Other than the visual voice mail, what other integration is there? I don't have an iPhone (largely because I will never, ever again be a customer of ATT wireless), so maybe there are some other features I'm not aware of. But as far as I know, every other feature of the iPhone is not tied to ATT and would easily work with any other network.
Or they could insist during contract negotiations on getting the same terms they have with Orange, which the other carriers may or may not be willing to agree to.
It seems the typical reaction in Europe for these types of cases is to presume guilt while you are deliberating the actual case; whereas in the US you'd have to have a pretty strong arguement going in for a preliminary injunction to be issued like this. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, just an observation. The US method would allow a potentially consumer unfriendly practice to continue while the case is heard. But the European way would create a mess if the court case ends up being decided in favor of the current exclusive arrangement and be potentially confusing for customers.
Actually, NOTHING is tied to ATT, or any other carrier (except the GSM chipset). Visual Voicemail can be thought of as a bolt-in server provided by Apple that ATT puts in a rack in their data center and connects a DS3 (or some VoIP pipe or whatever). It's likely similar to an IVR. Basically it works like this, after you dial the cellphone's number.
1) Call arrives at ATT PBX
2) Call control 'program' begins to handle the call
3) Program says, step 1 ring at phone for x seconds/x rings while caller hears ringback
4) Program says, step 2 transfer call to extension xyz (the voice destination extension of the Vis Voicemail server)
5) V.V. server 'answers' the call and begins playing your message (it knows based on fancy shmancy CTI technology who the caller is, and who they were trying to call)
6) V.V. server saves and compresses the audio from the message, transferring it over the air to your phone.
7) BOOM! you have a compressed audio file of your voicemail sitting on your phone.
The only thing specific to any wireless carrier is the frequency of the wireless signal (and the protocol it uses over the air). For purposes here, it should be suffice to say that, globally, all 3G GSM providers are created equal - providing a 'pipe' from the phone to the public voice and data(internet) network.
Any company that Apple sells the servers to, can provide the complete iPhone experience.
i find it strange that after the massive and negative consequences of a lack of regulation in the US
people are still against some form regulation !?
You need to realize the people who post in these discussions related to Apple's business, and not the product rumor threads, etc., are mostly Apple stockholders. They are in favor of whatever makes Apple the most $$$$.
Normally I am pro-consumer and pro-innovation, but this whole story comes across as odd. It apparently has nothing to do with the iPhone itself being locked to Orange (you can buy an unlocked model). It apparently only has to do with other (wireless?) vendors being able to sell the iPhone itself through their stores. Why limit it to wireless vendors? What if McDonalds in France wanted to sell the iPhone? What if a million companies in France wanted to sell the iPhone, would Apple be forced to commit the resources to interact with and distribute to all of those companies?
I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this statement. The current reality is that the best phones are tied to carriers. The Mac is not tied with any internet service provider, I'm not sure how that is applicable.
I'm saying that the cellular service model is the most bizarrely set up system, no other type of utility is handled like that, where the desirable product that uses the utility is tied to the provider of the utility.
Quote:
Can you name a phone that navigated through the politics of all of the carriers and retained the same freedom and functionality with them all?
That's beside the point. I'm trying to point out that phones don't have to be sold through the carriers. But I guess people just accept it despite the fact that the business model basically comes from bizzaro world.
Personally, I absolutely love it when some old-fashioned right-wing capitalist company gets blind-sided by decent modern European laws designed to give the consumers a chance for a change.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
Liberté - except the Liberté to chose the integrated product/service model that actually works!
égalité - to ensure that no product is allowed to excel by standardising on the lowest common denominator
fraternité - united indeed - through ignorance! These values represent the biggest coup of oppression on the planet (the one dressed as freedom).
Surley engaging legal tactics to undo someone else's successful business model is in itself 'anti-competitive'
The consumer already can have the SIM lock removed immediately. They just have to pay an early unlocking fee.
This is not about consumer rights. This is a case of one business complaining that another business has (what they consider to be) an unfair competitive advantage.
