The questionnaire reportedly comments that, "If the existence of such behavior were to be confirmed, it might constitute an infringement of [antitrust law]".
Ah, you forgot the sentence that follows:
.... as well as noting that the Commission has received information about distribution agreements "which may potentially lead to the foreclosure of other smartphone manufacturers from the markets."
The para that follows appears to be pertinent as well:
While the issuing of a questionnaire from the Commission for anti-competitive practices is a serious matter, it is not yet a full investigation. [It]... is only a preliminary measure. In order to progress further, it needs to be sure that Apple has a dominant position in the European marketplace, something which is difficult to prove considering the popularity of some Android devices in the region.
Basically, sounds like a typical EU-style fishing expedition. They have too damn many bureaucrats in Brussels with nothing much to do, shamelessly living off the backs of beleagured EU citizens. As though they don't have other serious problems to worry about.....
Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.
Because of the big market share in the US, the US carriers have no choice to accept Apple terms. I have seen numerous times Verizon and AT&T CEO's on CNBC complaining about subsidies and how they would loved to get rid of them, mainly because of Apple way of doing business with them. If you are wondering why the carriers stores push anything but the iphone to the customers, its because they hate Apple.
Elsewhere in the world, lost of carriers are not offering the iphone because of unacceptable Apple terms. To a lot of internationnal carriers, Apple tiny market share in there countries make it difficult for Apple to strike deals because the carriers dont care if they dont offer the iphone. So on top of not having there products being distributed, Apple is getting an anti-trust lawsuit. If there is one country where an anti-trust lawsuit should be made, its the US.
I fail to see how "take it or leave it" is any form of "bullying." Or a violation of US "antitrust laws." Please explain. Remember, you can't use "big market share" as some kind of half-assed hand-waving reason because when Apple began offering the carriers these terms, Apple had ZERO market share.
How is it that US carriers "have no choice to accept Apple terms"? Can't they choose not to offer the iPhone?
Either you haven't thought this issue through, or you simply hate Apple and you fantasize about governments punishing the target of your hate.
Re-engineering the Mac Pro for the EU market may well have cost Apple more than the profit they'd receive from selling the new Mac Pro. Plus it would disrupt existing engineering of new products (including, hopefully a new Mac Pro).
Withdrawing the iPhone over a petty squabble is a monster change that would have a massive impact to Apple's revenues and profits. The EU is a very big market (maybe not as big as the US or China, but still big).
There's really no useful comparison. This...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It proves they're willing to actually drop products, not just threaten it.
is really not inferable, as it is not provable that the Mac Pro was dropped out of any long term rejection of the EU principle, rather than just a short term withdrawal while they (Apple) sort it out.
Predictable. When have I ever run away from you before? I'm not going anywhere now, I just don't feel like I'm under any obligation to answer your spurious points or refute your absurd claims. If you want to carry on, feel free.
And go ahead and think whatever you like. Your penis is the biggest in the land, and the indignation that turns you on so much makes it even more magnificent.
The EU is a joke. They're like a big Mafia organization operating out of Brussels, and they're merely trying to shake down people and companies with money, and Apple certainly fits the criteria.
Doesn't the EU have more important things to do, like regulating the size of bananas and infringing upon the rights of it's citizens like they normally do?
And not one of them ever managed to state a single reason why anything I said was wrong. That's the essence of winning an argument, I guess you're not familiar with it?
And not one of them ever managed to state a single reason why anything I said was wrong. That's the essence of winning an argument, I guess you're not familiar with it?
Hey, you gave up, remember? Both times. Just run along.
Didn't give up, just felt I'd said all I had to say, and no one else was saying anything worth responding to (apart from Marvin, but he was mostly agreeing with me anyway). I stand by my arguments. If you want to criticise them, they're still there, I'll see you in another thread.
Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.
Because of the big market share in the US, the US carriers have no choice to accept Apple terms. I have seen numerous times Verizon and AT&T CEO's on CNBC complaining about subsidies and how they would loved to get rid of them, mainly because of Apple way of doing business with them. If you are wondering why the carriers stores push anything but the iphone to the customers, its because they hate Apple.
Elsewhere in the world, lost of carriers are not offering the iphone because of unacceptable Apple terms. To a lot of internationnal carriers, Apple tiny market share in there countries make it difficult for Apple to strike deals because the carriers dont care if they dont offer the iphone. So on top of not having there products being distributed, Apple is getting an anti-trust lawsuit. If there is one country where an anti-trust lawsuit should be made, its the US.
