhaps) can't do is this , a warranty when you screw up your phone . I can't understand why apple gets bad PR when they are damn open about their plans for the iPhone . They are not forcing you to buy one and for contracts or strings attached . Well , a phone contract is the least of my worries .
Despite it being the fastest selling device ever on O2, there is considerably less buzz here in the UK than in the US. Like has already been said in the thread the are too many strings attached and it's not all it's cracked up to be technology wise.
Locking down to one network supplier just loses you a huge slice of customers immediatly, give internet and techy cowbows the incentive to find a way to get around your locking mechanism and make themselves a quick buck at your expense and it's also a bad move PR wise. Why should people be forced to sign with O2? They want a phone not a new airtime supplier
I don't really know how much "buzz" there was in the US, since I read lots of Apple sites which obviously have more buzz than the normal press. However, it has gotten plenty of bad press here (the US) as well, for exactly the same reasons. Americans don't like being locked down to a carrier with a 2-yr contract either, but I guess we are just more used to it unfortunately.
My point was essentially that no matter how much you, or other people, think it's a bad idea and will never work, there WILL be people who will buy the iPhone with the partnered carrier. Apparently, a significant number of people. I am starting to agree with the people who say "If you don't like it, don't buy it."
Comments
I think we need to give it more time to see what they do. 6 months isn't very long.
Agree.
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.
All true - and would be nice. I would just say after marketing the device with continuous software updates being a feature (and justifying part of the price, which is not exactly cheap) - they could have done a few things in the meantime (allow use of the USB port for disks, add more features to slideshows, support additional video formats etc.). Paying for a feature and not receiving anything, does not feel right (even if it is only a hobby).
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.
I have no problem with it either. I was only summing up what has happened so far. Neither software fixes nor an Web Store front-end would have required that accounting approach. Let's see what they will add next - might of course change everything.
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.
I do not know that and I did not mean they will not add anything, just - looking at some of the available applications for hacked phones, Apple would have to invest a lot of time to really better them significantly (not true for all of them of course).
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,
At least for my P910i I have received substantial updates, alternate menu systems, games (no need for them, but still), many more themes and ringtones, improved syncing, better Web browser (not as good as Safari, but better than nothing) - all free, plus SE has a dedicated Web site with even more free stuff. If this does compare to what Apple will offer over 24 months, I do not know. We will see.
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.
Hmm, that does not really work. A network is a network - there is no different user experience between T-Mobile, O2 and Vodafone at all. Their network coverage differs, but that is a local thing - works for some and not for others.
Good point about that expenses and service contracts - and exactly my point about being not transparent. Who is paying for what here and who do I pay? Apple wants 399 for the Phone and promises 24 months of updates - so, to the buyer, this is covered by the 399, right? It is not part of the contract, that T-Mobile pays anything to Apple at all (everybody knows, but it does not say so anywhere). Apple is the manufacturer, and gets the sales price - still, they put all responsibility for service and maintenance on T-Mobile (which as the reseller would have to provide 24 months mandatory implied warranty anyhow) - I am not even an Apple customer here (knowing T-Mobile service, that alone is a reason not to buy). So, if T-Mobile cancels my contract (maybe because I do not pay - will not happen, just an example) - I still paid the full price of the phone and 24 months of updates, right? T-Mobile cannot even claim their expenses (what they still have to pay to Apple) from me, as these are hidden in the contract and I sit there with a 399 EUR brick. Who wins here? This entire model is designed for trouble for all parties.
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.
OK, sorry, I misunderstood. I have no problems with that approach, it will just be interesting to see, how the market will deal with a single niche product with less than 1% market share, that wants to turn things upside down... Apple users are somewhat used to it - but Apple's market share here is not really great. A lot of people will wait forever for the price to come down, as this holds true for any other phone.
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.
They do that too, but only for subsidised and branded phones. The deal is: you get the phone for free (or much cheaper than retail), therefore you accept these restrictions for the period of the contract. Once the contract is up, you can demand them to unlock the phone and load the unrestricted software.
If you subscribe to a plan without demanding a subsidised phone, you get a SIM, the services you pay for and bring your own phone.
The iPhone is not subsidised - there is only one price, and this is automatically the full retail price (if it is not, they would have to tell you the full retail price and also optionally sell it for that price unlocked). Apple is the only phone maker that tries to sell a phone for the full price and still restricts it, not even allowing unlocking after 24 months. They break absolutely every rule for doing business in the mobile market here.