100%
Orange/France Telecom built out a better network and implemented visual voicemail for the iphone. Bouygues Telecom is crying after the game changing iphone came around... after a year of it being on the market. Now it's "urgent" to stop Orange? Just in time for Christmas?
Bouygues sucked when I lived there (for 8 years). In fact, all telephone companies sucked.
Now prices are becoming more reasonable. The iphone is changing things everywhere it gets sold.
bloody socialists dont know the meaning of the word competition.
All this does is hinder innovation and rule out a business model which in my opinion works better. So rather than the industry competing with similar business model to Apple, the industry cries like a little girl, and Apple are forced to use the outdated model.
And then the whole thing stagnates, progression halted, but thats socialism for ya.
Oh get over it you idiot. Socialism != regulated capitalism! And there is nothing wrong with properly regulating an economy. Laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism is one of the major problems in this world. The ironic thing in this case is that they are enforcing *competition laws*, which is more less socialist and more capitalist than the monopolistic telecom situation in America where regulation is ONLY used to further entrench the incumbents and shield them from competition. See American broadband.
I applaud France for siding with consumers and believing in real competition!
p.s., let me guess you were one of the geniuses calling Obama's tax plan "socialism" when it is in fact one of the lowest overall taxation schemes in the entire western world, and lower than that signed into law by the conservative hero Reagan in his first term.
I'm saying that the cellular service model is the most bizarrely set up system, no other type of utility is handled like that, where the desirable product that uses the utility is tied to the provider of the utility.
I totally agree, the mobile system is a totally messed up system.
Quote:
That's beside the point. I'm trying to point out that phones don't have to be sold through the carriers. But I guess people just accept it despite the fact that the business model basically comes from bizzaro world.
I agree that it does not have to be this way. But that does not change the fact that this is the reality.
The only one who will benefit from this order is Apple since revenue sharing with carriers ended with the 3G iPhone. This will help Apple sell more iPhones at full price (they still get paid the full price even with exclusive carriers). However, I do believe that free market include the right for companies to make exclusive deals with whoever they want as long as they don't break the law.
For being a french, I particularly appreciated this one :,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert
Not too surprising from a country that makes it illegal to work more than 36 hours a week.
I think Bouygues just saw Orange offering for Christmas the Iphone 8Gb for 50 euros with a 1 year contract... And when I see all my friends in France buying the Orange's Iphone , I really understand why Bouygues says it's anti-competitive...
Actually SFR already has a work-around. If you buy an unlocked iphone at Orange with no contract, and simply ask a new SIM card to SFR, SFR will give you some money back for using the Iphone on their network
If I remember well, when the Iphone arrived in France, ALL carriers (no just Orange) FINALLY started to offer "real unlimited" data contracts. Thanks to some lawsuits initiated by french customers associations.
Caveat, I'm not intimately familiar with French law or business practice, but I remain skeptical that this government regulation is truly aimed at benefitting consumers. More than likely is for the benefit of French corporations instead, perhaps some of our French forum members can let me know if I'm really off base on this one.
Secondly, as far as Apple is concerned, this seems like it has much less impact now that 3G iPhone is out and Apple has moved away from the exclusive contract model in many new markets. Of course there may be some administrative details that could have moderate impact, but the overall impact to Apple is neutral at worst and probably to their benefit.
I also think the single carrier model was primarily a result of the the business climate in the US wrt cell phone and service providers, and the carry-over to Europe was more a matter of necessity and practicality than a requirement for long term success in non US markets.
Since when is capitalism a bad thing? You do realize that without capitalism you would not have a cellphone manufacturer or carrier to even worry about? Go move to a communist country and buy one of their left-wing socialist cellphones. I'm sure you'll be soo much happier.
Ever heard of Nokia, jackass? Finland is even more left-wing "socialist" than France.
How about Ericsson (of Sony-Ericsson)? Sweden is also (much) further to the left than France.
Also, you might be surprised by how much "socialist" countries were involved in the development of mobile phones. Finland used tax dollars to build the world's first 2G network, and also was the first country to allow data services, including SMS.
Government regulation of prices and policies also makes it cheaper to own and use a cellphone in most of Europe than the US (we don't pay to receive calls, either), which has translated to MUCH higher penetration of mobile phones (i live in denmark and there are more mobile phone contracts than people here now), which has in turn led to more innovation.
