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.
I see your point and can agree. One key part of Apple's negotiations though are the data tarriffs. Much of the iPhones functionality lies in unlimited data. Through those negotiations Apple was able to get the price of unlimited data down to where more people are willing to use it.
Now consumers will actively seek out cheaper unlimited data plans for their iPhone's and carriers will be forced to offer it. This is unlikely to have happened had Apple simply released it as any other phone.
They had a hot potato on their hands and tried to charge as much as they could for it.
It's a function of national priorities.
People were all talking about how Europe has all kinds of simlocking laws. Turns out that those simlocking laws are practically useless (i.e. let's charge 750 euro for the unlocked iphone in France).
When is the French government going to auction the 4th 3G mobile license? You can't protect French consumers when there are only 3 national carriers and the top carrier owns 46% of the market.
The US has more competition and no simlocking laws --- yet AT&T and T-Mobile USA will give you unlocking codes (for all phones except the iphone) for FREE after 90 days.
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.
Makes good sense, but is actually more a point for not making exclusive agreements. Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!
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.
An older friend of mine who is technology shy, shall we say, bought a phone with a pay as you go contract. It seemed fine, until he got the contract in the mail. What he was told over the phone was just a subset of the actual contract. That had restrictions he didn't know about, or understand.
Even if you buy a card with 60 minutes, you may not be free and clear. I'm not saying it will happen, but what if you couldn't use those minutes during certain parts of the day or week? If you weren't told that up front, then all wouldn't be fine and dandy after all.
Makes good sense, but is actually more a point for not making exclusive agreements. Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!
They CANNOT damage each other because Orange owns 46% of the French market. And the frecnh mobile carriers were charged with price fixing a few years back.
Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!
I'm sure the partnerships did not work out the way Apple intended or expected.
As much as Europeans like to bemoan US business policies. In this case part of the reason the iPhone has worked well for AT&T is because they didn't charge an outrageous contract and attempt to profiteer from it.
They CANNOT damage each other because Orange owns 46% of the French market. And the frecnh mobile carriers were charged with price fixing a few years back.
It's never going to be competitive in the first place.
I see (do not know the French situation too well). In Germany the competition is actually showing some results, people changing providers is becoming more and more common, and especially voice flats and data tariffs are coming down quite rapidly (not far enough, but still...). In this climate (everybody is aware of that trend) people are even more unwilling to sign up for long-term contracts. In my very case the difference between the offical iPhone tariff and what I pay for my unlocked iPhone is roughly 5,100 EUR in 24 months (that is approx. 8,100 USD) - or the equivalent of a 17" MacBook Pro and a quite decent Mac Pro. And I am even using T-Mobile, just not the official iPhone tariff.
I'm sure the partnerships did not work out the way Apple intended or expected.
As much as Europeans like to bemoan US business policies. In this case part of the reason the iPhone has worked well for AT&T is because they didn't charge an outrageous contract and attempt to profiteer from it.
And what AT&T is able to charge is directly related to how well Verizon Wireless is attracting postpaid subscribers. AT&T got 1.2 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter vs. VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.
AT&T didn't charge an outrageous iphone plan because they can't.
And what AT&T is able to charge is directly related to how well Verizon Wireless is attracting postpaid subscribers. AT&T got 1.2 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter vs. VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.
AT&T didn't charge an outrageous iphone plan because they can't.
Sounds like healthy open market competition to me.
Which is why no matter how you structure the iphone in Europe --- it would still be a bad deal for Europeans. There is no magic solution when their market is non-competitive to begin with.
Interesting I didn't know that.
Europe is generally stereotyped as being a fair place to do business.
Jesus, i actually feel dumber having to read this bs.
Its not BS.
If you bought something that did not perform the way you and the seller agreed it would. You have the right to take that person to court and force them to either give your money back or to satisfy the obligation of the product or service you payed for.
The reason you can do this is because the buyer and seller entered an agreement, which is a contract. Even if no paperwork was signed.
Right and all the responses questioning your contract comments are fanmail. Dream on.
However I commend you for holding everybody word for word accountable for the exact meaning of their words- a lawyer perhaps?
I think if you count the actual number of people who have agreed, and the ones who haven't, you will see a preponderance on my side of the issue.
Not a lawyer. I've owned, or been a partner in two businesses since 1973, so I've read and approved of a lot of contracts. My wife is a lawyer though. We discuss these issues more than a bit. I also enjoy language, and tend to be strict about the meaning of what's being said.
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.
It is the same. They contract to sell you gas of a certain quality at a certain amount per gallon (or liter). You agree to pay them for that.
If their product doesn't meet the agreed upon standard, you can sue them. If it reaches the level of fraud, it can be a criminal action.
Anytime you buy, rent, lease a product, or pay for some service, you enter a contract.
I know people don't think this way, but that's what it 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?
As Solipsism has said, as long as there is no problem, then there is no problem.
It's when there is a problem that it matters.
But, I'm sure you realize that.
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.
I see your point and can agree. One key part of Apple's negotiations though are the data tarriffs. Much of the iPhones functionality lies in unlimited data. Through those negotiations Apple was able to get the price of unlimited data down to where more people are willing to use it.
Now consumers will actively seek out cheaper unlimited data plans for their iPhone's and carriers will be forced to offer it. This is unlikely to have happened had Apple simply released it as any other phone.
They had a hot potato on their hands and tried to charge as much as they could for it.
It's a function of national priorities.
People were all talking about how Europe has all kinds of simlocking laws. Turns out that those simlocking laws are practically useless (i.e. let's charge 750 euro for the unlocked iphone in France).
