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.
When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?
Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?
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.
1) Why do you think they did that?
2) What law did they violate?
3) What exactly do you mean by "wrong"? What kind of weird characterization is that? Wrong for whom?
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?
The EU indeed have more important things to do. And they are doing it. First thing that popped into my mind is the fact that they do not like it that when a consumer buys a 4G/LTE iPhone it won't work on that speed, and it defaults to 3G. Brussels is pushing hard to have the telco's support that band. And they're pushing for 5G concurrently as well.
I could throw a whole bunch of links in here but for some reason I think your post just is a misfortunate one, that reads like you're simply uninformed and narrow minded. I hope I'm wrong on that.
... Apple wants deals that are often favorable to them, at the expense of its partners.
And that's a problem? What company doesn't want better terms for itself. Not sure how the EU can level antitrust as we hear from Fandroids all day that Apple's market share is "tiny" outside the US.
When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?
Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?
Did you completely miss his point about the agency model? That's referring to the ebooks debacle. They "pulled back" by terminating it:
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.
Do you read what you write?
In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked. It's mostly America where the phone is locked into a single carrier because America's cellphone companies are too scared to compete properly with each other. Do you seriously think Apple wants to sell a locked phone? No. They want as many people buying their phones as possible and locked phones DO NOT allow that. This locking is imposed by the cellphone providers not Apple.
ALL iPhones that have ever been sold in New Zealand outside of TradeMe (i.e. over the counter sales not auctions) have all been unlocked. In fact I laughed at people buying iPhones on TradeMe because they all were imported from the States and were all locked and people came to me to ask how to unlock them. I then tell them had they bought an iPhone from Vodafone they would have already got an unlocked phone... especially funny is that they ended up paying more for the iPhone in a TradeMe auction than they would have getting it over the counter.
You can't look at what goes on in America and apply it to the rest of the world because the rest of the world doesn't play by America's rules.
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.
But it's okay for carriers to try and tell suppliers how to run their businesses?
Suppliers really do have the power. Carriers don't like it then they leave it and miss out on all the profits as a result.
Today I still have never purchased an iPhone with crap I never use or want. However the Sony Xperias that work purchased over the past two years have all had crap on them that I can't remove. I mean why the hell would I want the All Blacks app on my phone when I don't even care about rugby. I mean I'm a New Zealander and I think the All Blacks are rubbish so I'm not going to go out of my way to follow what they are doing.
Apple is protecting consumers more than carriers are protecting consumers. Go Apple.
I'll just never understand why Apple didn't become a carrier when it had the chance (screw their damn internet cloud server farms). They could have "owned" that 2008 wireless spectrum auction, if they had wanted to. Man... I'd have signed up for "Apple Mobile" in a nano second.
And that's a problem? What company doesn't want better terms for itself. Not sure how the EU can level antitrust as we hear from Fandroids all day that Apple's market share is "tiny" outside the US.
The EU has managed to investigate Motorola, an even tinier influence than Apple, under supposed anti-trust rules.
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.
So how come Apple's marketshare is falling, while Android's marketshare is growing in the EU?
It seems like business as usual in an openly competitive marketplace.
Name one carrier that is blocked from selling other handsets?
I wonder if any of this is about Nokia or any of the other European handset manufacturers who have failed?
If only European handset companies would make what people want, they wouldn't be in such a bad way compared to American, Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese companies.
And since the iPhone makes up most of the profit for European carriers, I'm pretty sure the EU will be just fine letting Apple do their own thing.
The usual nonsensical garbage, care to tell us where you invented that the EU carriers were making "most of the profit" from the iPhone, whatever that's supposed to mean? I won't hold my breath, as they are most probably losing money upfront from any iPhone subsidy, then making money from the sole service contract like they would do with any other device...
When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?
Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?
Previous encounters have taught me the value of trying to carry on a civil discourse with you.
The irony of disingenuous posturing and poking people with a stick through a fence while yelling "troll!" is lost on you, isn't it?
In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked. It's mostly America where the phone is locked into a single carrier because America's cellphone companies are too scared to compete properly with each other. Do you seriously think Apple wants to sell a locked phone? No. They want as many people buying their phones as possible and locked phones DO NOT allow that. This locking is imposed by the cellphone providers not Apple.
ALL iPhones that have ever been sold in New Zealand outside of TradeMe (i.e. over the counter sales not auctions) have all been unlocked. In fact I laughed at people buying iPhones on TradeMe because they all were imported from the States and were all locked and people came to me to ask how to unlock them. I then tell them had they bought an iPhone from Vodafone they would have already got an unlocked phone... especially funny is that they ended up paying more for the iPhone in a TradeMe auction than they would have getting it over the counter.
You can't look at what goes on in America and apply it to the rest of the world because the rest of the world doesn't play by America's rules.
All of Vodafone Australia's iPhones are now sold unlocked, iPhones sold before they started selling them unlocked will be automatically unlocked when restored in iTunes.
