although i too would like to see the iphone available on other networks, and would like to see an end to the 2 year contract requirement, i'm not sure if exclusivity is actually "non-competitive". it could be argued that other carriers have phones that are similar and there are phones that can be used with no contract. this one might be a hard case to win.
also, just wanted to put in a good word for AT&T. i've had sprint and t-mobile before and where i live in the inland empire my reception is better on AT&T. it might be the iphone, though, since it is a better phone than the previous flip phones i had before.
now if i could just get my earthlink DSL line to stop dropping every day or two...
Part of the reason the original iPhone did not have 3G was because AT&T had not yet widely deployed its 3G network across the US. To spread 3G costs AT&T billions in new software and hardware. 2008 AT&T upgraded its 3G network by deploying 3.6Mbps HDSPA. 2009 AT&T is upgrading its network to 7.2 Mbps HDSPA, next year they plan to upgrade to 14 Mbps.
That might have been one reason, though I can remember reading back at the time that it was a question of maturity of the necessary chipsets. In fact, not having 3G in the orginal iPhone may have helped get the phone to market on time and give people a reason to want to upgrade.
At the same time it would appear that Apple tailored some of its features specifically to AT&T, though as the market for the iPhone has grown it has become apparent that AT&T is just a small percentage of the global market that Apple has access to.
The iPhone is in many ways is a game changer, but one that the service providers should have seen coming. On the other hand ther service providers were probably used to being in control, and didn't realise that a phone manufacturer could actually have enough clought to force them to evolve.
The expectation for data on the move is something that the telecom companies need to adjust to. The next thing that they need to adjust to is reasonable data roaming charges, though with the increasing availability of wi-fi hotspots, customers may finally realise they can wait a little and until they are in range of affordable data access.
I echo the sentiment that the only people hurting the telcos are the telcos. In France we saw another disruptive force in terrestial telecom in the form of free.fr (ISP provider). If the outsider knows what people really want, offers it and gets a chance to get a foot hold, then they have a chance of taking the lead.
The attack is such that Apple has all but taken control of the partnership
Thank god. The carriers had far too much control, and were busy strangling the life out of any innovation in the market. All they cared about was the number of checkbox features and the concessions they could get on the price. So it didn't matter if it actually worked or you could use it... "has camera? check!"
Consider this: once everyone goes to LTE on 4G, what will be the difference between carriers? Nothing. At the same time, what will be the difference between the handsets? Everything. The fact that the non-important player in the market has all of the control is the problem.
although i too would like to see the iphone available on other networks, and would like to see an end to the 2 year contract requirement, i'm not sure if exclusivity is actually "non-competitive". it could be argued that other carriers have phones that are similar and there are phones that can be used with no contract. this one might be a hard case to win.
Without the 2-year contract there would be no subsidy, which most people want. Without the subsidy you would not be able to purchase an iPhone for less than $399. Probably more like $499/$599!
Exclusivity is hardly non-competitive. No one needs an iPhone. If our government put half as much energy into healthcare as it does into consumer products our country would be such a better place.
If anything, Apple should be faulted for not wrecking the wireless industry MORE. A computer company making hardware for a phone company was a chance to change all the rules. Choosing a wireless phone service should be no different than choosing an Internet service. Instead consumers are being lured down a path where phones can increasingly replace Internet-connected PCs but with much less freedom and much higher cost.
The wireless industry is trying to monetize services that could not be monetized on the Internet and Apple is happy to play along as long as it gets a piece of it. Email is free, text messaging is expensive. Why? Isn't it pretty much the same thing? And paying for ringtones and limiting what can become a ringtone? How is that different than making your computer play the sounds you want? Why should anybody make money from that? (Yes I know how to get around paying for ringtones but the fact anyone pays is absurd.) Every function that is free on a PC should be free on a phone.
Meanwhile, Apple has made its OS a closed platform. Imagine a PC that required you to buy all software from one store. Even the similarly closed ecosystems of game consoles have more freedom than the App Store, in that you can buy used games at lower prices than new.
