Apple seems to be unaware of their potential for sales outside the USA. There is a huge potential market that they somehow treat as second class. They overcharge their customers, are very slow in establishing Apple stores except perhaps in anglophone countries and have none of the hype you see in the US. I have yet to see an Apple ad on TV for instance.
They should wake-up to the potential. Disappointing iPhone sales in Europe are not the only signal.
Companies often saturate their home market befor moving heavily outside. Other countries are very expensive to open a business in for a foreign firm. There are regulatoty minefields to negotiate. look at what happened with iTunes.
First, it took what seemed forever to get the store to most countries, then after going through all of the agreements, they were accused of illegally charging different prices.
The different landscape in other countries makes it very expensive. First, you must hire a local law firm expert in these areas. Then you have to see if you can even do what you want to. Sometimes you can't, and have to literally go back to the drawing board. It can take years.
The advertising laws differ, and so ads designed for local mores and laws have to be done. Sometimes, those laws and mores make it impossible to have the kind of ads the company wants.
Disney had these problems when working on Euro Disney. It cost them a vast amount to modify their plans for the exhibits to conform to French cultural fears. They were forced to serve wine in places they didn't feel appropriate, etc. It was a mess.
Apple is doing things properly. It will just take them longer than you want.
From what we've heard from Apple executives what they want most is for the iPhone to have a consistent user experience. They did not want to leave it to carriers charging various different prices or offer various different functionality for the phone. Apple wants to control the user experience and platform development.
Of course Apple will not forever lock the iPhone to one carrier that would be foolish. But in these early stages of development, the situation gives Apple the leverage to build the platform the way it wants to.
I think that was their initial approach, but with the rampant unlocking and sales into unsupported countries you have to ask what sort of control Apple has and what sort of user experience these people are having. You can't just write them off because they unlock, they're motivated early adopters who are likely to spread a lot of word of mouth and perhaps define the product in these new markets. Apple has to control its technology, but it has to protect its brand too.
Apple seems to be unaware of their potential for sales outside the USA. There is a huge potential market that they somehow treat as second class. They overcharge their customers, are very slow in establishing Apple stores except perhaps in anglophone countries and have none of the hype you see in the US. I have yet to see an Apple ad on TV for instance.
They should wake-up to the potential. Disappointing iPhone sales in Europe are not the only signal.
A couple of points:
American companies treat everyone as second class, this is not new. When half (or more) of the world market is at your doorstep, cheap to access and unified, you're not going to rush out to spend heaps of money to sell to the fragmented, localised market that is the rest of the world. It's simple economics.
The iPhone is not expensive. If you consider the top of the like Nokia N95 launched in the US at about $800, the fact that you can get an iPhone for $400 makes it a steal. If you factor in the kickbacks Apple is rumoured to get ($10-20 per month), then the full price is comparable. And the iPhone is a better phone that the N95.
Apple seems to be unaware of their potential for sales outside the USA. There is a huge potential market that they somehow treat as second class. They overcharge their customers, are very slow in establishing Apple stores except perhaps in anglophone countries and have none of the hype you see in the US. I have yet to see an Apple ad on TV for instance.
They should wake-up to the potential. Disappointing iPhone sales in Europe are not the only signal.
Where do you live? In Germany, they show Apple ads on every network (except the state run ARD and ZDF) and their affiliates , as well as MTV Networks (MTV, Viva), many times a day. In fact, the song from the MacBook Air commercial just entered the German single charts and is in heavy rotation on radio.
Of course Apple is US-centric, but I don't really see them as somehow neglecting the European market, seeing as 44% of Apple's revenue comes out of Europe. I see the iPhone announcement in Germany as Apple trying to adjust to a market in which it is still the new guy, and adjusting for cultural differences and buying habits.
For Germany, the new T-Mobile plans aren't actually that bad; they're actually quite competitive to other providers. It's just too bad that T-Mobile as a company is terrible. I do think they will see a definite increase in business due to this move, although I still think Apple is making a huge mistake by not selling the iPhone at Gravis (largest European Apple reseller) or even at the german Apple online store; If you want a legal iPhone in Germany, you have to go to a T-Mobile shop.
"Apple has historically resisted subsidizing the iPhone's price with subscriptions since its debut, but that should change as of next week, according to reports."
