[turtle777]

Reported everywhere, so for instance here:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/17/o...ance/#comments

So, WTF ?

I demand that I can buy a VW from BMW, that I can get a Dell from Apple and Coke from Pepsi. Down with all these exclusivity deals.

Effing Communists in Europe. I'm glad I left that crap behind.
Too bad America is turning Socialist in lightning speed.

There. Discuss.

-t

[Rumor]

Way to bring political commentary into the mix.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Way to bring political commentary into the mix.

Ah well, mods feel free to move it to the PWL. *shrug*

At any rate, I don't get what those people pushing for this crap want to achieve.

There is no doubt in my mind that we would have NEVER seen an iPhone if Apple had not been able to secure exclusivity deals with AT&T and others. This allowed Apple to share profits, and get concessions from the carriers to make a better product than was available before, when carriers controlled the HW market.

People that push for that crap just don't get that strong carriers are WORSE than a strong HW manufacturer like Apple.

-t

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Reported everywhere, so for instance here:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/17/o...ance/#comments

So, WTF ?

I demand that I can buy a VW from BMW, that I can get a Dell from Apple and Coke from Pepsi. Down with all these exclusivity deals.

You've completely missed the mark. This is saying you can drive your BMW or your VW on the same roads and fill the with the same gas; no requirement to use only BMW tollways or only BMW gas.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You've completely missed the mark. This is saying you can drive your BMW or your VW on the same roads and fill the with the same gas; no requirement to use only BMW tollways or only BMW gas.

How about Dell computers, that I can only buy at Dell online stores ?
How about BP gasoline, that I can only get at BP gas stations ?
How about Big Macs, that I can only get at McDonalds ?

This thing is ludicrous.

-t

[Rumor]

Orange does not manufacter the iPhone, so you're examples are flawed.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

How about Dell computers, that I can only buy at Dell online stores ?
How about BP gasoline, that I can only get at BP gas stations ?
How about Big Macs, that I can only get at McDonalds ?

This thing is ludicrous.

-t

You're analogies aren't quite right.

A closer analogy is forcing Ford to sell their cars at Chevrolet dealerships.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Orange does not manufacter the iPhone, so you're examples are flawed.

Dell does not manufacture their computers, it's all in contract.

Btw, same for Apple. Apple does not "make" them, contract factories in Asia make the phones.

And why would that matter anyways ?

-t

[shifuimam]

I think I better example than Ford/Chevy would be something like Michelin saying that you may only use their tires on Fords, or Microsoft only licensing Windows to Dell.

It actually is pretty shitty that Apple has exclusive agreements to license their hardware to a single cellular provider in a given country.

I mean, do you think it would be fair if Apple suddenly decided that you could only use your Mac computers with Comcast Internet service?

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dell does not manufacture their computers, it's all in contract.

Btw, same for Apple. Apple does not "make" them, contract factories in Asia make the phones.

And why would that matter anyways ?

-t

Way to take it completely literally.

Yes, it is true that Apple corporately-hired employees do not physically manufacture the phones. However, the iPhone would not exist without Apple, and it is Apple-branded hardware. It is not a phone that Orange designed and sells.

Now, there are other phones that are only available under certain providers - for instance, the T-Mobile SideKick and the LG Chocolate series. However, I'd venture to guess that T-Moblie and Verizon Wireless, in those two examples, had a pretty heavy hand in the design and engineering of those phones. All AT&T's done is managed to be the highest bidder to get into an exclusive contract with Apple to sell the iPhone with services.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WTF ?

Would you really be mad if you could buy the iPhone in the USA from someone else then AT&T? And if so, do you really believe that all the people in the USA who have no coverage with AT&T do agree with you?

And lastly, do you really believe that a market where customers can freely choose goods and services without artificial limitations set up by market leaders is "communist crap"?

[shifuimam]

Yeah...I don't really get how an artificially restricted market is, capitalist or "not communist".

There's nothing wrong with laws protecting free enterprise - by preventing what is essentially a monopoly, they're allowing other carriers to participate in the iPhone market.

[Chuckit]

What you call "artificially restricting the market" others might call "enjoying a great deal of success because you made an awesome phone."

[torsoboy]

I'm glad to see that no one else agrees with turtle777 on this one. The exclusive deals that Apple has made should not be there in the first place. Now if only someone could make apple stop selling OSX only on Apple hardware. That's next I would bet. Apple has tried to have too much control over things that there shouldn't be any on.