Tying certain phone models exclusively to certain carriers, as well as carrier locking, is most definitely anti-competetive and anti consumer choice.
As a consumer in a capitalist market I want to be able to freely choose the phone I want and also to be able to freely choose my mobile carrier. Also, having chosen a phone or carrier I want to be able to freely change to another phone or carrier as I see fit, without having to pay competition stifling penalties and unlocking charges.
As an example, I bought my iPhone on Vodafone in Portugal (I was already a Vodafone customer). I paid full price (600 Euros) for the phone, it's not subsidised and I'm not tied into any contract with Vodafone. However, if I decided I wanted to switch to another carrier and use MY iPhone with that carrier, I can't because it's locked to Vodafone. My consumer choice as far as carries goes is nil.
I view this neutrally. Theoretically, it should bring good, if SFR or someone else
would challenge France Telecom on iPhone contracts. OK, let's say, it gives
customer more options...
But after having tried coverages and services of many of them, I can say,
competitors do not offer something being considerably cheaper. Prices of equal
packages may differ in centimes, but never in dozen of euros. And I do agree
to pay those centimes for Orange's network reliability and prompt help in troubles.
And even to stay patient with France Telecom's habit to promise few and to charge for everything (vs. promisig lot and failures to deliver on the competitors' side).
We were to water show in the nearest small french town last weekend. Everyone around
I find it strange why so many feel that Apple wants to lock in to given carriers. I bet they would love to allow the phone to be used on any carrier.
What I feel should happen is.
1) Carriers forced to to give a lower monthly base rate when a phone is not subsides. If they give you $200 in free phone costs then your basic rate should be $200 less over the two years and if you did take it and don't upgrade and the end of the two years then you also get the discount.
2) Carriers should be forced to allow the phone switch to send Voice Mail Calls to any phone manufacture and not be limited to their the carriers voice mail system. This requires nothing special on the switch, it's only a setting that can be changed on a per line basis. This would allow any manufacture to offer it's own version of voice mail.
3) Force all carriers to accept any phone that have passed FCC testing with no questions asked.
Why do I feel that this would work with iPhones? It's really simple.
1) Apple would likely not charge more than $100 to $150, maybe $200 for a world phone, over the price of an equivalent iPod Touch. Market pressure would keep it at close to that rage and Apple would sell a ton of phones.
2) You could use any SIM card when you travel. This assumes that Apple would have a CDMA phone that would also use a SIM, think BB world phone.
3) Universal voice mail access even when not using your own SIM card. You could still get access to your voice main using the web,
I would be nice but the carriers have too much power for us to see this at least not soon.
But so far as I've seen anyone say, the only thing lost in the mix is visual voice mail. Hardly something to justify your missive.
Apple even promotes how standards compliant they are, so your post makes even less sense.
Features-wise sure but the ability for a handset manufacturer to shape their offering and push back on the provider to adapt their service is also lost. It also means other aspects around the service quality cannot be influenced (OK, dictated) by Apple. This move drops Apple back into the mediocre fray with everyone else. This is also what they're trying to avoid with the media industry.
They claim to be standards based not compliant, or iChat would have been a runaway success as a video conferencing client. They build their technology on standards pulling it their way rather than playing the open standards game like others. Open standards are OK to placate the highly vocal technical community but Apple have proved several times their proprietary model works better and that is beneficial to the customer.
I'm confused by this statement. Largely Apple does play by general open standards. Apple uses an open standard basis with its own proprietary interface, but that does nothing to change the point of an open standard. The most popular instant messaging services are not open standards. They are all proprietary services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave
They claim to be standards based not compliant, or iChat would have been a runaway success as a video conferencing client. They build their technology on standards pulling it their way rather than playing the open standards game like others. Open standards are OK to placate the highly vocal technical community but Apple have proved several times their proprietary model works better and that is beneficial to the customer.
Comments
Other than the visual voice mail, what other integration is there? I don't have an iPhone (largely because I will never, ever again be a customer of ATT wireless), so maybe there are some other features I'm not aware of. But as far as I know, every other feature of the iPhone is not tied to ATT and would easily work with any other network.
