so if I buy gas for my car it is a contract too? I don't see how this is different:
I have a phone, I need credit to call -or- I have a car, I need gas to drive
if I pay for 60 mins and only get 45 mins I take it up with the seller,
just like when I buy 60 liters of gas and only get 45 liters.
I've posted several links to it. It's a bloody contract for the sale of goods.
Using a recent example: There were people who bought gas from a station only to have their cars sputter to a stop a few miles down the road. The gas was contaminated with water. The customer has a legal right to get compensated for the gas purchased and any damage that may have been caused by the water as they did not get the goods that were specified.
If you keep thinking of a contract as ONLY as a long form with small print and cryptic writing then we are going to continue to go in circles. The links I posted are above.
if I pay for 60 mins and only get 45 mins I take it up with the seller,
just like when I buy 60 liters of gas and only get 45 liters.
A contract in its most basic is just a binding agreement between two parties.
So yes when one agrees to pay a certain amount of money for a certain product. Both the buyer and seller are entering a contract for a good or service. If the buyer does not pay or the seller does not provide the agreed upon good or service the contract in its simplest form has been breached.
There is no problem so long as you get what you paid for.
????????????
Uhhhhh.... What kind of billing systems are you familiar with? Not once have I heard of a person with a prepaid subscription getting less than what he or she paid for. It looks like you are searching for problems where none exist.
Uhhhhh.... What kind of billing systems are you familiar with? Not once have I heard of a person with a prepaid subscription getting less than what he or she paid for. It looks like you are searching for problems where none exist.
Have you been following the thread? This is about what legally defines a contract, not the likelihood that the prepaid card won't be honored.
But if you want examples of customers not getting what they purchased you can scour the nets for many examples. I suggest looking up the fun ones that have consoles replaced by bricks and other items.
Have you been following the thread? This is about what legally defines a contract, not the likelihood that the prepaid card won't be honored.
But if you want examples of customers not getting what they purchased you can scour the nets for many examples. I suggest looking up the fun ones that have consoles replaced by bricks and other items.
Actually this thread is supposed to be about:
Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy
This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe. People in the UK, France, and Germany will be free to buy an Italian phone and use it on which ever carrier they choose.
I don't see a problem with the partnerships. When launching a new product or entering a new market its a common business practice for companies partner. It helps give the product a supportive base as it gains brand recognition and market penetration.
The mobile phone market is completely new for Apple. Having partners in the short term gives them room to work out the bugs, develop, and grow the iPhone. As a brand it is in a much stronger position when it opens up to more networks.
From what I'm seeing the two biggest problems with Apple's strategy has been its secretiveness and the revenue sharing. Apple should have openly stated that they were entering exclusive agreements for a limited time. The first 24 months with AT&T and the first 18 months with the European carriers. After that time the iPhone could be offered on other carriers. That would have given people a clear direction in the future of their iPhone investment. As it was people did not know if the iPhone would be tied to one carrier over a short term or indefinitely.
Reversing the revenue sharing deals now means Apple should have never done revenue sharing. It didn't work. They should have just charged the carriers a premium for the exclusive sales of the iPhone and let that be at that.
It appears Apple is learning and adjusting. I imagine they are using this information and will reintroduce a stronger product in the near future.
Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy
But okay contracts are now the flavor of the day.
Someone read from the article, "Italians are the number one consumer of pre-paid wireless contracts worldwide each year," and thought it an oxymoron. From their it was explained that contract is more than one's John Hancock on a legal sized paper with very small print.
I was merely responding to the comment that Apple "showing" respect to Italians by offering 3G iphones exclusively to Italy for several months.
No you did not. I was just getting that clarified.
Look, the fact that you seem to have some major issues with Apple's business methods and models is plainly obvious. I am certainly not judging that (actually, I even agree with you that is the case with Apple in many areas).
It is just that when you do proforma Apple-bashing, you detract from your own credibility: You were implying that there was no way that Apple could be capable of showing any "respect" to Italians (or whoever) since Apple is Apple and their way of doing business stinks. But to suggest that the Chinese could descend in droves (!), and that could, in turn, drive Apple to have a 2-per purchase w/CC-only policy, and that, in turn, cannot be consistent with Apple showing "respect" is a stretch.
This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe.