Correct me if I'm wrong but Apple gets money from the retail sale AND the service plan, so that IS subsidizing the price of the phone.
This is a very IMPORTANT point to see here. No, the iPhone is not "subsidized" in the traditional sense whereby the cellular carrier itself lowers the retail price of the phone in exchange for customers signing up for an x-month contract.
I've never understood why Apple wasn't allowing ALL the carriers to do this? Think about it... Apple would keep the current deal with AT&T --- nothing would change there --- BUT they would let AT&T lower the retail price of the iPhone to say $199 or so and AT&T would absorb the costs. They do this so they can get more people to come over to their network.
In America, people are usually cheap with cellphones and can get most smartphones for < $250 or so with a 2-year contract. In Europe, where the competition is much higher, They can literally get FREE very high end phones with a 2-year contract, like a Nokia N95 that sells for $750 retail.
If a customer wants to purchase a new phone WITHOUT signing a new contract or lengthening a current one, then they pay the normal retail cost without the carrier subsidy which is usually much higher. This is totally standard practice worldwide.
also, I don't really understand the argument people make about this that Apple "doesn't want to de-value the iPhone"... I don't think it devalues the product just because people pay less for it when they know they are getting a big discount for signing a long contract. I think everyone expects to receive a deal on ANYTHING when they sign a long-term agreement. Just like cable/satellite TV service or broadband service or web-hosting.
If i was a major stock holder, I'd be pissed they were taking this attitude when they get be selling twice as many iPhones while still making the same revenue/phone!!!
This is a very IMPORTANT point to see here. No, the iPhone is not "subsidized" in the traditional sense whereby the cellular carrier itself lowers the retail price of the phone in exchange for customers signing up for an x-month contract.
I've never understood why Apple wasn't allowing ALL the carriers to do this? Think about it... Apple would keep the current deal with AT&T --- nothing would change there --- BUT they would let AT&T lower the retail price of the iPhone to say $199 or so and AT&T would absorb the costs. They do this so they can get more people to come over to their network.
In America, people are usually cheap with cellphones and can get most smartphones for < $250 or so with a 2-year contract. In Europe, where the competition is much higher, They can literally get FREE very high end phones with a 2-year contract, like a Nokia N95 that sells for $750 retail.
If a customer wants to purchase a new phone WITHOUT signing a new contract or lengthening a current one, then they pay the normal retail cost without the carrier subsidy which is usually much higher. This is totally standard practice worldwide.
also, I don't really understand the argument people make about this that Apple "doesn't want to de-value the iPhone"... I don't think it devalues the product just because people pay less for it when they know they are getting a big discount for signing a long contract. I think everyone expects to receive a deal on ANYTHING when they sign a long-term agreement. Just like cable/satellite TV service or broadband service or web-hosting.
If i was a major stock holder, I'd be pissed they were taking this attitude when they get be selling twice as many iPhones while still making the same revenue/phone!!!
I don't recall seeing any document that supports the contention that Apple does not allow the carrier to "subsidize" the cost of the iPhone. Really there is no need for Apple to care what price an "AT&T" sells the iPhone for as long as Apple gets their contracted price. Heck, if AT&T gave the iPhone away for nothing, I don’t know of any way that Apple could stop them. However,…
What Apple realized right from the beginning that for the iPhone to succeed, it first had to overcome the major issue with most cell phones/services, i.e., they often just didn't work, “dropped calls.” Secondly, for the iPhone’s other unique functions, it wouldn't survive unless the existing carrier data services where improved/changed and most important that the costs of such would only not be passed on to the consumer, but in fact also had to be significantly decreased.
Bottom line, nothing is “free.” But we got an unbelievable product with an improved and less expensive service. Check out And it will only get better.
What many are missing, is that this strategy of forcing the incumbent to change is not new with Jobs. For those that were around when the Mac was introduced in 1984, many of us recall how Jobs was very demanding that software shouldn’t cost $500 as Microsoft, Lotus, etc., were charging for their word processing and spread sheet applications at the time. Thus MacWrite and MacPaint were price at $129 each, and a year later Microsoft introduced Word and later Multiplan (precursor to Excel) at the same price.
If i was a major stock holder, I'd be pissed they were taking this attitude when they get be selling twice as many iPhones while still making the same revenue/phone!!!