Or they could insist during contract negotiations on getting the same terms they have with Orange, which the other carriers may or may not be willing to agree to.
It seems the typical reaction in Europe for these types of cases is to presume guilt while you are deliberating the actual case; whereas in the US you'd have to have a pretty strong arguement going in for a preliminary injunction to be issued like this. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, just an observation. The US method would allow a potentially consumer unfriendly practice to continue while the case is heard. But the European way would create a mess if the court case ends up being decided in favor of the current exclusive arrangement and be potentially confusing for customers.
Actually, NOTHING is tied to ATT, or any other carrier (except the GSM chipset). Visual Voicemail can be thought of as a bolt-in server provided by Apple that ATT puts in a rack in their data center and connects a DS3 (or some VoIP pipe or whatever). It's likely similar to an IVR. Basically it works like this, after you dial the cellphone's number.
1) Call arrives at ATT PBX
2) Call control 'program' begins to handle the call
3) Program says, step 1 ring at phone for x seconds/x rings while caller hears ringback
4) Program says, step 2 transfer call to extension xyz (the voice destination extension of the Vis Voicemail server)
5) V.V. server 'answers' the call and begins playing your message (it knows based on fancy shmancy CTI technology who the caller is, and who they were trying to call)
6) V.V. server saves and compresses the audio from the message, transferring it over the air to your phone.
7) BOOM! you have a compressed audio file of your voicemail sitting on your phone.
The only thing specific to any wireless carrier is the frequency of the wireless signal (and the protocol it uses over the air). For purposes here, it should be suffice to say that, globally, all 3G GSM providers are created equal - providing a 'pipe' from the phone to the public voice and data(internet) network.
Any company that Apple sells the servers to, can provide the complete iPhone experience.
There is not enough competition in France --- 3 national carriers (all French owned) and they were found guilty of price fixing.
Thanks for all your posts on this thread, they improved the s/n ratio dramatically.
I don't see why this is anti-competitive.
If I lived in France I wouldn't care the reasons, I'd just want it to happen.
i find it strange that after the massive and negative consequences of a lack of regulation in the US
people are still against some form regulation !?
You need to realize the people who post in these discussions related to Apple's business, and not the product rumor threads, etc., are mostly Apple stockholders. They are in favor of whatever makes Apple the most $$$$.
Normally I am pro-consumer and pro-innovation, but this whole story comes across as odd. It apparently has nothing to do with the iPhone itself being locked to Orange (you can buy an unlocked model). It apparently only has to do with other (wireless?) vendors being able to sell the iPhone itself through their stores. Why limit it to wireless vendors? What if McDonalds in France wanted to sell the iPhone? What if a million companies in France wanted to sell the iPhone, would Apple be forced to commit the resources to interact with and distribute to all of those companies?
I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this statement. The current reality is that the best phones are tied to carriers. The Mac is not tied with any internet service provider, I'm not sure how that is applicable.
I'm saying that the cellular service model is the most bizarrely set up system, no other type of utility is handled like that, where the desirable product that uses the utility is tied to the provider of the utility.
Can you name a phone that navigated through the politics of all of the carriers and retained the same freedom and functionality with them all?
That's beside the point. I'm trying to point out that phones don't have to be sold through the carriers. But I guess people just accept it despite the fact that the business model basically comes from bizzaro world.
Personally, I absolutely love it when some old-fashioned right-wing capitalist company gets blind-sided by decent modern European laws designed to give the consumers a chance for a change.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
Liberté - except the Liberté to chose the integrated product/service model that actually works!
égalité - to ensure that no product is allowed to excel by standardising on the lowest common denominator
fraternité - united indeed - through ignorance! These values represent the biggest coup of oppression on the planet (the one dressed as freedom).
Surley engaging legal tactics to undo someone else's successful business model is in itself 'anti-competitive'
McD
The consumer already can have the SIM lock removed immediately. They just have to pay an early unlocking fee.
This is not about consumer rights. This is a case of one business complaining that another business has (what they consider to be) an unfair competitive advantage.