Beginning to open the revenue sharing deals now means Apple should have never done revenue sharing. It didn't work. They should have just charged the carriers a premium for the exclusive sales of the iPhone and let that be at that.
It appears Apple is learning and adjusting. I imagine they are using this information and will reintroduce a stronger product in the near future.
You change your tune pretty quickly don't you?
Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui;
The iPhone failing in Europe so spectacularly has put a big on my face - love it!
To which you replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell;
You are playing pretty fast and loose with the facts to prove this point. You highlight certain facts and completely ignore others that don’t support your assertion.
And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?
I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.
I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)
It is just that when you do proforma Apple-bashing, you detract from your own credibility: You were implying that there was no way that Apple could be capable of showing any "respect" to Italians (or whoever) since Apple is Apple and their way of doing business stinks. But to suggest that the Chinese could descend in droves (!), and that could, in turn, drive Apple to have a 2-per purchase w/CC-only policy, and that, in turn, cannot be consistent with Apple showing "respect" is a stretch.
C'mon....
There was absoutely no bashing of apple with that comment.
What has "respect to the Italians" got to do with providing a several months worldwide exclusive to a Italian carrier in the first place?
I was merely explaining the real life practical problem with such a worldwide exclusive --- which is that those iphones would be exported. Ask any AT&T employee and they will start using all kinds of curse words --- all the work and zero commissions because they never got connected to AT&T.
So the real life practical problem is that Italian employees don't get paid for commissions of all the iphones being exported worldwide. The Italian consumers don't get much iphones because organized businesses hire kids to buy the iphones off the stores to be exported worldwide. And Italians might get offended by Apple's strict rules to reduce exportation by basically treating all Italians like the Mafia and require photo ids, paid by credit cards.
I was merely showing the practical problems of such worldwide exclusive.
The only way to show respect --- is to not charge these people extra money. The US iphone plan is the same as a regular price voice plan plus a regular price wap plan. That's respect (also that's competitiveness of Verizon Wireless).
The word semantic seems to have become somewhat pejorative over time. When you have so many from different cultures and different ages frequenting the same forum it is important that we define terms as best we can to make sure we are talking about the same things. As we've seen, when we have different definitions for the same words things get out of control very fast.
edit: I read that as "you are" not "are you". Mea culpa.
This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe. People in the UK, France, and Germany will be free to buy an Italian phone and use it on which ever carrier they choose.
I don't see a problem with the partnerships. When launching a new product or entering a new market its a common business practice for companies partner. It helps give the product a supportive base as it gains brand recognition and market penetration.
There is certainly no problem with these partnerships where they are beneficial for Apple and the customer. I do think though that Apple underestimated the greed of the carriers. Neither T-Mobile in Germany, nor Orange in France, nor O2 in Ireland did make any effort to come up with really attractive tariffs. O2 in the UK did better and the numbers reflect it clearly.
In Germany they may have sold around 100,000 - 150,000 iPhones officially (which is far below the iPhone's potential in a market that rich) and assumptions are that for every official iPhone there are at least 2 in-official ones in the country. Internet forums are crowded with people discussing problems with jailbroken/unlocked phones and multi-page instructions how to fix certain errors using Terminal, SSH and other tricks that will only scare away the average user and eat up Apple's reputation of delivering reliable products that simply work. People reading those will not care to differentiate between official and in-official problems. And now they have to lower prices to clear stock - this takes away from the "perceived value" of the product and does ultimately have an effect on future pricing and pricing in countries not even on the list yet. Even if the iPhone is and will certainly remain to be a well-deserved success overall, I think there is no denying that this strategy resulted in non-materialization of revenue and marketshare. Now having people still paying a lunatic tariff for another 23 months, while others get huge discounts, a new 3G model or simply enjoy their unlocked phone and third party apps... you do not really generate user satisfaction with such a mess and having x "classes" of users. No, Apple did not force a single individual into any of this, but if they would have just sold their device like any other phone maker and stood away from negotiating strange deals with providers, the overall reputation and adoption in Europe would be better. The iPod became the hottest selling player despite its premium price because it worked, looked good, and was hassle-free, you could buy music from iTunes or just use your own CDs or MP3s from other sources - no handcuffs. Whoever told Apple to change a working strategy has not done them a favour (IMHO).
Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.?
To which you replied:
And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?
I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.