Good analogies:
Michelin saying that you may only use their tires on Fords.
You could only use your Mac computers with Comcast Internet service.

Bad analogies:
Dell computers, that I can only buy at Dell online stores.
Buy Coke from Pepsi.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

How about Dell computers, that I can only buy at Dell online stores ?
How about BP gasoline, that I can only get at BP gas stations ?
How about Big Macs, that I can only get at McDonalds ?

It's not about who sells it, it's about who it can be used with.
If you buy a Dell, you don't have to use Dell's subscription software or internet service.
There are no cars that only run on BP gas.

[Eug]

Yeah, I hope they crush this iPhone cartel in North America too. It'd be great to see some competition in the market. Mind you it's moot now in Canada, since a while back Rogers bought Fido, the only other major company with a GSM network in this country. There is absolutely no GSM competition here.

4G can't come soon enough. At that time, all three major networks (Telus, Bell, Rogers/Fido) will be in direct competition.

[Big Mac]

I'm pretty sure I'd own an iPhone now if it were available on multiple network carriers.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I'm glad to see that no one else agrees with turtle777 on this one. The exclusive deals that Apple has made should not be there in the first place.

"Should" is a tricky word. When you say "should," do you mean "It would be nice if Apple did this" or "the government should interfere in Apple's business"? I would certainly like it if the deals weren't in place, but do you really think the government should have that kind of say into how you conduct your business? Should you not be allowed to shop at stores that offer the items you want at good prices, but instead be required to rotate your shopping between all the stores in the area, regardless of how inconvenient or expensive they may be?

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Now if only someone could make apple stop selling OSX only on Apple hardware. That's next I would bet. Apple has tried to have too much control over things that there shouldn't be any on.

Are you joking? You expect Apple to invest millions of dollars into creating a killer operating system just to benefit its direct competitors? How does that even remotely make any sense at all?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Should" is a tricky word. When you say "should," do you mean "It would be nice if Apple did this" or "the government should interfere in Apple's business"? I would certainly like it if the deals weren't in place, but do you really think the government should have that kind of say into how you conduct your business? Should you not be allowed to shop at stores that offer the items you want at good prices, but instead required to rotate your shopping between all the stores in the area, regardless of how inconvenient or expensive they may be?

Bad analogy. There is no requirement for you to shop at all stores. However, I often support government initiatives to prevent monopolistic behaviour. This way, you might see the iPhone on multiple carriers, but you the customer would choose which carrier to do business with.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm pretty sure I'd own an iPhone now if it were available on multiple network carriers.

As much as in don't like the idea of exclusive carrier I don't think this is the role of the government to tell apple who the should sell their iPhone too. If anything apple is screwing itself by artificially reducing the number of potential customers since a lot of users will not switch carrier.
It is important to note that the "refus de vente" is illegal in France which might have played a role in this decision. Meaning you cannot discriminate against who you sell something to.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Bad analogy. There is no requirement for you to shop at all stores. However, I often support government initiatives to prevent monopolistic behaviour. This way, you might see the iPhone on multiple carriers, but you the customer would choose which carrier to do business with.

Exactly, there is no law forcing me to shop at places that aren't in my best interest. And it would be hypocritical to suggest that I should be allowed to do business with whomever I choose but Apple should not.

In short, this is not monopolistic behavior. Apple isn't using its dominance to shut out competitors. iPhone ripoffs are coming out at a breakneck pace — and AT&T sells them! All that's happening here is, Apple got a good deal by agreeing to go exclusive with AT&T. This sort of business agreement is really common. For example, book deals are usually exclusive. A publisher would be pretty pissed if the author turned around and sold his bestseller to their competitors as well. Monopolistic? No, it's just good business.

Is it lame behavior? Absolutely. I don't like it at all. I don't plan to buy an iPhone as long as it's an AT&T exclusive. Is it anticompetitive? No.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Exactly, there is no law forcing me to shop at places that aren't in my best interest. And it would be hypocritical to suggest that I should be allowed to do business with whomever I choose but Apple should not.

In short, this is not monopolistic behavior. Apple isn't using its dominance to shut out competitors. iPhone ripoffs are coming out at a breakneck pace — and AT&T sells them! All that's happening here is, Apple got a good deal by agreeing to go exclusive with AT&T. This sort of business agreement is really common. For example, book deals are usually exclusive. A publisher would be pretty pissed if the author turned around and sold his bestseller to their competitors as well. Monopolistic? No, it's just good business.