The carriers decide this.
Handsets sold in Europe have been sold locked long before Apple came on the scene, particularly PAYG ones, Nokia, Phillips, Siemens, Ericsson, Sagem doesn't matter which brand, carriers define which handsets are locked depending on the laws in the country they sell them in.
Handset locking is a way to subsidise PAYG handsets which is why locked handsets generally cost less than unlocked handsets.
The usual nonsensical garbage, care to tell us where you invented that the EU carriers were making "most of the profit" from the iPhone, whatever that's supposed to mean?
If you're not smart enough to know what that means, why not figure out the what before asking about the where?
Originally Posted by v5v
The irony of disingenuous posturing and poking people with a stick through a fence while yelling "troll!" is lost on you, isn't it?
It would be if that were the case, but really it's more like we're having a pool party, you weren't invited, and when you break and enter into our backyard you have the gall to act like you have anything remotely close to the right to be here.
Apple's profits from selling books is not even a rounding error. The company likely decided that it was not worth the hassle. Last I checked, Apple was not backing down from DoJ's apparent bullying on this issue. Lets see how it plays out, assuming that it even matters.
In any event, this one incident is not the same as v5v implying that such legal envelope-pushing was Apple's MO. Which is what I was responding to.
And that's a problem? What company doesn't want better terms for itself. Not sure how the EU can level antitrust as we hear from Fandroids all day that Apple's market share is "tiny" outside the US.
The EU has managed to investigate Motorola, an even tinier influence than Apple, under supposed anti-trust rules.
At one time, Motorola was far from tiny. They were the global powerhouse in mobile (an industry that they practically created). Moreover, the EU went after them over their stance on FRAND, if I recall correctly. That's pretty serious and basic stuff, as you'll no doubt agree.
Some interesting stuff. One question appears to ask whether some Iphones get more crippled than other iPhones. That would mean one network iPhone 5 is not the same as another networks iPhone 5. All fine and well but does the customer know?
It might be referring to cases where the iPhone was sold with LTE, but Apple refused to turn it on until they did their own testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And since the iPhone makes up most of the profit for European carriers, I'm pretty sure the EU will be just fine letting Apple do their own thing.
Need a source for the claim that the iPhone makes up most of their profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked.
Actually, the last time (a year ago) that I looked at Apple's own list of iPhone carriers around the world, about half of them do not offer unlocked iPhones. Seems to really depend on the region.
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.
What choice did Apple have? They had to honor their deal with AT&T.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
We should stop derailing this thread.
Then do that. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
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.
When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?
Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
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.
1) Why do you think they did that?
2) What law did they violate?
3) What exactly do you mean by "wrong"? What kind of weird characterization is that? Wrong for whom?
The EU indeed have more important things to do. And they are doing it. First thing that popped into my mind is the fact that they do not like it that when a consumer buys a 4G/LTE iPhone it won't work on that speed, and it defaults to 3G. Brussels is pushing hard to have the telco's support that band. And they're pushing for 5G concurrently as well.
I could throw a whole bunch of links in here but for some reason I think your post just is a misfortunate one, that reads like you're simply uninformed and narrow minded. I hope I'm wrong on that.
OK, 1 link:
http://gigaom.com/2013/02/26/eu-digital-chief-throws-e50m-in-5gs-direction-to-help-continent-regain-mobile-lead/
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?
Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?
Did you completely miss his point about the agency model? That's referring to the ebooks debacle. They "pulled back" by terminating it:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/19/3359210/apple-publishers-terminate-agency-sales-model-europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
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.
Do you read what you write?
In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked. It's mostly America where the phone is locked into a single carrier because America's cellphone companies are too scared to compete properly with each other. Do you seriously think Apple wants to sell a locked phone? No. They want as many people buying their phones as possible and locked phones DO NOT allow that. This locking is imposed by the cellphone providers not Apple.
ALL iPhones that have ever been sold in New Zealand outside of TradeMe (i.e. over the counter sales not auctions) have all been unlocked. In fact I laughed at people buying iPhones on TradeMe because they all were imported from the States and were all locked and people came to me to ask how to unlock them. I then tell them had they bought an iPhone from Vodafone they would have already got an unlocked phone... especially funny is that they ended up paying more for the iPhone in a TradeMe auction than they would have getting it over the counter.
You can't look at what goes on in America and apply it to the rest of the world because the rest of the world doesn't play by America's rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
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.
But it's okay for carriers to try and tell suppliers how to run their businesses?
Suppliers really do have the power. Carriers don't like it then they leave it and miss out on all the profits as a result.
Today I still have never purchased an iPhone with crap I never use or want. However the Sony Xperias that work purchased over the past two years have all had crap on them that I can't remove. I mean why the hell would I want the All Blacks app on my phone when I don't even care about rugby. I mean I'm a New Zealander and I think the All Blacks are rubbish so I'm not going to go out of my way to follow what they are doing.