I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)
There is certainly no problem with these partnerships where they are beneficial for Apple and the customer. I do think though that Apple underestimated the greed of the carriers. Neither T-Mobile in Germany, nor Orange in France, nor O2 in Ireland did make any effort to come up with really attractive tariffs. O2 in the UK did better and the numbers reflect it clearly.
It's not greed, it's just a function of the level of competition among the mobile carriers.
France has only 3 national carriers --- with Orange owning 46% of the mobile market.
Germany has 4 national carriers --- but it's very top heavy (by the 2 top carriers).
Ireland has 3 national carriers (plus 3 Ireland but they only have 1.5% market share).
UK has 4 big national carriers and 1 small national carrier (3 UK) --- the one with the most number of carriers have more competition --- therefore lower prices.
US has 4 national carriers --- 3 big ones and T-Mobile (even though Sprint Nextel is a basketcase --- it is still big). And Verizon Wireless is so competitive that they said no to Apple.
You change your tune pretty quickly don't you? Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.? And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?
No I don't think I have. I never stated whether I thought Apple should or should not have revenue sharing. What I said is that its not entirely different from the mobile carriers traditionally subsidizes phones. The carrier is paying the manufacturer money for the phone and taking a loss either way.
Quote:
I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.
I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)
You were playing fast and loose with facts. You did HIGHLIGHT facts that proved your opinion and outright IGNORED other facts that disputed your opinion.
It's not greed, it's just a function of the level of competition among the mobile carriers.
They had a hot potato on their hands and tried to charge as much as they could for it.
Quote:
And Verizon Wireless is so competitive that they said no to Apple.
I'm sure Verizon executives were appalled that Apple would propose a phone with so much functionality and would not allow Verizon to charge an individual fee for every function.
Comments
so if I buy gas for my car it is a contract too? I don't see how this is different:
I have a phone, I need credit to call -or- I have a car, I need gas to drive
if I pay for 60 mins and only get 45 mins I take it up with the seller,
just like when I buy 60 liters of gas and only get 45 liters.
I've posted several links to it. It's a bloody contract for the sale of goods.
Using a recent example: There were people who bought gas from a station only to have their cars sputter to a stop a few miles down the road. The gas was contaminated with water. The customer has a legal right to get compensated for the gas purchased and any damage that may have been caused by the water as they did not get the goods that were specified.
If you keep thinking of a contract as ONLY as a long form with small print and cryptic writing then we are going to continue to go in circles. The links I posted are above.
so if I buy gas for my car it is a contract too?
You bet it is. So is buying something at a garage sale.
if I pay for 60 mins and only get 45 mins I take it up with the seller,
just like when I buy 60 liters of gas and only get 45 liters.
A contract in its most basic is just a binding agreement between two parties.
So yes when one agrees to pay a certain amount of money for a certain product. Both the buyer and seller are entering a contract for a good or service. If the buyer does not pay or the seller does not provide the agreed upon good or service the contract in its simplest form has been breached.
It's still a contract, no matter what the actual deal is.
Okay, just so this can move along.
So what? I pay and get my minutes. I buy them online, or go to a shop. I get exactly what I pay for. Where is the problem?
Okay, just so this can move along.
So what? I pay and get my minutes. I buy them online, or go to a shop. I get exactly what I pay for. Where is the problem?
There is no problem so long as you get what you paid for.
There is no problem so long as you get what you paid for.
????????????
Uhhhhh.... What kind of billing systems are you familiar with? Not once have I heard of a person with a prepaid subscription getting less than what he or she paid for. It looks like you are searching for problems where none exist.
????????????
Uhhhhh.... What kind of billing systems are you familiar with? Not once have I heard of a person with a prepaid subscription getting less than what he or she paid for. It looks like you are searching for problems where none exist.
Have you been following the thread? This is about what legally defines a contract, not the likelihood that the prepaid card won't be honored.
But if you want examples of customers not getting what they purchased you can scour the nets for many examples. I suggest looking up the fun ones that have consoles replaced by bricks and other items.
Have you been following the thread? This is about what legally defines a contract, not the likelihood that the prepaid card won't be honored.
But if you want examples of customers not getting what they purchased you can scour the nets for many examples. I suggest looking up the fun ones that have consoles replaced by bricks and other items.
Actually this thread is supposed to be about:
Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy
But okay contracts are now the flavor of the day.