Again, bad analogy. Those books are available from any book store. Similarly, while musicians are exclusive to specific labels, their music is available at any music store. Well, not always... Sometimes labels strike temporary deals with specific stores (like Wal-Mart)... and everyone complains.

IOW, yes, the iPhone is exclusive to Apple, but that's because it's Apple's IP. However, people complain because it's exclusive to one carrier.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Again, bad analogy. Those books are available from any book store. Similarly, while musicians are exclusive to specific labels, their music is available at any music store. Well, not always... Sometimes labels strike temporary deals with specific stores (like Wal-Mart)... and everyone complains.

IOW, yes, the iPhone is exclusive to Apple, but that's because it's Apple's IP. However, people complain because it's exclusive to one carrier.

No kidding. As I said, I don't like it either. But there are lots of things I don't like that don't constitute monopolistic behavior.

[angelmb]

I wonder, is this just an iPhone thing cause such phone is all the rage?, don't they like any other copy cat?. The BB Storm is exclusive to Vodafone in my country -Spain- but my guess is no person cares about it at all cause it is not an iPhone…

[mattyb]

In fact, this law in one of the most pro-market that I've come across in any country. Basically it says that anyone can sell anything (yes I know thats generalising) to anybody. The present situation (Orange only) means that this law is being broken. This is a great law for the consumer, it means choice, competition, freedom.

[turtle777]

Some of you guys are seriously screwed up.

You can't just call anything a monopoly that's more successful than other products, and then apply anti-monopolistic policies to it.
Apple has NO monopoly at all with the iPhone. There are dozens of phones that do the same things. Yes, the iPhone is better, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.

Originally Posted by shifu

There's nothing wrong with laws protecting free enterprise

This is nuts. Do you even *know* what "free enterprises" mean, or are you just a parrot who picked up that word. So in essence, you want to make "free enterprises" happen by limiting market players' options to create product-service packages and market them the way they want. Great.

Do you guys even realize the slippery slope here ?

Next, Apple is forced to develop the iPhone for non-GSM carriers, because they exercise a "GSM monopoly".
Next, Apple needs to make all Apple software run on Windows, because they exercise a "OS X" monopoly.
Next, they have to make OS X run on any sh!tty Intel hardware, because they exercised a "hardware-software" monopoly.
Next, Apple has to sell their laptops for the same price as other el-cheapo manufacturers, because Apple used their "monopoly" on OS X laptops to "inflate the prices.

Don't you realize that laws like this can lead to complete bullsh!t ?

Whose right is it to force a company to abandon their right to develop market and sell certain products only in certain markets and under certain conditions ?

If you guys had *any* clue about real monopolies, all this would be completely a no-brainer.

tell you what the consequences will be if Europe continues to make laws like this: Apple will abandon the European market, because it will be impossible to develop and plan a product strategy with viable financial gain if at any time, the governments could severely limit Apple's options to carry out their strategy.

-t

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Next, Apple is forced to develop the iPhone for non-GSM carriers, because they exercise a "GSM monopoly".

Actually, yes. They are deliberately creating artificial demand by limiting the market to GSM-only. It would be more fair if their products were available in all markets, not just to a select group of consumers.

However, no cell phone is available with all providers. The problem here is that this isn't an Orange (or AT&T, in the US) product. It's an Apple product that is Apple-branded and devoid of any AT&T branding.

When you buy a Motorola phone on AT&T, it's got AT&T branding all over it, and AT&T is getting a big ol' cut of the hardware sales. This is a different situation than just about any other phone on the market.

Next, Apple needs to make all Apple software run on Windows, because they exercise a "OS X" monopoly.

Next, they have to make OS X run on any sh!tty Intel hardware, because they exercised a "hardware-software" monopoly.

Actually, yes. Vendor lock-in is a form of a monopoly, so to speak. No, they are not the only operating system vendor, but by forcing users to buy their overpriced hardware, they are preventing an actual free market where their operating system may be used at the user's discretion.

Not only that, but they have effectively made it illegal to even run their OS on unsupported hardware by including such a clause in the operating system's EULA. It's one of the reasons why I dislike Apple as a company.

Next, Apple has to sell their laptops for the same price as other el-cheapo manufacturers, because Apple used their "monopoly" on OS X laptops to "inflate the prices.

Actually, if they allowed OS X to be installed on non-Apple hardware, they could charge whatever the hell they wanted for their machines, because consumers would have the option of buying the cheaper hardware to run the operating system.