Hmm, that does not really work. A network is a network - there is no different user experience between T-Mobile, O2 and Vodafone at all. Their network coverage differs, but that is a local thing - works for some and not for others.
So you are telling me in Germany the same phone will operate and cost the same across all services. No one changes features or charges extra for anything?
I still paid the full price of the phone and 24 months of updates, right? T-Mobile cannot even claim their expenses (what they still have to pay to Apple) from me, as these are hidden in the contract and I sit there with a 399 EUR brick. Who wins here? This entire model is designed for trouble for all parties.
I'm not sure where it matters to the consumer if T-Mobile pays Apple a percentage of their rate. But you know when you sign the contract that if you stop paying the bill your phones service will be disconnected. I'm not sure how that differs from any other phone under contract.
The iPhone is not subsidised - there is only one price, and this is automatically the full retail price
The carrier payment is the subsidization if its used to pay for continued software updates for the phone.
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. The comparison with i-Drive/BMW is therefore without relevance.
What "one" tends to forget in this very emotional discussion is that the iPhone is a piece of hardware and that T-Mobile is (kindda like) software. As much as you have the right as a consumer to have you computer unbundled of Windows (judgments to that respect in both France and Germany) because you want to install Linux instead - I as the consumer should have the right to unbundle the iPhone from T-Mobile and put in a (say) Vodafone card.
Why is it that no one on this forum thinks that getting rid of Windows to the benefit (?) of Linux is -per se- a bad thing, yet when holy Apple is concerned there seems to be a vortex around common sense ? Visual voicemail (the only generic app that requires T-Mobile) is like the Windows Media Player. If I don't want it i should be able to do without....
I think you just have an eccentric idea of what "monopoly" means, at least as a legal concept.
There have been judgments regarding Windows because of its overwhelming predominance as a desktop operating system and Microsoft's willingness to abuse that predominance to force vendors and consumers to use MS products. As in, MS abused its monopoly position to maintain that monopoly, by driving other vendors out of the market (bundling IE, using coercive tactics against vendors who wanted to offer PCs with another OS installed, etc).
You'll notice there has been no court mandated "opening up" of the Apple platform (ordering Apple to provide a version of OS X that can run on stock PCs or ordering Apple to allow its machines to run another OS) because Apple has no monopoly position to exploit. This, despite the fact that your are obliged to buy a machine and software from Apple to have the "Apple experience".
This notion you have that a monopoly can be established by limiting the availability of a "style" of product to a given vendor, regardless of that vendor's relative percentage of the market, is really just completely indefensible.
Apple making a deal with a single carrier may run athwart of some European law, custom, or regulation, but whatever that may be it certainly has nothing to do with monopolistic practices.
So you are telling me in Germany the same phone will operate and cost the same across all services. No one changes features or charges extra for anything?
Yes, if it is (or once it is) unlocked. Of course there are extra charges, but they are not related to the particular phone. I can e.g. book a separate domestic flat rate for a fee, a tariff option for free calls on weekends, or a "favourite 5" option for a reduced rate to my mostly dialled numbers. None of these features is implemented in the phone, they are tied to the SIM card, which I can put into any phone. The phone and the network are completely separate items. The network follows a standard and the SIM cards are standardised too - you can use any card with any device and any tariff.
I'm not sure where it matters to the consumer if T-Mobile pays Apple a percentage of their rate. But you know when you sign the contract that if you stop paying the bill your phones service will be disconnected. I'm not sure how that differs from any other phone under contract.
The difference is transparency - the phone is one item and the service is one item - 2 companies, 2 items. I am entitled to know what I pay to each of them, to make an educated decision if each of the parties offers an acceptable price. If the phone is priced well and the service is not - I can buy the phone and choose a different provider, or vice versa. This transparency is demanded by law.
Of course it differs from another contract. If I pay any other phone, it is my property. I can e.g. sell it, when I buy a new phone (or to cover bills), or use it on any other network. It is not possible to sell an iPhone, because people will not be able to sign up for the tariff without buying a new one and cannot use it without that tariff. So, other than using it for 24 months, the device has literally zero value. Any other phone under contract will also be unlocked when the contract is up.