100%
Orange/France Telecom built out a better network and implemented visual voicemail for the iphone. Bouygues Telecom is crying after the game changing iphone came around... after a year of it being on the market. Now it's "urgent" to stop Orange? Just in time for Christmas?
Bouygues sucked when I lived there (for 8 years). In fact, all telephone companies sucked.
Now prices are becoming more reasonable. The iphone is changing things everywhere it gets sold.
Vive Apple!
Liberté - except the Liberté to chose the integrated product/service model that actually works!
égalité - to ensure that no product is allowed to excel by standardising on the lowest common denominator
fraternité - united indeed - through ignorance! These values represent the biggest coup of oppression on the planet (the one dressed as freedom).
But so far as I've seen anyone say, the only thing lost in the mix is visual voice mail. Hardly something to justify your missive.
Apple even promotes how standards compliant they are, so your post makes even less sense.
bloody socialists dont know the meaning of the word competition.
All this does is hinder innovation and rule out a business model which in my opinion works better. So rather than the industry competing with similar business model to Apple, the industry cries like a little girl, and Apple are forced to use the outdated model.
And then the whole thing stagnates, progression halted, but thats socialism for ya.
Oh get over it you idiot. Socialism != regulated capitalism! And there is nothing wrong with properly regulating an economy. Laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism is one of the major problems in this world. The ironic thing in this case is that they are enforcing *competition laws*, which is more less socialist and more capitalist than the monopolistic telecom situation in America where regulation is ONLY used to further entrench the incumbents and shield them from competition. See American broadband.
I applaud France for siding with consumers and believing in real competition!
p.s., let me guess you were one of the geniuses calling Obama's tax plan "socialism" when it is in fact one of the lowest overall taxation schemes in the entire western world, and lower than that signed into law by the conservative hero Reagan in his first term.
I'm saying that the cellular service model is the most bizarrely set up system, no other type of utility is handled like that, where the desirable product that uses the utility is tied to the provider of the utility.
I totally agree, the mobile system is a totally messed up system.
That's beside the point. I'm trying to point out that phones don't have to be sold through the carriers. But I guess people just accept it despite the fact that the business model basically comes from bizzaro world.
I agree that it does not have to be this way. But that does not change the fact that this is the reality.
the French Government owns around 30% of France Telecom (ie Orange)
so by telling Orange to play fair in the mobile market (something it's been told a number of times)
the French government is (in a way) telling itself to play fair
now that's regulation of the government !
and something even nutbag conservatives should be happy with
PS how can anyone expect a private company to compete with the national carrier...
FT started out with a monopoly hence the need for a regulator to step in to make it an even playing field
(even after 10 years of slow 'privatisation')
Not too surprising from a country that makes it illegal to work more than 36 hours a week.
I think Bouygues just saw Orange offering for Christmas the Iphone 8Gb for 50 euros with a 1 year contract... And when I see all my friends in France buying the Orange's Iphone , I really understand why Bouygues says it's anti-competitive...
Actually SFR already has a work-around. If you buy an unlocked iphone at Orange with no contract, and simply ask a new SIM card to SFR, SFR will give you some money back for using the Iphone on their network
If I remember well, when the Iphone arrived in France, ALL carriers (no just Orange) FINALLY started to offer "real unlimited" data contracts. Thanks to some lawsuits initiated by french customers associations.
Caveat, I'm not intimately familiar with French law or business practice, but I remain skeptical that this government regulation is truly aimed at benefitting consumers. More than likely is for the benefit of French corporations instead, perhaps some of our French forum members can let me know if I'm really off base on this one.
Secondly, as far as Apple is concerned, this seems like it has much less impact now that 3G iPhone is out and Apple has moved away from the exclusive contract model in many new markets. Of course there may be some administrative details that could have moderate impact, but the overall impact to Apple is neutral at worst and probably to their benefit.
I also think the single carrier model was primarily a result of the the business climate in the US wrt cell phone and service providers, and the carry-over to Europe was more a matter of necessity and practicality than a requirement for long term success in non US markets.