As it stands, however, because of the artificial environment Apple creates from top-to-bottom vendor lock-in, consumers are forced to pay whatever prices Apple feels like charging for their hardware. I have seen multiple people just on MacNN complain that the Mac Pro is ungodly expensive, yet it's the only option for a desktop computer that can be hardware upgraded in the future. Because of the system Apple has created, Apple users are legally unable to purchase more affordable computers to run Apple's software.

What's even more ridiculous is that Apple openly supports and makes it possible to run other operating systems (most notably Windows) on their hardware. So if you want the overpriced, pretty hardware, you can run whatever OS you want. But if you want the OS for whatever perceived advantages (UI, stability, features), you are forced to buy the overpriced, pretty hardware.

See the disconnect there?

Do Mac fanboys really want to convert people to Apple to be seen with the hardware, or because OS X is a capable and viable operating system alternative to Windows? Wouldn't you rather see more users converting to OS X from Windows without having to buy new hardware, rather than having to invest a whole new suite of hardware just to convert to different software? I mean, I got started on using OS X by downloading a copy off BitTorrent and running it in PearPC (PowerPC emulator). I didn't want to invest in specialized hardware only to discover that I didn't like the software.

Whose right is it to force a company to abandon their right to develop market and sell certain products only in certain markets and under certain conditions ?

There certainly is a fine line here, but think about other things that generate false demand in order to maximize profits. For instance, most DVDs start out at $20 each, but will eventually end up around $10 (or even in the $4.99 bin at Wal-Mart, if the movie sucked enough). Disney circumvents this by putting movies in "the Disney vault", which prevents the sale of those DVDs after a limited supply is extinguished. Suddenly your $20 copy of the Lion King is worth $60 on eBay, because it's out of print and impossible to find. Do you really think that's fair or ethical?

tell you what the consequences will be if Europe continues to make laws like this: Apple will abandon the European market, because it will be impossible to develop and plan a product strategy with viable financial gain if at any time, the governments could severely limit Apple's options to carry out their strategy.

-t

Do you really believe this? Apple would make more money on the sale of the iPhone if they opened up the market to other providers. They would likely make considerably more money on the sale of their OS if they opened up licensing to non-Apple hardware. I would imagine the switch to the Intel platform has already increased hardware sales, since users can now buy their pretty hardware and still run all the same stuff they're used to running. Look at what happened to iPod/iTunes sales when they opened up the iPod hardware to Windows compatibility. Profits skyrocketed, and it's been their biggest revenue-generator since the early 2000s. Do you really think that iTunes would be the number-one source of digital music purchases if the iPod were still OS X-only?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

I wonder, is this just an iPhone thing cause such phone is all the rage?, don't they like any other copy cat?. The BB Storm is exclusive to Vodafone in my country -Spain- but my guess is no person cares about it at all cause it is not an iPhone…

Also because it is terrible.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

In fact, this law in one of the most pro-market that I've come across in any country. Basically it says that anyone can sell anything (yes I know thats generalising) to anybody. The present situation (Orange only) means that this law is being broken. This is a great law for the consumer, it means choice, competition, freedom.

A law dictating that iPhones have to be given away free to everybody who asks — and heck, let's throw in a free three-year service contract — would also be a great law for the consumer. It would be about equally "pro-market." But the thing is, the consumer is only one half of the market. The other half is the group of geniuses who spent millions of dollars and months of their lives creating the products you love so much. That half of the market would have their ability to make money (or business deals in general) restricted by the proposal. I really don't think we have any right to tell them who they can partner with any more than I have a right to tell you where to shop.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But the thing is, the consumer is only one half of the market. The other half is the group of geniuses who spent millions of dollars and months of their lives creating the products you love so much. That half of the market would have their ability to make money (or business deals in general) restricted by the proposal. I really don't think we have any right to tell them who they can partner with any more than I have a right to tell you where to shop.

If that's the case, why is antitrust such a big deal in the computer industry? The EU slammed Microsoft for including Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player with Windows. Why? I mean, Apple includes Safari and iTunes with OS X, so it's essentially the same thing...except that nobody cares about what Apple does, because their OS market share is so small.

I'm actually surprised they've gotten away so cleanly with the iTunes/FairPlay/iPod monopoly, and that the EU hasn't targeted that by now.

If you look at it from a perspective of R&D costs, then sure. The iPhone might be exclusive for several years, but to keep it that way indefinitely is pretty anti-consumer. R&D is the rationale behind why medication is so expensive in the United States for the first five to seven years. The in-patent duration allows the pharmaceutical companies to recoup the billions of dollars invested in R&D before the price drops to pennies a dose.