Laws and legislation aside, there's clearly something that Europeans don't like about the iPhone because here in the UK, I don't know a single person who has one or even wants one. Everyone I've spoken to about them complains that:
+ The contract terms are too onerous
+ There's no 3G
+ There's no MMS
+ It's too expensive
+ The camera's not very good
+ It's got poor reviews compared to devices from other manufacturers
I don't think we need legal battles to sort this issue out - until they beef it up a bit, the iPhone looks like it's heading towards being a flop in Europe all on it's own.
I guess you didn't hear that the iPhone was O2's fastest selling device ever when it was released in the UK. The iPhone is selling just fine in the UK, as it continues to do here in the US.
Yes, if it is (or once it is) unlocked. Of course there are extra charges, but they are not related to the particular phone. None of these features is implemented in the phone, they are tied to the SIM card, which I can put into any phone. The phone and the network are completely separate items. The network follows a standard and the SIM cards are standardised too - you can use any card with any device and any tariff.
Th problem is that you look at the general phone/ mobile service relationship and want Apple to follow that same example. The disconnect is that Apple is not following what others have done. Apple wants to provide a consistent user experience with the iPhone. They don't want differing sets of rules with various mobile service providers. I don't see a problem with them following that business model. It should be left to the consumer to decide if they like what Apple is offering or not.
The difference is transparency - the phone is one item and the service is one item - 2 companies, 2 items. I am entitled to know what I pay to each of them, to make an educated decision if each of the parties offers an acceptable price.
The cost of the iPhone is clearly provided by Apple and the cost of the service is clearly provided by T-Mobile. What you are not privy to is how Apple or T-Mobile divides the money you pay them. We don't know that information for most of what we buy.
Of course it differs from another contract. If I pay any other phone, it is my property. I can e.g. sell it, when I buy a new phone (or to cover bills), or use it on any other network. It is not possible to sell an iPhone, because people will not be able to sign up for the tariff without buying a new one and cannot use it without that tariff. So, other than using it for 24 months, the device has literally zero value.
This a quite presumptuous and a bit dramatic. The iPhone is not terminally locked to Apple's partner. Its pretty easy to sell an iPhone. It is possible and fairly easy to unlock the iPhone and use with another carrier.
Locking down to one network supplier just loses you a huge slice of customers immediatly, give internet and techy cowbows the incentive to find a way to get around your locking mechanism and make themselves a quick buck at your expense and it's also a bad move PR wise. Why should people be forced to sign with O2? They want a phone not a new airtime supplier
Despite it being the fastest selling device ever on O2, there is considerably less buzz here in the UK than in the US. Like has already been said in the thread the are too many strings attached and it's not all it's cracked up to be technology wise.
Locking down to one network supplier just loses you a huge slice of customers immediatly, give internet and techy cowbows the incentive to find a way to get around your locking mechanism and make themselves a quick buck at your expense and it's also a bad move PR wise. Why should people be forced to sign with O2? They want a phone not a new airtime supplier
Saif
That maybe true , but the one thing the internet and the techy cowbows ( cowboys , perhaps) can't do is this , a warranty when you screw up your phone . I can't understand why apple gets bad PR when they are damn open about their plans for the iPhone . They are not forcing you to buy one and for contracts or strings attached . Well , a phone contract is the least of my worries .
People should read this article in regards to the iPhone . it's a must read . http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111307H
Despite it being the fastest selling device ever on O2, there is considerably less buzz here in the UK than in the US. Like has already been said in the thread the are too many strings attached and it's not all it's cracked up to be technology wise.
Locking down to one network supplier just loses you a huge slice of customers immediatly, give internet and techy cowbows the incentive to find a way to get around your locking mechanism and make themselves a quick buck at your expense and it's also a bad move PR wise. Why should people be forced to sign with O2? They want a phone not a new airtime supplier
I don't really know how much "buzz" there was in the US, since I read lots of Apple sites which obviously have more buzz than the normal press. However, it has gotten plenty of bad press here (the US) as well, for exactly the same reasons. Americans don't like being locked down to a carrier with a 2-yr contract either, but I guess we are just more used to it unfortunately.
My point was essentially that no matter how much you, or other people, think it's a bad idea and will never work, there WILL be people who will buy the iPhone with the partnered carrier. Apparently, a significant number of people. I am starting to agree with the people who say "If you don't like it, don't buy it."