If I was a major stock holder of AAPL, I would be far from pissed! Have you seen what Apple's stock has done? Sure, they had a rough patch after the iPhone hype slowed and the economy spooked everyone, but look at the 5 year graph!
If I were a major stock holder I would be ecstatic (and quite rich, thank you Apple). I would also be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when something doesn't appear to be going perfectly. I'm not saying Apple is perfect and can do no wrong, but to assume they are idiots leaving money on the table is surely being a little simplistic...
This is a very IMPORTANT point to see here. No, the iPhone is not "subsidized" in the traditional sense whereby the cellular carrier itself lowers the retail price of the phone in exchange for customers signing up for an x-month contract.
I've never understood why Apple wasn't allowing ALL the carriers to do this?
It's obvious why Apple would not want different carriers to set different prices: How would they then set the price for the iPhone in Apple stores? Lowest price? Highest? Median? Their only choice will then become selling at "full" price, which, in turn, means that they will have to sell it unlocked if the were to hope to sell any, which, in turn upends their business model.
Now, the business model may be questionable (i.e., Apple would simply have been better off selling it unlocked, with appropriate caveats), but you have to admit it's consistent.
Companies often saturate their home market befor moving heavily outside. Other countries are very expensive to open a business in for a foreign firm. There are regulatoty minefields to negotiate. look at what happened with iTunes.
First, it took what seemed forever to get the store to most countries, then after going through all of the agreements, they were accused of illegally charging different prices.
The different landscape in other countries makes it very expensive. First, you must hire a local law firm expert in these areas. Then you have to see if you can even do what you want to. Sometimes you can't, and have to literally go back to the drawing board. It can take years.
The advertising laws differ, and so ads designed for local mores and laws have to be done. Sometimes, those laws and mores make it impossible to have the kind of ads the company wants.
Disney had these problems when working on Euro Disney. It cost them a vast amount to modify their plans for the exhibits to conform to French cultural fears. They were forced to serve wine in places they didn't feel appropriate, etc. It was a mess.
Apple is doing things properly. It will just take them longer than you want.
You must be talking of the old Europe. Apple could form an EU subsidiary that is recognized throughout the Union. They could use an international ad agency and a multinational legal office.
Apple could make a point of working with the European Commission and parliament to iron out problems in advance.
Europe is a single market and the Eurozone has a single currency to make trading there easier.
The potential market rivals that of the US.
All I would like to see is for Apple to treat us as valuable customers and not as addendum to be milked by overcharging.
Oh, and by the way, I live on the border of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Good grief. Okay so now we are trademarking fruit as a whole? Apple get ahold of yourself, it looks nothing like your logo. Perhaps Apple should have stuck with the multi-colored rainbow affect on their logo to further distinguish it from impostors?.....mmm....nah, people just need to quit suing each other!!! Crazy loons. I love Apple but I think they get a big head sometimes.
Good grief. Okay so now we are trademarking fruit as a whole? Apple get ahold of yourself, it looks nothing like your logo. Perhaps Apple should have stuck with the multi-colored rainbow affect on their logo to further distinguish it from impostors?.....mmm....nah, people just need to quit suing each other!!! Crazy loons. I love Apple but I think they get a big head sometimes.
And with all of the Bu*ll sh^t going on, there has to be someone else better to be sueing.
I think this lawsuit is just Apple playing it safe. Taking action against trademark infringement, even when it is unlikely to win, protects your trademark in the future for true infringement cases.
If you don't defend your trademark, others can claim legal precedence later on. It doesn't matter if you won or lost...
Wow, Apple goes out and sues a non-profit environmental program in "The Big Apple" for using an apple which bears little resemblence to the Apple Logo other than the fact that it's an apple - gotta protect the trademark against those damn encroaching city clean-up programs. Next thing you know, Apple customers might start picking up litter mistakenly when they really mean to buy iPods...
An RBC analyst says that demand, not future models, are dictating the sudden iPhone shortage.
There are a few other possibilities:
With parts coming from a few diffent suppliers, and the assembly facilities recently having moved, couldn't there have just been some sort of production hickup at on of the many factories Apple relies on? An upgrade to one of the facilities might have cost a week's production at some point, and Apple has a history of trying to save money by having little overstock...