I think that in the end, Apple's going to get away with it - but I don't think that the OP's rationale for being so furious about this makes much sense.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Also because it is terrible.

You do have to wonder about a former MacWorld columnist reviewing a competitor to an Apple product.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Actually, yes. Vendor lock-in is a form of a monopoly, so to speak. No, they are not the only operating system vendor, but by forcing users to buy their overpriced hardware, they are preventing an actual free market where their operating system may be used at the user's discretion.

Do you really believe this ? What's in your cool aid ?

WHO is forcing ANYBODY to buy Apple products ?
HOW is this preventing free markets ?

Maybe you should look up the definitions of free market and monopoly, before you apply your own screwed up ideas to already established concepts.

-t

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You can't just call anything a monopoly that's more successful than other products, and then apply anti-monopolistic policies to it. Apple has NO monopoly at all with the iPhone. There are dozens of phones that do the same things. Yes, the iPhone is better, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.

I never mentioned a monopoly, and monopoly practice has nothing to do with this law in France.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A law dictating that iPhones have to be given away free to everybody who asks — and heck, let's throw in a free three-year service contract — would also be a great law for the consumer. It would be about equally "pro-market."

No it wouldn't because nobody would want to supply to that market. Businesses aren't forced to supply their products or services, they make a choice. The situation restricted the choice of other businesses as well as the choice of customers.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But the thing is, the consumer is only one half of the market. The other half is the group of geniuses who spent millions of dollars and months of their lives creating the products you love so much. That half of the market would have their ability to make money (or business deals in general) restricted by the proposal. I really don't think we have any right to tell them who they can partner with any more than I have a right to tell you where to shop.

In fact, the situation where Orange are the sole supplier IS telling me / forcing me where to shop. And letting other telecoms suppliers have the iPhone would probably help Apple more - Apple would still get $X for each iPhone and $Y for each service contract, but the telecoms suppliers would be competing on their various selling points.

Let me put this to you, would it be fair if Apple were the only entity that could sell Apple hardware, both old and used? Or if you bought a Dell, that you could only use AOL as your ISP?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple would make more money on the sale of the iPhone if they opened up the market to other providers.

Proof ? There is none. You're making this sh!t up.
Anybody can come along and say stuff like this.

Do you believe Apple is willingly forgoing more profits, just to hurt the consumer ?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

They would likely make considerably more money on the sale of their OS if they opened up licensing to non-Apple hardware.

The last time Apple opened their OS to non-Apple hardware ("Apple clones"), it was a huge disaster, and hurt not only Apple financially, but also the reputation of Mac OS.

But what would you know, you weren't paying attention back then.

Btw, do you even realize that a high quality OS like OS X can only exist because Apple HAS exactly that tight reign over hard- and software ?

Do you think it's a coincidence that Windows is soooo screwed up ?
Do you think it has nothing to do with M$ having to support all that crappy hardware out there ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I never mentioned a monopoly, and monopoly practice has nothing to do with this law in France.

Maybe you didn't, but others here (like Shifu) have.

And all the calls for governments to interfere and force Apple to do certain things would only be warranted if there was a monopoly. Otherwise, there is (and should not) be any reason for governments to interfere.

But you have confused souls that believe that "free market" means that those markets are free from competition and competitive advantage, by means of the government leveling the playing field by all unnecessary means possible.

-t

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you believe Apple is willingly forgoing more profits, just to hurt the consumer ?

AT&T have an exclusive 5 year deal for the iPhone. According to this article anyway. As soon as telecoms companies around the world saw the sales of the iPhone, they grabbed the nearest suitcase full of money and started throwing it at Apple for exclusives.

I agree with shifuimam that Apple would probably make more money overall by letting other operators sell the iPhone. There are lots of stories of people who have jailbroken their phones to use with other operators, there are lots of stories of people who think that AT&T or Orange or whoever are shitty telecoms companies and they haven't bought the iPhone because of this.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And all the calls for governments to interfere and force Apple to do certain things would only be warranted if there was a monopoly. Otherwise, there is (and should not) be any reason for governments to interfere.

OK, so a government should wait until there's a monopoly to take action? Sorry, don't agree. A government should (IMHO) also ensure that a monopoly cannot come into effect. If there is a monopoly - such as the British telecoms markets years ago, they should put in place rules that would allow new entrants. Which was done. BT could not just drop their prices and price the new entrants out of the market. These actions are obviously harder to do in certain industries, things like gas or water supply.