I don't see a problem with the partnerships. When launching a new product or entering a new market its a common business practice for companies partner. It helps give the product a supportive base as it gains brand recognition and market penetration.
The mobile phone market is completely new for Apple. Having partners in the short term gives them room to work out the bugs, develop, and grow the iPhone. As a brand it is in a much stronger position when it opens up to more networks.
From what I'm seeing the two biggest problems with Apple's strategy has been its secretiveness and the revenue sharing. Apple should have openly stated that they were entering exclusive agreements for a limited time. The first 24 months with AT&T and the first 18 months with the European carriers. After that time the iPhone could be offered on other carriers. That would have given people a clear direction in the future of their iPhone investment. As it was people did not know if the iPhone would be tied to one carrier over a short term or indefinitely.
Reversing the revenue sharing deals now means Apple should have never done revenue sharing. It didn't work. They should have just charged the carriers a premium for the exclusive sales of the iPhone and let that be at that.
It appears Apple is learning and adjusting. I imagine they are using this information and will reintroduce a stronger product in the near future.
Actually this thread is supposed to be about:
Apple said to have signed landmark 3G iPhone deal for Italy
But okay contracts are now the flavor of the day.
Someone read from the article, "Italians are the number one consumer of pre-paid wireless contracts worldwide each year," and thought it an oxymoron. From their it was explained that contract is more than one's John Hancock on a legal sized paper with very small print.
Did I say that it's Apple's fault?
I was merely responding to the comment that Apple "showing" respect to Italians by offering 3G iphones exclusively to Italy for several months.
No you did not. I was just getting that clarified.
Look, the fact that you seem to have some major issues with Apple's business methods and models is plainly obvious. I am certainly not judging that (actually, I even agree with you that is the case with Apple in many areas).
It is just that when you do proforma Apple-bashing, you detract from your own credibility: You were implying that there was no way that Apple could be capable of showing any "respect" to Italians (or whoever) since Apple is Apple and their way of doing business stinks. But to suggest that the Chinese could descend in droves (!), and that could, in turn, drive Apple to have a 2-per purchase w/CC-only policy, and that, in turn, cannot be consistent with Apple showing "respect" is a stretch.
C'mon....
This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe.
Beginning to open the revenue sharing deals now means Apple should have never done revenue sharing. It didn't work. They should have just charged the carriers a premium for the exclusive sales of the iPhone and let that be at that.
It appears Apple is learning and adjusting. I imagine they are using this information and will reintroduce a stronger product in the near future.
You change your tune pretty quickly don't you?
Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.?
The iPhone failing in Europe so spectacularly has put a big
To which you replied:
You are playing pretty fast and loose with the facts to prove this point. You highlight certain facts and completely ignore others that don’t support your assertion.
And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?
I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.
I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)
It is just that when you do proforma Apple-bashing, you detract from your own credibility: You were implying that there was no way that Apple could be capable of showing any "respect" to Italians (or whoever) since Apple is Apple and their way of doing business stinks. But to suggest that the Chinese could descend in droves (!), and that could, in turn, drive Apple to have a 2-per purchase w/CC-only policy, and that, in turn, cannot be consistent with Apple showing "respect" is a stretch.
C'mon....
There was absoutely no bashing of apple with that comment.
What has "respect to the Italians" got to do with providing a several months worldwide exclusive to a Italian carrier in the first place?
I was merely explaining the real life practical problem with such a worldwide exclusive --- which is that those iphones would be exported. Ask any AT&T employee and they will start using all kinds of curse words --- all the work and zero commissions because they never got connected to AT&T.
So the real life practical problem is that Italian employees don't get paid for commissions of all the iphones being exported worldwide. The Italian consumers don't get much iphones because organized businesses hire kids to buy the iphones off the stores to be exported worldwide. And Italians might get offended by Apple's strict rules to reduce exportation by basically treating all Italians like the Mafia and require photo ids, paid by credit cards.
I was merely showing the practical problems of such worldwide exclusive.
The only way to show respect --- is to not charge these people extra money. The US iphone plan is the same as a regular price voice plan plus a regular price wap plan. That's respect (also that's competitiveness of Verizon Wireless).
It's still a contract, no matter what the actual deal is.
Are you a professor in semantics?
Are you a professor in semantics?
edit: I read that as "you are" not "are you". Mea culpa.
