quick note: in America.... 4g is actually 3g. In Europe... 4g is... well 4g (i.e. LTE)
Talk about sorely misinformed?
when you can call "HSPA+" 4g... then no... 4g is not 4g. LTE is LTE and truly 4g. Maybe you were not old enough to remember when the Telcos requested a reclassification so they could call what is essentially a 3g technology.. 4g.
This is exactly what makes Apple and iPhones so much better than anything else out there!
Is there any carrier bloatware on Apple phones?
Apparently, the French are not fond of fair deals negotiated between two parties. Did Apple force any carrier to sign any deals?
Apple shouldn't pay a dime to these French extortionists.
Donald you lower the discussion to mud when you throw insults and use expressions like "Frenchy" and "extortionist" there are French people reading this website.
Exactly my point, Apple signed the contract too but they claim they can void it at any time for any reason. That does seem a little unbalanced.
I'm not an attorney, but I believe in most jurisdictions a contract cannot be enforced if it is found to be illegal. In our contracts we usually have something like "In the event that any portion of this Agreement is held unenforceable, the unenforceable portion shall be construed in accordance with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of the parties, and the remainder of the provisions shall remain in full force and effect."
I'd be surprised if Apple didn't also have language such as:
"Indemnification and disclaimer of liability. The [name] agrees to indemnify and hold harmless [other name] against and from any cliams, liabilities, losses or damages, and that no such party shall have any liability for any consequential, incidental, and/or liquidated damages, if any, that result from, ..."
Of course that may be illegal in France as well.
Apple probably included the cancellation terms in the contract. If the carrier had a problem with it, they shouldn't have signed it or negotiated a better contract.
AppleInsider said: The company [Apple] can also void a contract without warning, ...
Figuratively. The carriers had no choice but to agree to Apple's terms. None of the multiple carriers could afford not to have the iPhone when the others did. The carriers agreed to a contract, but so did Apple. I find it curious that Apple could void the contract that they signed for any reason without warning. That part should probably be removed.
Some of the other clauses probably shouldn't be illegal, just hard ball business on the part of Apple.
Below is a machine translated version of the ten complaints:
The 10 clauses deemed illegal by the DGCCRF
1-operator must order a minimum volume of 3 years
2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy
3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion
4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure
5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand
6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries
7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs
8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law
9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents
10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.
Come on, "no choice", give me a break. Apple is not a god damn monopoly, they're 10-15% of the French market, they had a choice to not sign the god damn contract. Then they'd be punished in the marketplace for being idiots, but hey, they HAVE THE CHOICE.
France seems to have forgotten that the reason those companies signed the contract is that Apple had a desirable product and thus everybody had to sign under their terms or walk awat, you know GOD DAMN CAPITALISM SURE IS A BITCH (sic).
Can't believe the crap I have to hear. France is the most over regulated uncompetitive country in Europe, no wonder their economy has been stalled for years.
This is exactly what makes Apple and iPhones so much better than anything else out there!
Is there any carrier bloatware on Apple phones?
Apparently, the French are not fond of fair deals negotiated between two parties. Did Apple force any carrier to sign any deals?
Apple shouldn't pay a dime to these French extortionists.
I guess Apple'll will have to pay what the French lawmaker tells them to pay up.
Actually, Apple was never forced to sell phones in France...
Do you even know what the hell you''re talking about, go back to voting for Sanders. And yes, I know France a lot, lived there for more than a decade; it's dysfunctional economic basket case that makes the US looks good (because they're worse, not because the US is tops).
Not to say some of the terms are not hard ball, but all these things are negotiable and I have negotiate similar clauses with suppliers. Yes item 8 it call termination for convenience clause and it is standard practice. Most time it requires 30 to 90 days notice.
If you want to do business together, you have to decide whether it is worth agreeing to these things. Government should have no say so in a B2B contracts because business have the ability to hirer lawyers to advise them, it not like a consumer doing business with a big company and do not have the means to hire professional help. Plus if some one breeches the contract or does not like the final outcome this is what courts are for both parties can stand in front of judge and tell them why they were cheated. Guess what most places have well establish case laws on contract deal even if apple make them sign something which is not fair case law over rids.
To you first point, yes carries do not have to do business with apple it is their choose, Apple is not forcing them to buy their products, the good things is the fact Apple is not 90% market share like Microsoft was with PC. Android claims to have the market power, apple is less than 50% in the EU so they do not have monopoly power to demand the carries to do what they want.
'Take it or leave it' is not exactly negotiable.
That's how it is if you have a desirable product, you say sign here, or walk away. This is the kind of thing that makes France the economic laughing stock of Europe.
When you have The EU wanting to take back tax breaks one of their members have given willingly, you can see why the EU is also losing its shine.
Figuratively. The carriers had no choice but to agree to Apple's terms. None of the multiple carriers could afford not to have the iPhone when the others did. The carriers agreed to a contract, but so did Apple. I find it curious that Apple could void the contract that they signed for any reason without warning. That part should probably be removed.
Some of the other clauses probably shouldn't be illegal, just hard ball business on the part of Apple.