Another issue might be that due to the less than anticipated sales of the phone in European markets, Apple cut production globally and had to wait for some the phones that were sitting unsold in the UK, France, Germany, etc. to be shipped to and repackaged for sale in the US.
If they plan a refresh to the line in the fall, it doesn't make sense to have a few million unsold units sitting around in Europe, and it would definitely make sense to try and sell the phones they haven't sold in the EU back in the USA...
Of course, a third option might be that Apple has discovered a quality control/longevity/hardware fault in the product and they've had to cut production while they made a silent correction to the line. We all remember the bad PR that happened after the release of the Macbook and it's quality issues (discolouring plastic, battery problems, pixel fails), which might be damaging to Apple's fledgling phone division. Apple also has a history of covering up it's problems as quietly as it can...
Good grief. Okay so now we are trademarking fruit as a whole? Apple get ahold of yourself, it looks nothing like your logo. Perhaps Apple should have stuck with the multi-colored rainbow affect on their logo to further distinguish it from impostors?.....mmm....nah, people just need to quit suing each other!!! Crazy loons. I love Apple but I think they get a big head sometimes.
It's the law…
If a trademark owner fails to police his or her mark, the owner may be deemed to have abandoned the mark or acquiesced in its misuse. A trademark is only protected while it serves to identify the source of goods or services.
The determination of infringement is actually one that will be made by the court, so a trademark owner is simply using a best guess about whether or not infringement actually has occurred. That best guess may be a good one, based on experience and expertise, or it may be a bad one that doesn't reflect any of the legitimate defenses that might exist. The law doesn't require the mark owner to sue everyone; it just requires the owner to keep his mark distinctive.
It is better to be safe than sorry. Although Apple may not win this case, acting as they have may encourage others to think about whether or not they are assimilating an established trademark or brand as Apple has. Not taking any action at all may be construed by the courts as an abandonment of the trademark and then it is too late to ever get it back. As the originators of Kleenix or Escalator unfortunately did.
P.S. It is unfortunate that Apple has to take what some would consider 'frivolous' steps. However, just look at all the equally perceived ridiculous actions Apple is currently fighting.
As a side note: More unfortunately is the number of lawyers, now over a million…about as twice as the number of doctors practicing law in the US. As we know, lawyers are only above politicians and media people when it comes to who do we trust least. Worse yet, judges were previously lawyers, although you don't have to be an attorney to be appointed to to the federal branch. President Truman didn't take a law course until after he became a judge and then there was Abe Lincoln who was probably our most famous example of lawyer-turned politician who never went to school at all. Tells us something. Doesn't it.
You must be talking of the old Europe. Apple could form an EU subsidiary that is recognized throughout the Union. They could use an international ad agency and a multinational legal office.
Apple could make a point of working with the European Commission and parliament to iron out problems in advance.
Europe is a single market and the Eurozone has a single currency to make trading there easier.
The potential market rivals that of the US.
All I would like to see is for Apple to treat us as valuable customers and not as addendum to be milked by overcharging.
Oh, and by the way, I live on the border of Belgium and the Netherlands.
The caveat to your premise is that every country has there own distinctive government body, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US, that regulates radio and television broadcasting and telecommunications internally and internationally.
These agencies dictate where, when or why their public airways have be used and with what or how it can done. In some case they even control costs.
In this regard, Apple or any other company or organization could not unilaterally circumvent the respective laws of each of the lands via a single internationally structured agency. Talk about the ability to disrupt national security.
American companies treat everyone as second class, this is not new. When half (or more) of the world market is at your doorstep, cheap to access and unified, you're not going to rush out to spend heaps of money to sell to the fragmented, localised market that is the rest of the world. It's simple economics.
The iPhone is not expensive. If you consider the top of the like Nokia N95 launched in the US at about $800, the fact that you can get an iPhone for $400 makes it a steal. If you factor in the kickbacks Apple is rumoured to get ($10-20 per month), then the full price is comparable. And the iPhone is a better phone that the N95.
Ah, but foreign companies do the same to their US products as well. You can't claim anything there.
Comments
Apple seems to be unaware of their potential for sales outside the USA. There is a huge potential market that they somehow treat as second class. They overcharge their customers, are very slow in establishing Apple stores except perhaps in anglophone countries and have none of the hype you see in the US. I have yet to see an Apple ad on TV for instance.