I classify myself as quite right wing, free market, capitalist etc. My understanding of what was being ruled illegal in France fell, or so I thought, neatly into what I considered free market and right wing. Its interesting to see that other people consider it the opposite of free market.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

AT&T have an exclusive 5 year deal for the iPhone. According to this article anyway. As soon as telecoms companies around the world saw the sales of the iPhone, they grabbed the nearest suitcase full of money and started throwing it at Apple for exclusives.

I agree with shifuimam that Apple would probably make more money overall by letting other operators sell the iPhone. There are lots of stories of people who have jailbroken their phones to use with other operators, there are lots of stories of people who think that AT&T or Orange or whoever are shitty telecoms companies and they haven't bought the iPhone because of this.

Far to short sighted. You guys seem to have an attention span of hours, not months or years.

Quick recap: In the past, strong providers / carriers (like AT&T) dictated ALL the terms of hardware and software which would run on their platform. Guess what, the outcome was crippled phones on almost all networks.

Here comes Apple, and wants to make a better phone, with better software and a better user experience.

Getting exclusivity with ONE carrier was the ONLY way for Apple to force the carrier into giving in to essential points, which they used to block in the past. Apple NEEDED to do this to make the iPhone the success it is today. Without the carrier lock-in, they would have never gotten of the ground in the first place.
To say now they would have been more successful if they just let any provider have it is ignorant at best. Sorry guys, but it just doesn't work that way.

Gosh, I wish some of you would pay attention to the big picture, and not just whine because they can't get a free iPhone from any provider.


Also, answer me ONE thing:

WHAT prevents other phone suppliers to copy the iPhone and come up with an iPhone killer ? NOTHING. Except, that they just don't get it. I guess Apple's success is a good enough reason for the governments to step in an "share" the spoils to make everyone (in this case carriers and providers) participate in it. Classic socialist concept, really.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Quick recap: In the past, strong providers / carriers (like AT&T) dictated ALL the terms of hardware and software which would run on their platform. Guess what, the outcome was crippled phones on almost all networks.

Hmmm... I bought a non-locked non-branded North American Sony Ericsson K790a in my city, with full warranty from Sony. It works fine with my carrier, and works fine on AT&T too.

Getting exclusivity with ONE carrier was the ONLY way for Apple to force the carrier into giving in to essential points, which they used to block in the past. Apple NEEDED to do this to make the iPhone the success it is today. Without the carrier lock-in, they would have never gotten of the ground in the first place.
To say now they would have been more successful if they just let any provider have it is ignorant at best. Sorry guys, but it just doesn't work that way..

Not sure what you're on about. The jailbroken iPhone works just fine on other carriers. Apple has no sway with those carriers at all. The problem though is having to run through hoops just to get that iPhone, and once you get that iPhone you have to run through hoops to jailbreak it and keep it updated with jailbroken firmwares.

Gosh, I wish some of you would pay attention to the big picture, and not just whine because they can't get a free iPhone from any provider.

Who said anything about free iPhones?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you really believe this ? What's in your cool aid ?

WHO is forcing ANYBODY to buy Apple products ?
HOW is this preventing free markets ?

Maybe you should look up the definitions of free market and monopoly, before you apply your own screwed up ideas to already established concepts.

-t

Turtle, please stop taking everything at the absolute most literal meaning of what's being said here. I know you're more intelligent than that.

If you want to run OS X legally, you have no choice but to buy Apple-branded hardware. This vendor lock-in allows for arbitrary price inflation and artificial product demand. This is not an opinion. It is a fact of vendor lock-in, and it's why vendor lock-in is so effing profitable in the IT world.

By preventing intercompatibility, you are guaranteeing future product sales as your customers need to upgrade. For instance, once you've invested in the Microsoft Office suite, you're unlikely to switch to another software provider. Or, on an enterprise level, once your company has invested millions of dollars in Exchange or Lotus Notes servers, you're going to end up staying with that service, because the overhead and additional hardware and licensing costs to migrate to a different, incompatible system are astronomical.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Proof ? There is none. You're making this sh!t up.
Anybody can come along and say stuff like this.

Turtle, this is just common sense. Come on. Try to not get riled up, and look at this objectively. There are already people just on these forums who have said that they want an iPhone, but hate AT&T and therefore are not going to switch cellular providers just to have an iPhone.