When is the French government going to auction the 4th 3G mobile license? You can't protect French consumers when there are only 3 national carriers and the top carrier owns 46% of the market.
The US has more competition and no simlocking laws --- yet AT&T and T-Mobile USA will give you unlocking codes (for all phones except the iphone) for FREE after 90 days.
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.
Makes good sense, but is actually more a point for not making exclusive agreements. Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!
????????????
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.
An older friend of mine who is technology shy, shall we say, bought a phone with a pay as you go contract. It seemed fine, until he got the contract in the mail. What he was told over the phone was just a subset of the actual contract. That had restrictions he didn't know about, or understand.
Even if you buy a card with 60 minutes, you may not be free and clear. I'm not saying it will happen, but what if you couldn't use those minutes during certain parts of the day or week? If you weren't told that up front, then all wouldn't be fine and dandy after all.
Are you a professor in semantics?
It isn't semantics. It's pretty straight forward.
Most people commenting on it seem to understand it.
Makes good sense, but is actually more a point for not making exclusive agreements. Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!
They CANNOT damage each other because Orange owns 46% of the French market. And the frecnh mobile carriers were charged with price fixing a few years back.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ing/2005-08-25
It's never going to be competitive in the first place.
Why voluntarily jump into the hot seat and annoy potential customers instead of throwing the hardware into the shark pool and let them damage each other (aka compete) for the benefit of the customer and subsequently Apple? Lower tariffs, less handcuffs, more sales and marketshare. If Apple would have charged a hundred bucks more for provider-independent models (instead of generating a monster business for thousands of dubious people on eBay), the bottom line may even be better?!
I'm sure the partnerships did not work out the way Apple intended or expected.
As much as Europeans like to bemoan US business policies. In this case part of the reason the iPhone has worked well for AT&T is because they didn't charge an outrageous contract and attempt to profiteer from it.
They CANNOT damage each other because Orange owns 46% of the French market. And the frecnh mobile carriers were charged with price fixing a few years back.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...ing/2005-08-25
It's never going to be competitive in the first place.
I see (do not know the French situation too well). In Germany the competition is actually showing some results, people changing providers is becoming more and more common, and especially voice flats and data tariffs are coming down quite rapidly (not far enough, but still...). In this climate (everybody is aware of that trend) people are even more unwilling to sign up for long-term contracts. In my very case the difference between the offical iPhone tariff and what I pay for my unlocked iPhone is roughly 5,100 EUR in 24 months (that is approx. 8,100 USD) - or the equivalent of a 17" MacBook Pro and a quite decent Mac Pro. And I am even using T-Mobile, just not the official iPhone tariff.
It isn't semantics. It's pretty straight forward.
Most people commenting on it seem to understand it.
Right and all the responses questioning your contract comments are fanmail. Dream on.
However I commend you for holding everybody word for word accountable for the exact meaning of their words- a lawyer perhaps?
I'm sure the partnerships did not work out the way Apple intended or expected.
As much as Europeans like to bemoan US business policies. In this case part of the reason the iPhone has worked well for AT&T is because they didn't charge an outrageous contract and attempt to profiteer from it.
And what AT&T is able to charge is directly related to how well Verizon Wireless is attracting postpaid subscribers. AT&T got 1.2 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter vs. VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.
AT&T didn't charge an outrageous iphone plan because they can't.
VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.
I thought Verizon lost more subscribers than it gained.
I thought Verizon lost more subscribers than it gained.
Nope. You might be thinking about landline --- which both Verizon and AT&T are losing subscribers.
Verizon Wireless gained 1.65 million postpaid subscribers, 250K prepaid subscribers and 100K wholesale subscribers (i.e. GM OnStar) in the christmas quarter.
AT&T Wireless gained 1.2 million postpaid subscribers, 750K prepaid subscribers and 750K wholesale subscribers (Tracfone) in the christmas quarter.
And what AT&T is able to charge is directly related to how well Verizon Wireless is attracting postpaid subscribers. AT&T got 1.2 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter vs. VZW got 1.7 million postpaid subscribers in the christmas quarter.
AT&T didn't charge an outrageous iphone plan because they can't.
Sounds like healthy open market competition to me.
It's still a contract, no matter what the actual deal is.
Jesus, i actually feel dumber having to read this bs.
Sounds like healthy open market competition to me.
Which is why no matter how you structure the iphone in Europe --- it would still be a bad deal for Europeans.
There is no magic solution when their market is non-competitive to begin with.
Which is why no matter how you structure the iphone in Europe --- it would still be a bad deal for Europeans. There is no magic solution when their market is non-competitive to begin with.
Interesting I didn't know that.
Europe is generally stereotyped as being a fair place to do business.
Jesus, i actually feel dumber having to read this bs.
Its not BS.
If you bought something that did not perform the way you and the seller agreed it would. You have the right to take that person to court and force them to either give your money back or to satisfy the obligation of the product or service you payed for.
The reason you can do this is because the buyer and seller entered an agreement, which is a contract. Even if no paperwork was signed.
Right and all the responses questioning your contract comments are fanmail. Dream on.
However I commend you for holding everybody word for word accountable for the exact meaning of their words- a lawyer perhaps?
I think if you count the actual number of people who have agreed, and the ones who haven't, you will see a preponderance on my side of the issue.
Not a lawyer. I've owned, or been a partner in two businesses since 1973, so I've read and approved of a lot of contracts. My wife is a lawyer though. We discuss these issues more than a bit. I also enjoy language, and tend to be strict about the meaning of what's being said.