This is one the reasons Apple absolutly must deliver a sub $300, so it can be sold unlock by lots of internationnal carriers. I hope Apple gets to his sense and stop bullying the people that sell there products.
What in the world are you pissing off about? AT&T and Verizon's CEO have specifically said iPhone brought them lots of business. AT&T grew for 5 years at Verizon's expense because of the iPhone.
Do you think the telco hate subsidies? Do you really think so? When it gains them an extra $1k/year over unsubsidized phones? What in the world are you smoking?
The other cell companies that do not offer iPhone, like DoCoMo is because they want a slice of the app store revenue and because they want to load crapware on the iPhone. You think DoCoMo deserves a slice of appstore revenue? And please FOAD if you think they should be allowed to load crapware.
The EU is a joke. They're like a big Mafia organization operating out of Brussels, and they're merely trying to shake down people and companies with money, and Apple certainly fits the criteria.
Doesn't the EU have more important things to do, like regulating the size of bananas and infringing upon the rights of it's citizens like they normally do?
Exactly right! The EU IS a JOKE always interfering where not wanted. Vote UKIP to get out of this EU madness
[...] I'm sure that it's not a problem with the overarching way in which Apple sets its terms, but rather with a single subclause somewhere that the EU believes is monopolistic.
I dunno. Apple tends to see how far they can push the envelope (think negotiations for streaming music) and only pull back when hit with a really big stick (think agency model). That's their job and is what they should do.
The role of regulators is to make sure consumers don't get screwed when one company gains enough influence to potentially shut out competition. According to the article, Apple is crossing the line on that front.
If only one carrier offers the iPhone, that carrier can dictate the terms under which a consumer may own and use one. That could be bad for consumers. By demanding that carriers pre-purchase a very large number of units, Apple is effectively shutting out some carriers. That reduces competition between CARRIERS, as opposed to between phone manufacturers, which may be part of the commission's concern.
Dictating marketing budgets is another point of potential conflict. That's an area that might reasonably be described as none of Apple's business. Suppliers should not be allowed to tell carriers how to run their business.
Obviously Apple will and should do everything they can to ensure they sell as many iPhones as they can. What the regulators are saying is that they have to play fair. Apple isn't allowed to say "If you want to sell our stuff, you're not allowed to sell theirs." That impinges on the freedom of the carrier to decide how to run their own business and ultimately limits consumer choice. What's good for Apple is not necessary what's best for consumers, and like it or not, looking out for consumers is (supposed to be) a fundamental part of the regulators' job.
If only one carrier offers the iPhone, that carrier can dictate the terms under which a consumer may own and use one. That could be bad for consumers.
Except in the US, all carriers have the iPhone and all carriers get to dictate the terms under which a consumer may use and own one.
This isn't anything new. This isn't anything special. This isn't anything illegal. Not on Apple's part, at least. Going after Apple instead of punishing the people actually responsible for the actions that harm consumers is the standard pathetic trick that governments do.
By demanding that carriers pre-purchase a very large number of units, Apple is effectively shutting out some carriers. That reduces competition between CARRIERS, as opposed to between phone manufacturers, which may be part of the commission's concern.
See above for why it doesn't matter that all carriers magically get access to the iPhone.
I fail to see how "take it or leave it" is any form of "bullying." Or a violation of US "antitrust laws." Please explain. Remember, you can't use "big market share" as some kind of half-assed hand-waving reason because when Apple began offering the carriers these terms, Apple had ZERO market share.
How is it that US carriers "have no choice to accept Apple terms"? Can't they choose not to offer the iPhone?
Either you haven't thought this issue through, or you simply hate Apple and you fantasize about governments punishing the target of your hate.
if I remember correctly Apple didnt offer anything to the carriers in the US when it launch the iphone because it had a 3 years deal with AT&T. I dont hate Apple at all, but they way they deal with carriers is just wrong.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The questionnaire reportedly comments that, "If the existence of such behavior were to be confirmed, it might constitute an infringement of [antitrust law]".
Ah, you forgot the sentence that follows:
.... as well as noting that the Commission has received information about distribution agreements "which may potentially lead to the foreclosure of other smartphone manufacturers from the markets."
The para that follows appears to be pertinent as well:
While the issuing of a questionnaire from the Commission for anti-competitive practices is a serious matter, it is not yet a full investigation. [It]... is only a preliminary measure. In order to progress further, it needs to be sure that Apple has a dominant position in the European marketplace, something which is difficult to prove considering the popularity of some Android devices in the region.