The reason these types of examples hold no merit is because US carriers have to cover the third largest country in the world. Which is far more difficult and expensive than covering any one European country. Sweden is the size of one medium sized US state. For carriers to only use their resources to cover that much area would not cost nearly as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwee
I'm surprised about the money AT&T charges you guys.
In Sweden with the carrier exclusive to Apple, you pay around 70-80 dollars a month. Unlimited everything. Calls, data, sms, mms, tethering...
And you pay 200 something dollars upfront for the phone..
My point is you cannot make a credible comparison from what Finnish carriers do to what US carriers do. In the US we can freely roam the entire US without additional fee, unlike Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
I never said it did. Go back and read what I wrote and stop embellishing.
Can you provide proof of this? Note: there is plenty of proof to counter your claims that AT&T “didn't invest new hardware and still havn't upgradded."
Wrong, my friend- the proof is in the dropped calls,
I didn't imply it, that is clearly what I stated. I have not seen anything to the contrary. If you have then link away. I personally don't care as it would still be conjecture as we don't have the contracts and I don't think Apple would come out and say one way or the other, although I know that's is what you are trying to say.
Statements from AT&T and Apple on the matter are easy to find if you look. We don't need to see all of the contracts, Apple nor AT&T are allowed to simply lie about their dealings. You are free to choose to not believe what they've said, simply because you don't believe does not make it untrue.
Quote:
But again to say Apple has no say in how this thing gets priced whether at the register or in the monthly bills is just buffoonery! An example being, although it was only reported in the media, is that Apple was unhappy with Rogers(Canada) data prices and largely limited the volume of 1st generation iPhones it received until it worked its pricing a bit.
That was because Rogers was using the iPhone to gouge it's subscriber. Apple had no direct power to force Rogers to change. Limiting phone shipments was an incentive to change. I would say Apple was doing this to advocate for the consumer and not take more money from the consumer.
You people are hilarious. Bitching about being "gouged" by AT&T while also complaining that their network performance sucks because of too many people on it. Price is the only way that these services can be effectively rationed, and yet you want plans to be cheaper, when the networks can't even handle the customers it currently has.
That might have been one reason, though I can remember reading back at the time that it was a question of maturity of the necessary chipsets. In fact, not having 3G in the orginal iPhone may have helped get the phone to market on time and give people a reason to want to upgrade.
Yes maturity of 3G chipsets was also apart of the problem. I agree delaying 3G helped increase upgrade sales.
Quote:
At the same time it would appear that Apple tailored some of its features specifically to AT&T, though as the market for the iPhone has grown it has become apparent that AT&T is just a small percentage of the global market that Apple has access to.
AT&T accounts for roughly half of the iPhone world sales.
You people are hilarious. Bitching about being "gouged" by AT&T while also complaining that their network performance sucks because of too many people on it. Price is the only way that these services can be effectively rationed, and yet you want plans to be cheaper, when the networks can't even handle the customers it currently has.
And your point? Is it cool for AT&T to act like a slum lord then? Glut the network, let it crap out, and overcharge at the same time?
Dropped calla isn't proof that AT&T hasn't upgraded it's network. With the number of iPhones in New York if AT&T had not upgraded it's network you likely would not be getting any calls at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Wrong, my friend- the proof is in the dropped calls,
That is your answer! Your network covers a much smaller area while servicing a lot less people. More people and more area is not friendly to carriers. I?m not saying that AT&T has not made mistakes but this type of growth would be an issue for any US carrier.
Actually no that's not the answer...
I am in Australia with a landmass equivalent to the USA and with only 20 million people versus 280 million, what's that nearly a 15th the population.. spread over the same area.
I live in the middle of the country in a town of 27,000 people. The nearest population centres of significant numbers are 1500km + away. We have 21Mbit 3G here.
Often my iPhone 3GS clocks faster than my ADSL. MMS worked straight away and tethering also. I am up to 30km's out of town in a desert able to play / upload video. When I am on some of the larger communities nearby (1-200k) with 2-300 people EVEN they have a fully operational 3G network running at 7.2Mbit minimum.
Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone / 3 all offer the iPhone and Apple sells it unlocked on its AU website.