Below is a machine translated version of the ten complaints:
The 10 clauses deemed illegal by the DGCCRF
1-operator must order a minimum volume of 3 years
2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy
3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion
4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure
5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand
6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries
7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs
8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law
9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents
10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.
Come on, "no choice", give me a break. Apple is not a god damn monopoly, they're 10-15% of the French market, they had a choice to not sign the god damn contract. Then they'd be punished in the marketplace for being idiots, but hey, they HAVE THE CHOICE.
France seems to have forgotten that the reason those companies signed the contract is that Apple had a desirable product and thus everybody had to sign under their terms or walk awat, you know GOD DAMN CAPITALISM SURE IS A BITCH (sic).
Can't believe the crap I have to hear. France is the most over regulated uncompetitive country in Europe, no wonder their economy has been stalled for years.
If Apple doesn't agree with the French lawmaker, then they have the choice to just wal away.
That's how it is if you have a desirable product, you say sign here, or walk away. This is the kind of thing that makes France the economic laughing stock of Europe.
When you have The EU wanting to take back tax breaks one of their members have given willingly, you can see why the EU is also losing its shine.
This fine is how it is when you have a desirable public.
Abide by the law, pay your fine, or walk away and don't sell your stuff here
BTW are you all so stupid that no-one, even self proclaiming lawyers, know that illegal clauses in a contract do exist.
That's how it is if you have a desirable product, you say sign here, or walk away. This is the kind of thing that makes France the economic laughing stock of Europe.
When you have The EU wanting to take back tax breaks one of their members have given willingly, you can see why the EU is also losing its shine.
Never heard of illegal clauses in a contract?
These 10 clauses have a 1) a direct effect on the margin of the operator 2) has an effect on the supply chain of the operator 3) has a clause in it for a tax evasion scheme of Apple's
...
without Apple committing to anything.
Every contract in the EU must show "fairness", i.e. that neither partner was really put under pressure to sign (free will). This contract shows that we're far off free will.
There are laws in this part of the world. Better stick to it, pay a fine if you broke the law, or walk away.
I guess Apple'll will have to pay what the French lawmaker tells them to pay up.
Actually, Apple was never forced to sell phones in France...
Do you even know what the hell you''re talking about, go back to voting for Sanders. And yes, I know France a lot, lived there for more than a decade; it's dysfunctional economic basket case that makes the US looks good (because they're worse, not because the US is tops).
Sorry, what's your point? That the French need to change their laws to comply to Apple's contracts?
France, put energy in fixing terrorist problem from illegal immigration than going after companies who gives some jobs in country and hurt/kill no one. Moreover, all business by it's legal structure and obligation to it's shareholders act different than non-profit organization.
pretty sure it's not the same people working on those things, so one department's involvement in matters like this does not affect the other.
AppleInsider said: The company [Apple] can also void a contract without warning, ...
Figuratively. The carriers had no choice but to agree to Apple's terms. None of the multiple carriers could afford not to have the iPhone when the others did. The carriers agreed to a contract, but so did Apple. I find it curious that Apple could void the contract that they signed for any reason without warning. That part should probably be removed.
Some of the other clauses probably shouldn't be illegal, just hard ball business on the part of Apple.
Below is a machine translated version of the ten complaints:
The 10 clauses deemed illegal by the DGCCRF
1-operator must order a minimum volume of 3 years
2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy
3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion
4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure
5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand
6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries
7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs
8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law
9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents
10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.
finally a reasonable post. these clauses DO seem rather OTT and extremely over-favourable to apple rather than equally split. this may work fine in america but Europe does not like this sort of strong-arm unfair negotiating.
1&2 - puts carriers in risk of having expensive excess stock they cannot shift and cannot shift at a reduced price if sales are flagging or stock is old. 3 - fair enough, the ads on TV/media here randomly feature an operator logo at the end, usually different each time. 4 - fair enough, apple is paying for prime location / exposure, nothing wrong with that. 5 - slightly unfair but can't see any harm in it, apple's brand value has a lot more to lose vs a carrier. 6 - very unfair, but understandable due to worldwide demand. apple shouldn't demand minimum orders but then say oh you might only get 100 phones when people want them, then we flood your stock once demand cedes, see 1&2. 7 - slightly unfair but it's in the interest of customer satisfaction, apple store presence is much lower here so going to where you bought the iphone to get it repaired is beneficial to customer and overall satisfaction of operator in general. 8 - very unfair, and illegal. 9 - very unfair, puts operator in difficult position competition wise and will lose out financially significantly if they have decent patent portfolio. (likely where percentage of the monetary figures come from) 10 - reasonable to ask for this as I'm sure every manufacturer does. shouldn't HAVE to ask though.
so really points 8&9 are the biggies and 1&2 to a lesser extent. Not saying the operators are saints, far from it, Europe has its own issues with them separately and among other measures, come 2017, there will be no roaming fees between countries/operators. so they aren't taking one side vs the other.