Apple is protecting consumers more than carriers are protecting consumers. Go Apple.
I'll just never understand why Apple didn't become a carrier when it had the chance (screw their damn internet cloud server farms). They could have "owned" that 2008 wireless spectrum auction, if they had wanted to. Man... I'd have signed up for "Apple Mobile" in a nano second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
And that's a problem? What company doesn't want better terms for itself. Not sure how the EU can level antitrust as we hear from Fandroids all day that Apple's market share is "tiny" outside the US.
The EU has managed to investigate Motorola, an even tinier influence than Apple, under supposed anti-trust rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
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.
So how come Apple's marketshare is falling, while Android's marketshare is growing in the EU?
It seems like business as usual in an openly competitive marketplace.
Name one carrier that is blocked from selling other handsets?
I wonder if any of this is about Nokia or any of the other European handset manufacturers who have failed?
If only European handset companies would make what people want, they wouldn't be in such a bad way compared to American, Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
When has Apple been hit with a "big stick", and when/how did they "pull back." From what? Where? You make it sound like this is a common occurrence with Apple ("Apple tends to see...."), so where exactly has this happened with regard to Apple's business practices, where have they been found guilty of violating the law, and over what?
Or did you just wake up today and decide that you'd troll on AI?
Previous encounters have taught me the value of trying to carry on a civil discourse with you.
The irony of disingenuous posturing and poking people with a stick through a fence while yelling "troll!" is lost on you, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
Do you read what you write?
In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked. It's mostly America where the phone is locked into a single carrier because America's cellphone companies are too scared to compete properly with each other. Do you seriously think Apple wants to sell a locked phone? No. They want as many people buying their phones as possible and locked phones DO NOT allow that. This locking is imposed by the cellphone providers not Apple.
ALL iPhones that have ever been sold in New Zealand outside of TradeMe (i.e. over the counter sales not auctions) have all been unlocked. In fact I laughed at people buying iPhones on TradeMe because they all were imported from the States and were all locked and people came to me to ask how to unlock them. I then tell them had they bought an iPhone from Vodafone they would have already got an unlocked phone... especially funny is that they ended up paying more for the iPhone in a TradeMe auction than they would have getting it over the counter.
You can't look at what goes on in America and apply it to the rest of the world because the rest of the world doesn't play by America's rules.
All of Vodafone Australia's iPhones are now sold unlocked, iPhones sold before they started selling them unlocked will be automatically unlocked when restored in iTunes.
The carriers decide this.
Handsets sold in Europe have been sold locked long before Apple came on the scene, particularly PAYG ones, Nokia, Phillips, Siemens, Ericsson, Sagem doesn't matter which brand, carriers define which handsets are locked depending on the laws in the country they sell them in.
Handset locking is a way to subsidise PAYG handsets which is why locked handsets generally cost less than unlocked handsets.
Originally Posted by Sensi
The usual nonsensical garbage, care to tell us where you invented that the EU carriers were making "most of the profit" from the iPhone, whatever that's supposed to mean?
If you're not smart enough to know what that means, why not figure out the what before asking about the where?
Originally Posted by v5v
The irony of disingenuous posturing and poking people with a stick through a fence while yelling "troll!" is lost on you, isn't it?
It would be if that were the case, but really it's more like we're having a pool party, you weren't invited, and when you break and enter into our backyard you have the gall to act like you have anything remotely close to the right to be here.
Ah, if wishes were horses....
Apple's profits from selling books is not even a rounding error. The company likely decided that it was not worth the hassle. Last I checked, Apple was not backing down from DoJ's apparent bullying on this issue. Lets see how it plays out, assuming that it even matters.
In any event, this one incident is not the same as v5v implying that such legal envelope-pushing was Apple's MO. Which is what I was responding to.
At one time, Motorola was far from tiny. They were the global powerhouse in mobile (an industry that they practically created). Moreover, the EU went after them over their stance on FRAND, if I recall correctly. That's pretty serious and basic stuff, as you'll no doubt agree.
It is. Especially with drive-bys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
Some interesting stuff. One question appears to ask whether some Iphones get more crippled than other iPhones. That would mean one network iPhone 5 is not the same as another networks iPhone 5. All fine and well but does the customer know?
It might be referring to cases where the iPhone was sold with LTE, but Apple refused to turn it on until they did their own testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And since the iPhone makes up most of the profit for European carriers, I'm pretty sure the EU will be just fine letting Apple do their own thing.
Need a source for the claim that the iPhone makes up most of their profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
In most places around the world the iPhone IS unlocked.
Actually, the last time (a year ago) that I looked at Apple's own list of iPhone carriers around the world, about half of them do not offer unlocked iPhones. Seems to really depend on the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
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.
What choice did Apple have? They had to honor their deal with AT&T.