Since when is capitalism a bad thing? You do realize that without capitalism you would not have a cellphone manufacturer or carrier to even worry about? Go move to a communist country and buy one of their left-wing socialist cellphones. I'm sure you'll be soo much happier.
Ever heard of Nokia, jackass? Finland is even more left-wing "socialist" than France.
How about Ericsson (of Sony-Ericsson)? Sweden is also (much) further to the left than France.
Also, you might be surprised by how much "socialist" countries were involved in the development of mobile phones. Finland used tax dollars to build the world's first 2G network, and also was the first country to allow data services, including SMS.
Government regulation of prices and policies also makes it cheaper to own and use a cellphone in most of Europe than the US (we don't pay to receive calls, either), which has translated to MUCH higher penetration of mobile phones (i live in denmark and there are more mobile phone contracts than people here now), which has in turn led to more innovation.
As a consumer in a capitalist market I want to be able to freely choose the phone I want and also to be able to freely choose my mobile carrier. Also, having chosen a phone or carrier I want to be able to freely change to another phone or carrier as I see fit, without having to pay competition stifling penalties and unlocking charges.
As an example, I bought my iPhone on Vodafone in Portugal (I was already a Vodafone customer). I paid full price (600 Euros) for the phone, it's not subsidised and I'm not tied into any contract with Vodafone. However, if I decided I wanted to switch to another carrier and use MY iPhone with that carrier, I can't because it's locked to Vodafone. My consumer choice as far as carries goes is nil.
would challenge France Telecom on iPhone contracts. OK, let's say, it gives
customer more options...
But after having tried coverages and services of many of them, I can say,
competitors do not offer something being considerably cheaper. Prices of equal
packages may differ in centimes, but never in dozen of euros. And I do agree
to pay those centimes for Orange's network reliability and prompt help in troubles.
And even to stay patient with France Telecom's habit to promise few and to charge for everything (vs. promisig lot and failures to deliver on the competitors' side).
We were to water show in the nearest small french town last weekend.
made pictures with iPhones. We too...
What I feel should happen is.
1) Carriers forced to to give a lower monthly base rate when a phone is not subsides. If they give you $200 in free phone costs then your basic rate should be $200 less over the two years and if you did take it and don't upgrade and the end of the two years then you also get the discount.
2) Carriers should be forced to allow the phone switch to send Voice Mail Calls to any phone manufacture and not be limited to their the carriers voice mail system. This requires nothing special on the switch, it's only a setting that can be changed on a per line basis. This would allow any manufacture to offer it's own version of voice mail.
3) Force all carriers to accept any phone that have passed FCC testing with no questions asked.
Why do I feel that this would work with iPhones? It's really simple.
1) Apple would likely not charge more than $100 to $150, maybe $200 for a world phone, over the price of an equivalent iPod Touch. Market pressure would keep it at close to that rage and Apple would sell a ton of phones.
2) You could use any SIM card when you travel. This assumes that Apple would have a CDMA phone that would also use a SIM, think BB world phone.
3) Universal voice mail access even when not using your own SIM card. You could still get access to your voice main using the web,
I would be nice but the carriers have too much power for us to see this at least not soon.
But so far as I've seen anyone say, the only thing lost in the mix is visual voice mail. Hardly something to justify your missive.
Apple even promotes how standards compliant they are, so your post makes even less sense.
Features-wise sure but the ability for a handset manufacturer to shape their offering and push back on the provider to adapt their service is also lost. It also means other aspects around the service quality cannot be influenced (OK, dictated) by Apple. This move drops Apple back into the mediocre fray with everyone else. This is also what they're trying to avoid with the media industry.
They claim to be standards based not compliant, or iChat would have been a runaway success as a video conferencing client. They build their technology on standards pulling it their way rather than playing the open standards game like others. Open standards are OK to placate the highly vocal technical community but Apple have proved several times their proprietary model works better and that is beneficial to the customer.
McD
They claim to be standards based not compliant, or iChat would have been a runaway success as a video conferencing client. They build their technology on standards pulling it their way rather than playing the open standards game like others. Open standards are OK to placate the highly vocal technical community but Apple have proved several times their proprietary model works better and that is beneficial to the customer.
McD