Verizon Wireless is now the number one cellular service provider in the United States. If the iPhone were available on Verizon, you can be absolutely guaranteed that Apple would sell more phones.

Do you believe Apple is willingly forgoing more profits, just to hurt the consumer ?

Do I believe that Apple would forgo iPhone sales in order to get AT&T to win the bidding war (which you can be certain gained Apple a huge chunk of money, along with a contract to ensure that the iPhone would continue to be sold by AT&T) to be the exclusive iPhone carrier? Absolutely. Do I think that Apple would forgo iPhone sales to create extra hype and artificial demand? Definitely.

The last time Apple opened their OS to non-Apple hardware ("Apple clones"), it was a huge disaster, and hurt not only Apple financially, but also the reputation of Mac OS.

The last time Apple opened their OS to third party hardware, the OS was drastically different than it is now. It was not based on an already-existing kernel, and Apple was using far more proprietary hardware then. That is simply not the case anymore. In fact, no part of Mac hardware is exclusive. The video cards, the motherboards, the processors, the chipsets, the wireless cards...it's all been practically standardized across the board, which is why so many people are able to successfully and stably run OS X on their own homebuilt machines.

But what would you know, you weren't paying attention back then.

Your sarcasm is completely unnecessary, and I'm not entirely sure why you're even so riled up about this.

Btw, do you even realize that a high quality OS like OS X can only exist because Apple HAS exactly that tight reign over hard- and software ?

Do you think it's a coincidence that Windows is soooo screwed up ?
Do you think it has nothing to do with M$ having to support all that crappy hardware out there ?

-t

Actually, Microsoft doesn't really have to support the hardware. The hardware vendors do, as they're the ones who have to write the device drivers so that Windows can see the hardware. All Apple's done is prevented third party hardware manufacturers from writing Apple-compatible device drivers without their prior approval, which allows them to much more closely control the price of their hardware.

Do you know why printers in OS X are supposedly more plug-and-play than in Windows? It's because Leopard installs more than a gigabyte of printer drivers, whereas in Windows, you install the driver when you install the printer. When you look at the severely crippled video card market for the Mac Pro (and previously PowerMac) line, it's not because the hardware itself is not physically compatible. It's because Apple charges a premium to allow hardware to be certified for their operating system, so vendors are less inclined to provide a full range of hardware choices for OS X.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And all the calls for governments to interfere and force Apple to do certain things would only be warranted if there was a monopoly. Otherwise, there is (and should not) be any reason for governments to interfere.

I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but if you believe the government shouldn't force a corporation to do something unless there is a very explicit monopoly situation, would you explain to me why it was okay for the EU to sue the crap out of Microsoft for bundling Windows Media Player with Windows?

What about telecoms and cable television providers in the United States? Those are more or less monopolies, even though multiple service providers exist.

But you have confused souls that believe that "free market" means that those markets are free from competition and competitive advantage, by means of the government leveling the playing field by all unnecessary means possible.

-t

While there are other iPhone-like devices, the iPhone has no competition in its own universe. If you want to use the iPhone, you must use AT&T. There is no competition there.

This exclusive agreement is extremely beneficial for both sides. Apple is guaranteed a set period of time in which a service provider must sell their product. The service provider is guaranteed customers, because the product is popular, and the service provider may force extraneous service agreements on the user in order to buy the product.

Notice how AT&T now requires a more expensive data plan in order to purchase the iPhone? It's a very closed little system here.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Far too short sighted. You guys seem to have an attention span of hours, not months or years.

Quick recap: In the past, strong providers / carriers (like AT&T) dictated ALL the terms of hardware and software which would run on their platform. Guess what, the outcome was crippled phones on almost all networks.

Not really. RIM has had control over the BlackBerry line. Smartphones running Palm OS or Windows Mobile/Windows CE are not all that crippled.

Low-end phones that run proprietary operating systems are crippled, but the iPhone does not fall into that category. The iPhone falls into the smartphone category, and smartphones are not remotely as crippled as low-end consumer phones.

Here comes Apple, and wants to make a better phone, with better software and a better user experience.

Sure. That doesn't change the fact that by forcing vendor/service provider lock-in, they are creating artificial demand and locking out competition with their product.

Getting exclusivity with ONE carrier was the ONLY way for Apple to force the carrier into giving in to essential points, which they used to block in the past. Apple NEEDED to do this to make the iPhone the success it is today.