Basically, sounds like a typical EU-style fishing expedition. They have too damn many bureaucrats in Brussels with nothing much to do, shamelessly living off the backs of beleagured EU citizens. As though they don't have other serious problems to worry about.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.
Because of the big market share in the US, the US carriers have no choice to accept Apple terms. I have seen numerous times Verizon and AT&T CEO's on CNBC complaining about subsidies and how they would loved to get rid of them, mainly because of Apple way of doing business with them. If you are wondering why the carriers stores push anything but the iphone to the customers, its because they hate Apple.
Elsewhere in the world, lost of carriers are not offering the iphone because of unacceptable Apple terms. To a lot of internationnal carriers, Apple tiny market share in there countries make it difficult for Apple to strike deals because the carriers dont care if they dont offer the iphone. So on top of not having there products being distributed, Apple is getting an anti-trust lawsuit. If there is one country where an anti-trust lawsuit should be made, its the US.
I fail to see how "take it or leave it" is any form of "bullying." Or a violation of US "antitrust laws." Please explain. Remember, you can't use "big market share" as some kind of half-assed hand-waving reason because when Apple began offering the carriers these terms, Apple had ZERO market share.
How is it that US carriers "have no choice to accept Apple terms"? Can't they choose not to offer the iPhone?
Either you haven't thought this issue through, or you simply hate Apple and you fantasize about governments punishing the target of your hate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Thanks for not paying attention.
Explain it to me then.
Re-engineering the Mac Pro for the EU market may well have cost Apple more than the profit they'd receive from selling the new Mac Pro. Plus it would disrupt existing engineering of new products (including, hopefully a new Mac Pro).
Withdrawing the iPhone over a petty squabble is a monster change that would have a massive impact to Apple's revenues and profits. The EU is a very big market (maybe not as big as the US or China, but still big).
There's really no useful comparison. This...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It proves they're willing to actually drop products, not just threaten it.
is really not inferable, as it is not provable that the Mac Pro was dropped out of any long term rejection of the EU principle, rather than just a short term withdrawal while they (Apple) sort it out.
Actually, don't bother, this discussion is too blue sky speculation to be of any interest.
Originally Posted by Crowley
Actually, don't bother, this discussion is too blue sky speculation to be of any interest.
Thanks for running away again. At least it wasn't drawn out this time.
Predictable. When have I ever run away from you before? I'm not going anywhere now, I just don't feel like I'm under any obligation to answer your spurious points or refute your absurd claims. If you want to carry on, feel free.
And go ahead and think whatever you like. Your penis is the biggest in the land, and the indignation that turns you on so much makes it even more magnificent.
Originally Posted by Crowley
When have I ever run away from you before?
Last argument.
I just don't feel like I'm under any obligation to answer your spurious points or refute your absurd claims.
Same thing you said last time. Oh, well.
Your penis is the biggest in the land…
New signature, ho!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Last argument.
The tax one?
You never made any substantive argument there, you just sniped while the big boys had grown up talk. Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Same thing you said last time. Oh, well.
Pretty sure I've never said that before, but if I did, it's a good indication of how tiresome you are.
Originally Posted by Crowley
The tax one? You never made any substantive argument there, you just sniped while the big boys had grown up talk. Try again.
Nah. Just about everyone else disagreed with you.
The EU is a joke. They're like a big Mafia organization operating out of Brussels, and they're merely trying to shake down people and companies with money, and Apple certainly fits the criteria.
Doesn't the EU have more important things to do, like regulating the size of bananas and infringing upon the rights of it's citizens like they normally do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nah. Just about everyone else disagreed with you.
And not one of them ever managed to state a single reason why anything I said was wrong. That's the essence of winning an argument, I guess you're not familiar with it?
Originally Posted by Crowley
And not one of them ever managed to state a single reason why anything I said was wrong. That's the essence of winning an argument, I guess you're not familiar with it?
Hey, you gave up, remember? Both times. Just run along.
I'm still interested in your explanation. Don't let Crowley's submission stop you from enlightening the rest of us.
Didn't give up, just felt I'd said all I had to say, and no one else was saying anything worth responding to (apart from Marvin, but he was mostly agreeing with me anyway). I stand by my arguments. If you want to criticise them, they're still there, I'll see you in another thread.
We should stop derailing this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Indeed. Apple way of dealing with the carriers is rotten to the bone. All the concerns in the investigation are valid. Bullying the carriers is a double edge sword, especially when youre products are on the decline.