So what exactly is the problem in the USA with your carriers. Even CDMA/EVDO got shut down over a year ago, nationally, it was outdated.
I point you to my comment #119. Your theory fails, especially with your other note that AT&T is half the world sales, well Australia must be piss-ant (mind you it is selling in volumes from my observations, still piss-ant).
Didn't take an iPhone round these parts to get a decent network rolling, or should I say creeping out... perhaps glacial or geological might be better descriptors
Comments
also, just wanted to put in a good word for AT&T. i've had sprint and t-mobile before and where i live in the inland empire my reception is better on AT&T. it might be the iphone, though, since it is a better phone than the previous flip phones i had before.
now if i could just get my earthlink DSL line to stop dropping every day or two...
The US CDMA still dominates in the US and a few other places, but is only about 20% of the market.
your numbers are a little high, CDMA only makes up 10% of the world market...
Part of the reason the original iPhone did not have 3G was because AT&T had not yet widely deployed its 3G network across the US. To spread 3G costs AT&T billions in new software and hardware. 2008 AT&T upgraded its 3G network by deploying 3.6Mbps HDSPA. 2009 AT&T is upgrading its network to 7.2 Mbps HDSPA, next year they plan to upgrade to 14 Mbps.
That might have been one reason, though I can remember reading back at the time that it was a question of maturity of the necessary chipsets. In fact, not having 3G in the orginal iPhone may have helped get the phone to market on time and give people a reason to want to upgrade.
At the same time it would appear that Apple tailored some of its features specifically to AT&T, though as the market for the iPhone has grown it has become apparent that AT&T is just a small percentage of the global market that Apple has access to.
The iPhone is in many ways is a game changer, but one that the service providers should have seen coming. On the other hand ther service providers were probably used to being in control, and didn't realise that a phone manufacturer could actually have enough clought to force them to evolve.
The expectation for data on the move is something that the telecom companies need to adjust to. The next thing that they need to adjust to is reasonable data roaming charges, though with the increasing availability of wi-fi hotspots, customers may finally realise they can wait a little and until they are in range of affordable data access.
I echo the sentiment that the only people hurting the telcos are the telcos. In France we saw another disruptive force in terrestial telecom in the form of free.fr (ISP provider). If the outsider knows what people really want, offers it and gets a chance to get a foot hold, then they have a chance of taking the lead.
"
The attack is such that Apple has all but taken control of the partnership
Thank god. The carriers had far too much control, and were busy strangling the life out of any innovation in the market. All they cared about was the number of checkbox features and the concessions they could get on the price. So it didn't matter if it actually worked or you could use it... "has camera? check!"
Consider this: once everyone goes to LTE on 4G, what will be the difference between carriers? Nothing. At the same time, what will be the difference between the handsets? Everything. The fact that the non-important player in the market has all of the control is the problem.
Maury
although i too would like to see the iphone available on other networks, and would like to see an end to the 2 year contract requirement, i'm not sure if exclusivity is actually "non-competitive". it could be argued that other carriers have phones that are similar and there are phones that can be used with no contract. this one might be a hard case to win.
Without the 2-year contract there would be no subsidy, which most people want. Without the subsidy you would not be able to purchase an iPhone for less than $399. Probably more like $499/$599!
Exclusivity is hardly non-competitive. No one needs an iPhone. If our government put half as much energy into healthcare as it does into consumer products our country would be such a better place.
No further analysis needed.
Disruption means churning things up. Changing the pecking order. When disruption happens, there are winners and losers.
Wrecking means making it worse for everyone. There are only losers.
My guess: the analyst is a loser.
C.
The wireless industry is trying to monetize services that could not be monetized on the Internet and Apple is happy to play along as long as it gets a piece of it. Email is free, text messaging is expensive. Why? Isn't it pretty much the same thing? And paying for ringtones and limiting what can become a ringtone? How is that different than making your computer play the sounds you want? Why should anybody make money from that? (Yes I know how to get around paying for ringtones but the fact anyone pays is absurd.) Every function that is free on a PC should be free on a phone.
Meanwhile, Apple has made its OS a closed platform. Imagine a PC that required you to buy all software from one store. Even the similarly closed ecosystems of game consoles have more freedom than the App Store, in that you can buy used games at lower prices than new.