They should wake-up to the potential. Disappointing iPhone sales in Europe are not the only signal.
Companies often saturate their home market befor moving heavily outside. Other countries are very expensive to open a business in for a foreign firm. There are regulatoty minefields to negotiate. look at what happened with iTunes.
First, it took what seemed forever to get the store to most countries, then after going through all of the agreements, they were accused of illegally charging different prices.
The different landscape in other countries makes it very expensive. First, you must hire a local law firm expert in these areas. Then you have to see if you can even do what you want to. Sometimes you can't, and have to literally go back to the drawing board. It can take years.
The advertising laws differ, and so ads designed for local mores and laws have to be done. Sometimes, those laws and mores make it impossible to have the kind of ads the company wants.
Disney had these problems when working on Euro Disney. It cost them a vast amount to modify their plans for the exhibits to conform to French cultural fears. They were forced to serve wine in places they didn't feel appropriate, etc. It was a mess.
Apple is doing things properly. It will just take them longer than you want.
From what we've heard from Apple executives what they want most is for the iPhone to have a consistent user experience. They did not want to leave it to carriers charging various different prices or offer various different functionality for the phone. Apple wants to control the user experience and platform development.
Of course Apple will not forever lock the iPhone to one carrier that would be foolish. But in these early stages of development, the situation gives Apple the leverage to build the platform the way it wants to.
I think that was their initial approach, but with the rampant unlocking and sales into unsupported countries you have to ask what sort of control Apple has and what sort of user experience these people are having. You can't just write them off because they unlock, they're motivated early adopters who are likely to spread a lot of word of mouth and perhaps define the product in these new markets. Apple has to control its technology, but it has to protect its brand too.
Apple seems to be unaware of their potential for sales outside the USA. There is a huge potential market that they somehow treat as second class. They overcharge their customers, are very slow in establishing Apple stores except perhaps in anglophone countries and have none of the hype you see in the US. I have yet to see an Apple ad on TV for instance.
They should wake-up to the potential. Disappointing iPhone sales in Europe are not the only signal.
A couple of points:
American companies treat everyone as second class, this is not new. When half (or more) of the world market is at your doorstep, cheap to access and unified, you're not going to rush out to spend heaps of money to sell to the fragmented, localised market that is the rest of the world. It's simple economics.
The iPhone is not expensive. If you consider the top of the like Nokia N95 launched in the US at about $800, the fact that you can get an iPhone for $400 makes it a steal. If you factor in the kickbacks Apple is rumoured to get ($10-20 per month), then the full price is comparable. And the iPhone is a better phone that the N95.
Apple seems to be unaware of their potential for sales outside the USA. There is a huge potential market that they somehow treat as second class. They overcharge their customers, are very slow in establishing Apple stores except perhaps in anglophone countries and have none of the hype you see in the US. I have yet to see an Apple ad on TV for instance.
They should wake-up to the potential. Disappointing iPhone sales in Europe are not the only signal.
Where do you live? In Germany, they show Apple ads on every network (except the state run ARD and ZDF) and their affiliates , as well as MTV Networks (MTV, Viva), many times a day. In fact, the song from the MacBook Air commercial just entered the German single charts and is in heavy rotation on radio.
Of course Apple is US-centric, but I don't really see them as somehow neglecting the European market, seeing as 44% of Apple's revenue comes out of Europe. I see the iPhone announcement in Germany as Apple trying to adjust to a market in which it is still the new guy, and adjusting for cultural differences and buying habits.
For Germany, the new T-Mobile plans aren't actually that bad; they're actually quite competitive to other providers. It's just too bad that T-Mobile as a company is terrible. I do think they will see a definite increase in business due to this move, although I still think Apple is making a huge mistake by not selling the iPhone at Gravis (largest European Apple reseller) or even at the german Apple online store; If you want a legal iPhone in Germany, you have to go to a T-Mobile shop.
"Apple has historically resisted subsidizing the iPhone's price with subscriptions since its debut, but that should change as of next week, according to reports."
Correct me if I'm wrong but Apple gets money from the retail sale AND the service plan, so that IS subsidizing the price of the phone.