Because of the big market share in the US, the US carriers have no choice to accept Apple terms. I have seen numerous times Verizon and AT&T CEO's on CNBC complaining about subsidies and how they would loved to get rid of them, mainly because of Apple way of doing business with them. If you are wondering why the carriers stores push anything but the iphone to the customers, its because they hate Apple.
Elsewhere in the world, lost of carriers are not offering the iphone because of unacceptable Apple terms. To a lot of internationnal carriers, Apple tiny market share in there countries make it difficult for Apple to strike deals because the carriers dont care if they dont offer the iphone. So on top of not having there products being distributed, Apple is getting an anti-trust lawsuit. If there is one country where an anti-trust lawsuit should be made, its the US.
This is one the reasons Apple absolutly must deliver a sub $300, so it can be sold unlock by lots of internationnal carriers. I hope Apple gets to his sense and stop bullying the people that sell there products.
What in the world are you pissing off about? AT&T and Verizon's CEO have specifically said iPhone brought them lots of business. AT&T grew for 5 years at Verizon's expense because of the iPhone.
Do you think the telco hate subsidies? Do you really think so? When it gains them an extra $1k/year over unsubsidized phones? What in the world are you smoking?
The other cell companies that do not offer iPhone, like DoCoMo is because they want a slice of the app store revenue and because they want to load crapware on the iPhone. You think DoCoMo deserves a slice of appstore revenue? And please FOAD if you think they should be allowed to load crapware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
The EU is a joke. They're like a big Mafia organization operating out of Brussels, and they're merely trying to shake down people and companies with money, and Apple certainly fits the criteria.
Doesn't the EU have more important things to do, like regulating the size of bananas and infringing upon the rights of it's citizens like they normally do?
Exactly right! The EU IS a JOKE always interfering where not wanted. Vote UKIP to get out of this EU madness
Vote UKIP for single issue politics, irrational policy, and no interest in the overall effect of your actions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
[...] I'm sure that it's not a problem with the overarching way in which Apple sets its terms, but rather with a single subclause somewhere that the EU believes is monopolistic.
I dunno. Apple tends to see how far they can push the envelope (think negotiations for streaming music) and only pull back when hit with a really big stick (think agency model). That's their job and is what they should do.
The role of regulators is to make sure consumers don't get screwed when one company gains enough influence to potentially shut out competition. According to the article, Apple is crossing the line on that front.
If only one carrier offers the iPhone, that carrier can dictate the terms under which a consumer may own and use one. That could be bad for consumers. By demanding that carriers pre-purchase a very large number of units, Apple is effectively shutting out some carriers. That reduces competition between CARRIERS, as opposed to between phone manufacturers, which may be part of the commission's concern.
Dictating marketing budgets is another point of potential conflict. That's an area that might reasonably be described as none of Apple's business. Suppliers should not be allowed to tell carriers how to run their business.
Obviously Apple will and should do everything they can to ensure they sell as many iPhones as they can. What the regulators are saying is that they have to play fair. Apple isn't allowed to say "If you want to sell our stuff, you're not allowed to sell theirs." That impinges on the freedom of the carrier to decide how to run their own business and ultimately limits consumer choice. What's good for Apple is not necessary what's best for consumers, and like it or not, looking out for consumers is (supposed to be) a fundamental part of the regulators' job.
Originally Posted by v5v
If only one carrier offers the iPhone, that carrier can dictate the terms under which a consumer may own and use one. That could be bad for consumers.
Except in the US, all carriers have the iPhone and all carriers get to dictate the terms under which a consumer may use and own one.
This isn't anything new. This isn't anything special. This isn't anything illegal. Not on Apple's part, at least. Going after Apple instead of punishing the people actually responsible for the actions that harm consumers is the standard pathetic trick that governments do.
By demanding that carriers pre-purchase a very large number of units, Apple is effectively shutting out some carriers. That reduces competition between CARRIERS, as opposed to between phone manufacturers, which may be part of the commission's concern.
See above for why it doesn't matter that all carriers magically get access to the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I fail to see how "take it or leave it" is any form of "bullying." Or a violation of US "antitrust laws." Please explain. Remember, you can't use "big market share" as some kind of half-assed hand-waving reason because when Apple began offering the carriers these terms, Apple had ZERO market share.
How is it that US carriers "have no choice to accept Apple terms"? Can't they choose not to offer the iPhone?
Either you haven't thought this issue through, or you simply hate Apple and you fantasize about governments punishing the target of your hate.
if I remember correctly Apple didnt offer anything to the carriers in the US when it launch the iphone because it had a 3 years deal with AT&T. I dont hate Apple at all, but they way they deal with carriers is just wrong.