I know I'll get a lot of heat for this but Apple is still a huge corporation (and I believe thankfully a progressive one) which like all corporate giants will use it's muscle to get the most favorable deal for itself, period. Europe unlike the USA is not completely run by business interests and cases like this can still happen. Those of you that thing governments have too much power think again it's international corporations you have most to fear.
So instead of choosing or not choosing to buy from an international corporation freely you'd prefer governments to mandate cell carriers to be able to get a better deal from Apple likely without reducing the cost for the customer charging you the same price while that forces Apple to charge customers more for their products. It is really simple math that people like you don't seem to understand. How much MORE do you want to pay for products and cell service at the mercy of government mandates?
I know I'll get a lot of heat for this but Apple is still a huge corporation (and I believe thankfully a progressive one) which like all corporate giants will use it's muscle to get the most favorable deal for itself, period. Europe unlike the USA is not completely run by business interests and cases like this can still happen. Those of you that thing governments have too much power think again it's international corporations you have most to fear.
So instead of choosing or not choosing to buy from an international corporation freely you'd prefer governments to mandate cell carriers to be able to get a better deal from Apple likely without reducing the cost for the customer charging you the same price while that forces Apple to charge customers more for their products. It is really simple math that people like you don't seem to understand. How much MORE do you want to pay for products and cell service at the mercy of government mandates?
Tim, pull all of Apple's business out of France. They will try to extract every Eurocent of profit from Apple over there. Socialists are bad for business no matter where they live.
If these contracts are so bad, why do they renew them? It must be worth it if everyone is signing these 'bad' deals. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. If you want their phones, you need to do what you have to to have them. Vive l'escroquerie de France!
On another note... All the people who are complaining about the French are sorely misinformed... ignorant... and some even worse. By the way.... has anyone even ventured over to free.fr to see what their service offerings are? The closest anyone in America will get to such sweet delights is in a wet dream!
I still use my free.fr email and website. Free changed the way internet
was used in France. They also changed cable TV offerings... and phone
service (both landline and cell). I like free.fr.
And about
being sorely misinformed... ignorant... and worse - sorry, I lived
there for a decade. My wife and kids were born there. France deserves
the complaining.
Comments
Then they'd be punished in the marketplace for being idiots, but hey, they HAVE THE CHOICE.
France seems to have forgotten that the reason those companies signed the contract is that Apple had a desirable product and thus everybody had to sign under their terms or walk awat, you know GOD DAMN CAPITALISM SURE IS A BITCH (sic).
Can't believe the crap I have to hear.
France is the most over regulated uncompetitive country in Europe, no wonder their economy has been stalled for years.
This is the kind of thing that makes France the economic laughing stock of Europe.
When you have The EU wanting to take back tax breaks one of their members have given willingly, you can see why the EU is also losing its shine.
This fine is how it is when you have a desirable public.
Never heard of illegal clauses in a contract?
These 10 clauses have a
1) a direct effect on the margin of the operator
2) has an effect on the supply chain of the operator
3) has a clause in it for a tax evasion scheme of Apple's
...
without Apple committing to anything.
Every contract in the EU must show "fairness", i.e. that neither partner was really put under pressure to sign (free will).
This contract shows that we're far off free will.
Sorry, what's your point? That the French need to change their laws to comply to Apple's contracts?
finally a reasonable post. these clauses DO seem rather OTT and extremely over-favourable to apple rather than equally split. this may work fine in america but Europe does not like this sort of strong-arm unfair negotiating.
1&2 - puts carriers in risk of having expensive excess stock they cannot shift and cannot shift at a reduced price if sales are flagging or stock is old.
3 - fair enough, the ads on TV/media here randomly feature an operator logo at the end, usually different each time.
4 - fair enough, apple is paying for prime location / exposure, nothing wrong with that.
5 - slightly unfair but can't see any harm in it, apple's brand value has a lot more to lose vs a carrier.
6 - very unfair, but understandable due to worldwide demand. apple shouldn't demand minimum orders but then say oh you might only get 100 phones when people want them, then we flood your stock once demand cedes, see 1&2.
7 - slightly unfair but it's in the interest of customer satisfaction, apple store presence is much lower here so going to where you bought the iphone to get it repaired is beneficial to customer and overall satisfaction of operator in general.
8 - very unfair, and illegal.
9 - very unfair, puts operator in difficult position competition wise and will lose out financially significantly if they have decent patent portfolio. (likely where percentage of the monetary figures come from)
10 - reasonable to ask for this as I'm sure every manufacturer does. shouldn't HAVE to ask though.
so really points 8&9 are the biggies and 1&2 to a lesser extent. Not saying the operators are saints, far from it, Europe has its own issues with them separately and among other measures, come 2017, there will be no roaming fees between countries/operators. so they aren't taking one side vs the other.
Sentence 3: 0
It must be worth it if everyone is signing these 'bad' deals.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. If you want their phones, you need to do what you have to to have them.
Vive l'escroquerie de France!
I like free.fr.
And about being sorely misinformed... ignorant... and worse - sorry, I lived there for a decade. My wife and kids were born there. France deserves the complaining.