This is a very IMPORTANT point to see here. No, the iPhone is not "subsidized" in the traditional sense whereby the cellular carrier itself lowers the retail price of the phone in exchange for customers signing up for an x-month contract.
I've never understood why Apple wasn't allowing ALL the carriers to do this? Think about it... Apple would keep the current deal with AT&T --- nothing would change there --- BUT they would let AT&T lower the retail price of the iPhone to say $199 or so and AT&T would absorb the costs. They do this so they can get more people to come over to their network.
In America, people are usually cheap with cellphones and can get most smartphones for < $250 or so with a 2-year contract. In Europe, where the competition is much higher, They can literally get FREE very high end phones with a 2-year contract, like a Nokia N95 that sells for $750 retail.
If a customer wants to purchase a new phone WITHOUT signing a new contract or lengthening a current one, then they pay the normal retail cost without the carrier subsidy which is usually much higher. This is totally standard practice worldwide.
also, I don't really understand the argument people make about this that Apple "doesn't want to de-value the iPhone"... I don't think it devalues the product just because people pay less for it when they know they are getting a big discount for signing a long contract. I think everyone expects to receive a deal on ANYTHING when they sign a long-term agreement. Just like cable/satellite TV service or broadband service or web-hosting.
If i was a major stock holder, I'd be pissed they were taking this attitude when they get be selling twice as many iPhones while still making the same revenue/phone!!!
Demand in the US is outstripping demand, not in Europe, where sales are still somewhat disappointing.
sales through proper channels may be disappointing, but many iphones were shipped from the US for the grey market.
All of my friends had bought an iphone from the US to be used in the UK months before it began selling through the proper channels.
This is a very IMPORTANT point to see here. No, the iPhone is not "subsidized" in the traditional sense whereby the cellular carrier itself lowers the retail price of the phone in exchange for customers signing up for an x-month contract.
I've never understood why Apple wasn't allowing ALL the carriers to do this? Think about it... Apple would keep the current deal with AT&T --- nothing would change there --- BUT they would let AT&T lower the retail price of the iPhone to say $199 or so and AT&T would absorb the costs. They do this so they can get more people to come over to their network.
In America, people are usually cheap with cellphones and can get most smartphones for < $250 or so with a 2-year contract. In Europe, where the competition is much higher, They can literally get FREE very high end phones with a 2-year contract, like a Nokia N95 that sells for $750 retail.
If a customer wants to purchase a new phone WITHOUT signing a new contract or lengthening a current one, then they pay the normal retail cost without the carrier subsidy which is usually much higher. This is totally standard practice worldwide.
also, I don't really understand the argument people make about this that Apple "doesn't want to de-value the iPhone"... I don't think it devalues the product just because people pay less for it when they know they are getting a big discount for signing a long contract. I think everyone expects to receive a deal on ANYTHING when they sign a long-term agreement. Just like cable/satellite TV service or broadband service or web-hosting.
If i was a major stock holder, I'd be pissed they were taking this attitude when they get be selling twice as many iPhones while still making the same revenue/phone!!!
I don't recall seeing any document that supports the contention that Apple does not allow the carrier to "subsidize" the cost of the iPhone. Really there is no need for Apple to care what price an "AT&T" sells the iPhone for as long as Apple gets their contracted price. Heck, if AT&T gave the iPhone away for nothing, I don’t know of any way that Apple could stop them. However,…
What Apple realized right from the beginning that for the iPhone to succeed, it first had to overcome the major issue with most cell phones/services, i.e., they often just didn't work, “dropped calls.” Secondly, for the iPhone’s other unique functions, it wouldn't survive unless the existing carrier data services where improved/changed and most important that the costs of such would only not be passed on to the consumer, but in fact also had to be significantly decreased.
Bottom line, nothing is “free.” But we got an unbelievable product with an improved and less expensive service. Check out And it will only get better.
What many are missing, is that this strategy of forcing the incumbent to change is not new with Jobs. For those that were around when the Mac was introduced in 1984, many of us recall how Jobs was very demanding that software shouldn’t cost $500 as Microsoft, Lotus, etc., were charging for their word processing and spread sheet applications at the time. Thus MacWrite and MacPaint were price at $129 each, and a year later Microsoft introduced Word and later Multiplan (precursor to Excel) at the same price.