I'm surprised about the money AT&T charges you guys.
In Sweden with the carrier exclusive to Apple, you pay around 70-80 dollars a month. Unlimited everything. Calls, data, sms, mms, tethering...
And you pay 200 something dollars upfront for the phone..
I never said it did. Go back and read what I wrote and stop embellishing.
Can you provide proof of this? Note: there is plenty of proof to counter your claims that AT&T “didn't invest new hardware and still havn't upgradded."
Wrong, my friend- the proof is in the dropped calls,
And I should know, as a proud owner of a new 3Gs.
I didn't imply it, that is clearly what I stated. I have not seen anything to the contrary. If you have then link away. I personally don't care as it would still be conjecture as we don't have the contracts and I don't think Apple would come out and say one way or the other, although I know that's is what you are trying to say.
Statements from AT&T and Apple on the matter are easy to find if you look. We don't need to see all of the contracts, Apple nor AT&T are allowed to simply lie about their dealings. You are free to choose to not believe what they've said, simply because you don't believe does not make it untrue.
But again to say Apple has no say in how this thing gets priced whether at the register or in the monthly bills is just buffoonery! An example being, although it was only reported in the media, is that Apple was unhappy with Rogers(Canada) data prices and largely limited the volume of 1st generation iPhones it received until it worked its pricing a bit.
That was because Rogers was using the iPhone to gouge it's subscriber. Apple had no direct power to force Rogers to change. Limiting phone shipments was an incentive to change. I would say Apple was doing this to advocate for the consumer and not take more money from the consumer.
That might have been one reason, though I can remember reading back at the time that it was a question of maturity of the necessary chipsets. In fact, not having 3G in the orginal iPhone may have helped get the phone to market on time and give people a reason to want to upgrade.
Yes maturity of 3G chipsets was also apart of the problem. I agree delaying 3G helped increase upgrade sales.
At the same time it would appear that Apple tailored some of its features specifically to AT&T, though as the market for the iPhone has grown it has become apparent that AT&T is just a small percentage of the global market that Apple has access to.
AT&T accounts for roughly half of the iPhone world sales.
You people are hilarious. Bitching about being "gouged" by AT&T while also complaining that their network performance sucks because of too many people on it. Price is the only way that these services can be effectively rationed, and yet you want plans to be cheaper, when the networks can't even handle the customers it currently has.
And your point? Is it cool for AT&T to act like a slum lord then? Glut the network, let it crap out, and overcharge at the same time?
Wrong, my friend- the proof is in the dropped calls,
And I should know, as a proud owner of a new 3Gs.
That is your answer! Your network covers a much smaller area while servicing a lot less people. More people and more area is not friendly to carriers. I?m not saying that AT&T has not made mistakes but this type of growth would be an issue for any US carrier.
Actually no that's not the answer...
I am in Australia with a landmass equivalent to the USA and with only 20 million people versus 280 million, what's that nearly a 15th the population.. spread over the same area.
I live in the middle of the country in a town of 27,000 people. The nearest population centres of significant numbers are 1500km + away. We have 21Mbit 3G here.
Often my iPhone 3GS clocks faster than my ADSL. MMS worked straight away and tethering also. I am up to 30km's out of town in a desert able to play / upload video. When I am on some of the larger communities nearby (1-200k) with 2-300 people EVEN they have a fully operational 3G network running at 7.2Mbit minimum.
Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone / 3 all offer the iPhone and Apple sells it unlocked on its AU website.
So what exactly is the problem in the USA with your carriers. Even CDMA/EVDO got shut down over a year ago, nationally, it was outdated.
I point you to my comment #119. Your theory fails, especially with your other note that AT&T is half the world sales, well Australia must be piss-ant (mind you it is selling in volumes from my observations, still piss-ant).
Didn't take an iPhone round these parts to get a decent network rolling, or should I say creeping out... perhaps glacial or geological might be better descriptors
And your point? Is it cool for AT&T to act like a slum lord then? Glut the network, let it crap out, and overcharge at the same time?