This is a pretty interesting turn of events. Not the most graceful change of strategy for Apple. It seems Apple will have to give up revenue sharing in Europe. People in the UK, France, and Germany will be free to buy an Italian phone and use it on which ever carrier they choose.
I don't see a problem with the partnerships. When launching a new product or entering a new market its a common business practice for companies partner. It helps give the product a supportive base as it gains brand recognition and market penetration.
There is certainly no problem with these partnerships where they are beneficial for Apple and the customer. I do think though that Apple underestimated the greed of the carriers. Neither T-Mobile in Germany, nor Orange in France, nor O2 in Ireland did make any effort to come up with really attractive tariffs. O2 in the UK did better and the numbers reflect it clearly.
In Germany they may have sold around 100,000 - 150,000 iPhones officially (which is far below the iPhone's potential in a market that rich) and assumptions are that for every official iPhone there are at least 2 in-official ones in the country. Internet forums are crowded with people discussing problems with jailbroken/unlocked phones and multi-page instructions how to fix certain errors using Terminal, SSH and other tricks that will only scare away the average user and eat up Apple's reputation of delivering reliable products that simply work. People reading those will not care to differentiate between official and in-official problems. And now they have to lower prices to clear stock - this takes away from the "perceived value" of the product and does ultimately have an effect on future pricing and pricing in countries not even on the list yet. Even if the iPhone is and will certainly remain to be a well-deserved success overall, I think there is no denying that this strategy resulted in non-materialization of revenue and marketshare. Now having people still paying a lunatic tariff for another 23 months, while others get huge discounts, a new 3G model or simply enjoy their unlocked phone and third party apps... you do not really generate user satisfaction with such a mess and having x "classes" of users. No, Apple did not force a single individual into any of this, but if they would have just sold their device like any other phone maker and stood away from negotiating strange deals with providers, the overall reputation and adoption in Europe would be better. The iPod became the hottest selling player despite its premium price because it worked, looked good, and was hassle-free, you could buy music from iTunes or just use your own CDs or MP3s from other sources - no handcuffs. Whoever told Apple to change a working strategy has not done them a favour (IMHO).
You change your tune pretty quickly don't you?
Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.?
To which you replied:
And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?
I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.
I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)
NICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is certainly no problem with these partnerships where they are beneficial for Apple and the customer. I do think though that Apple underestimated the greed of the carriers. Neither T-Mobile in Germany, nor Orange in France, nor O2 in Ireland did make any effort to come up with really attractive tariffs. O2 in the UK did better and the numbers reflect it clearly.
It's not greed, it's just a function of the level of competition among the mobile carriers.
France has only 3 national carriers --- with Orange owning 46% of the mobile market.
Germany has 4 national carriers --- but it's very top heavy (by the 2 top carriers).
Ireland has 3 national carriers (plus 3 Ireland but they only have 1.5% market share).
UK has 4 big national carriers and 1 small national carrier (3 UK) --- the one with the most number of carriers have more competition --- therefore lower prices.
US has 4 national carriers --- 3 big ones and T-Mobile (even though Sprint Nextel is a basketcase --- it is still big). And Verizon Wireless is so competitive that they said no to Apple.
You change your tune pretty quickly don't you? Do you recall this little exchange from three days ago.? And now you say they shoud never have done revenue sharing. So how come you didn't say or think that 3 days ago?
No I don't think I have. I never stated whether I thought Apple should or should not have revenue sharing. What I said is that its not entirely different from the mobile carriers traditionally subsidizes phones. The carrier is paying the manufacturer money for the phone and taking a loss either way.
I said MONTHS ago that revenue sharing was greedy and would fail, I even strenuously highlighted the fact Europe is predominantly a pre-paid market - using Italy as the prime example - so trying to force contracts on us wasn't going to work.
I got a lot of grief for my views then, but being entirely vindicated by events is some consolation. ;-)
You were playing fast and loose with facts. You did HIGHLIGHT facts that proved your opinion and outright IGNORED other facts that disputed your opinion.
It's not greed, it's just a function of the level of competition among the mobile carriers.
They had a hot potato on their hands and tried to charge as much as they could for it.
And Verizon Wireless is so competitive that they said no to Apple.
I'm sure Verizon executives were appalled that Apple would propose a phone with so much functionality and would not allow Verizon to charge an individual fee for every function.