P.S. Great article on Europe vs America Mobile Phone. It is not that simple. And there doesn't seem to be a problem re 3G or lack there of: http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.co...phone-use.html
If i was a major stock holder, I'd be pissed they were taking this attitude when they get be selling twice as many iPhones while still making the same revenue/phone!!!
If I was a major stock holder of AAPL, I would be far from pissed! Have you seen what Apple's stock has done? Sure, they had a rough patch after the iPhone hype slowed and the economy spooked everyone, but look at the 5 year graph!
If I were a major stock holder I would be ecstatic (and quite rich, thank you Apple).
This is a very IMPORTANT point to see here. No, the iPhone is not "subsidized" in the traditional sense whereby the cellular carrier itself lowers the retail price of the phone in exchange for customers signing up for an x-month contract.
I've never understood why Apple wasn't allowing ALL the carriers to do this?
It's obvious why Apple would not want different carriers to set different prices: How would they then set the price for the iPhone in Apple stores? Lowest price? Highest? Median? Their only choice will then become selling at "full" price, which, in turn, means that they will have to sell it unlocked if the were to hope to sell any, which, in turn upends their business model.
Now, the business model may be questionable (i.e., Apple would simply have been better off selling it unlocked, with appropriate caveats), but you have to admit it's consistent.
This is very petty. I can't see anyone confusing the two and I see this as hurting Apple's brand in the shortrun.
I can see the lawyers from the city of New York to Apple :" Bring It ON!"
Companies often saturate their home market befor moving heavily outside. Other countries are very expensive to open a business in for a foreign firm. There are regulatoty minefields to negotiate. look at what happened with iTunes.
First, it took what seemed forever to get the store to most countries, then after going through all of the agreements, they were accused of illegally charging different prices.
The different landscape in other countries makes it very expensive. First, you must hire a local law firm expert in these areas. Then you have to see if you can even do what you want to. Sometimes you can't, and have to literally go back to the drawing board. It can take years.
The advertising laws differ, and so ads designed for local mores and laws have to be done. Sometimes, those laws and mores make it impossible to have the kind of ads the company wants.
Disney had these problems when working on Euro Disney. It cost them a vast amount to modify their plans for the exhibits to conform to French cultural fears. They were forced to serve wine in places they didn't feel appropriate, etc. It was a mess.
Apple is doing things properly. It will just take them longer than you want.
You must be talking of the old Europe. Apple could form an EU subsidiary that is recognized throughout the Union. They could use an international ad agency and a multinational legal office.
Apple could make a point of working with the European Commission and parliament to iron out problems in advance.
Europe is a single market and the Eurozone has a single currency to make trading there easier.
The potential market rivals that of the US.
All I would like to see is for Apple to treat us as valuable customers and not as addendum to be milked by overcharging.
Oh, and by the way, I live on the border of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Good grief. Okay so now we are trademarking fruit as a whole? Apple get ahold of yourself, it looks nothing like your logo. Perhaps Apple should have stuck with the multi-colored rainbow affect on their logo to further distinguish it from impostors?.....mmm....nah, people just need to quit suing each other!!! Crazy loons. I love Apple but I think they get a big head sometimes.
And with all of the Bu*ll sh^t going on, there has to be someone else better to be sueing.
Skip
I think this lawsuit is just Apple playing it safe. Taking action against trademark infringement, even when it is unlikely to win, protects your trademark in the future for true infringement cases.
If you don't defend your trademark, others can claim legal precedence later on. It doesn't matter if you won or lost...
Wow, Apple goes out and sues a non-profit environmental program in "The Big Apple" for using an apple which bears little resemblence to the Apple Logo other than the fact that it's an apple - gotta protect the trademark against those damn encroaching city clean-up programs. Next thing you know, Apple customers might start picking up litter mistakenly when they really mean to buy iPods...
An RBC analyst says that demand, not future models, are dictating the sudden iPhone shortage.
There are a few other possibilities:
With parts coming from a few diffent suppliers, and the assembly facilities recently having moved, couldn't there have just been some sort of production hickup at on of the many factories Apple relies on? An upgrade to one of the facilities might have cost a week's production at some point, and Apple has a history of trying to save money by having little overstock...
Another issue might be that due to the less than anticipated sales of the phone in European markets, Apple cut production globally and had to wait for some the phones that were sitting unsold in the UK, France, Germany, etc. to be shipped to and repackaged for sale in the US.
If they plan a refresh to the line in the fall, it doesn't make sense to have a few million unsold units sitting around in Europe, and it would definitely make sense to try and sell the phones they haven't sold in the EU back in the USA...
Of course, a third option might be that Apple has discovered a quality control/longevity/hardware fault in the product and they've had to cut production while they made a silent correction to the line. We all remember the bad PR that happened after the release of the Macbook and it's quality issues (discolouring plastic, battery problems, pixel fails), which might be damaging to Apple's fledgling phone division. Apple also has a history of covering up it's problems as quietly as it can...
Good grief. Okay so now we are trademarking fruit as a whole? Apple get ahold of yourself, it looks nothing like your logo. Perhaps Apple should have stuck with the multi-colored rainbow affect on their logo to further distinguish it from impostors?.....mmm....nah, people just need to quit suing each other!!! Crazy loons. I love Apple but I think they get a big head sometimes.
It's the law…
If a trademark owner fails to police his or her mark, the owner may be deemed to have abandoned the mark or acquiesced in its misuse. A trademark is only protected while it serves to identify the source of goods or services.
The determination of infringement is actually one that will be made by the court, so a trademark owner is simply using a best guess about whether or not infringement actually has occurred. That best guess may be a good one, based on experience and expertise, or it may be a bad one that doesn't reflect any of the legitimate defenses that might exist. The law doesn't require the mark owner to sue everyone; it just requires the owner to keep his mark distinctive.
It is better to be safe than sorry. Although Apple may not win this case, acting as they have may encourage others to think about whether or not they are assimilating an established trademark or brand as Apple has. Not taking any action at all may be construed by the courts as an abandonment of the trademark and then it is too late to ever get it back. As the originators of Kleenix or Escalator unfortunately did.
P.S. It is unfortunate that Apple has to take what some would consider 'frivolous' steps. However, just look at all the equally perceived ridiculous actions Apple is currently fighting.
As a side note: More unfortunately is the number of lawyers, now over a million…about as twice as the number of doctors practicing law in the US. As we know, lawyers are only above politicians and media people when it comes to who do we trust least. Worse yet, judges were previously lawyers, although you don't have to be an attorney to be appointed to to the federal branch. President Truman didn't take a law course until after he became a judge and then there was Abe Lincoln who was probably our most famous example of lawyer-turned politician who never went to school at all. Tells us something. Doesn't it.
You must be talking of the old Europe. Apple could form an EU subsidiary that is recognized throughout the Union. They could use an international ad agency and a multinational legal office.
Apple could make a point of working with the European Commission and parliament to iron out problems in advance.
Europe is a single market and the Eurozone has a single currency to make trading there easier.
The potential market rivals that of the US.
All I would like to see is for Apple to treat us as valuable customers and not as addendum to be milked by overcharging.
Oh, and by the way, I live on the border of Belgium and the Netherlands.
The caveat to your premise is that every country has there own distinctive government body, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US, that regulates radio and television broadcasting and telecommunications internally and internationally.
These agencies dictate where, when or why their public airways have be used and with what or how it can done. In some case they even control costs.
In this regard, Apple or any other company or organization could not unilaterally circumvent the respective laws of each of the lands via a single internationally structured agency. Talk about the ability to disrupt national security.
Demand in the US is outstripping demand, not in Europe, where sales are still somewhat disappointing.
And demand in the US is not really US demand at all --- because most of that US sales ends up in China and Russia.
A couple of points:
American companies treat everyone as second class, this is not new. When half (or more) of the world market is at your doorstep, cheap to access and unified, you're not going to rush out to spend heaps of money to sell to the fragmented, localised market that is the rest of the world. It's simple economics.
The iPhone is not expensive. If you consider the top of the like Nokia N95 launched in the US at about $800, the fact that you can get an iPhone for $400 makes it a steal. If you factor in the kickbacks Apple is rumoured to get ($10-20 per month), then the full price is comparable. And the iPhone is a better phone that the N95.
Ah, but foreign companies do the same to their US products as well. You can't claim anything there.