See my above comment about smartphones. No, it was not the only way. They did not need to force service provider lock-in. It was the most profitable route for them. It was not necessary by any stretch.

Without the carrier lock-in, they would have never gotten off the ground in the first place.
To say now they would have been more successful if they just let any provider have it is ignorant at best. Sorry guys, but it just doesn't work that way.

Really? Then how come the Razr was such a popular phone for so long? There are GSM and CDMA versions. It's available on all networks.

How did BlackBerries become so huge in the business world? They are available on multiple service providers. I know that you vehemently want to believe that Apple had no choice here, but they absolutely did.

Gosh, I wish some of you would pay attention to the big picture, and not just whine because they can't get a free iPhone from any provider.

I'm going to ask this again - why are you so angry about this? Why are you personally attacking those of us who think that Apple should provide the iPhone to multiple service providers in a given area? I'm not demanding a free iPhone. Hell, I don't even want an iPhone, personally. That doesn't change the fact that I think it's unfair for Apple to force users to use a single service provider with this product.

Also, answer me ONE thing:

WHAT prevents other phone suppliers to copy the iPhone and come up with an iPhone killer ? NOTHING. Except, that they just don't get it. I guess Apple's success is a good enough reason for the governments to step in an "share" the spoils to make everyone (in this case carriers and providers) participate in it. Classic socialist concept, really.

-t

Nobody is going to deny that another company could theoretically come out with a product as big as the iPhone.

However, I want you to answer the questions I've asked that you have thus far ignored.

If Apple continued to limit the iPod line to OS X, do you believe that it would currently be the number one digital media player on the market by a huge share?

If Apple continued to limit iTunes to OS X, do you believe that iTunes would be the second biggest digital media store on the Internet (I say second because I believe Amazon recently beat them in music sales)?

Do you disagree that by switching to Intel hardware and making it quite easy to install WIndows on Apple hardware, Apple swiftly increased their customer base and, by extension, profit from hardware sales?

Do you think it would be fair, ethical, morally acceptable, etc, if Apple were to dictate that you were only permitted to use Comcast high-speed Internet service with their hardware (and, by extension, OS X)? If not, how is that analogy fundamentally any different from Apple dictating that you must use AT&T cellular service with the iPhone?

They've been dragging their heels for decades, but Apple is slowly starting to open up and integrate in with the rest of the computer hardware and software industry. Why? If they hadn't, they would have gone belly-up by now. Sure, they'd still have the committed fanboys who blindly buy into the Apple universe without thinking about it, but things like the iPod and iTunes wouldn't have been so explosively successful if Apple had continued their model of total vendor lock-in.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Some of you guys are seriously screwed up.

You can't just call anything a monopoly that's more successful than other products, and then apply anti-monopolistic policies to it.
Apple has NO monopoly at all with the iPhone. There are dozens of phones that do the same things. Yes, the iPhone is better, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.

This is not about Apple having a monopoly. This is about Orange having a monopoly over sales of the most popular cell-phone.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This is about Orange having a monopoly over sales of the most popular cell-phone.

This is NOT a monopoly. You should consult a dictionary.

It's an exclusive sales/marketing agreement. There's NOTHING wrong with that, it's the right of any producer of products to chose their sales/marketing strategy.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not sure what you're on about. The jailbroken iPhone works just fine on other carriers. Apple has no sway with those carriers at all. The problem though is having to run through hoops just to get that iPhone, and once you get that iPhone you have to run through hoops to jailbreak it and keep it updated with jailbroken firmwares.

Come on Eug, you disappoint me. I'm not making a technical argument.

Apple chose a product strategy, and made sure it was financially viable. In their opinion, it required a carrier lock-in. It's their right to chose whatever strategy they want. At least, in good-old Amaraca, where free markets are not castrated by ideological socialists.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Would you really be mad if you could buy the iPhone in the USA from someone else then AT&T? And if so, do you really believe that all the people in the USA who have no coverage with AT&T do agree with you?

Is there a God-given right to iPhones or AT&T coverage ?
Is it part of the Constitution or Grundgesetz to give everyone access to it ?

Heck, you don't even want to start the discussion how many things are available somewhere else and NOT where I live. Should I argue that the government has to make sure I get EVERYTHING I want ?

You gotta be kidding me.

-t

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You should consult a dictionary.

So should you. Look up communism.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Do you think it would be fair, ethical, morally acceptable, etc, if Apple were to dictate that you were only permitted to use Comcast high-speed Internet service with their hardware (and, by extension, OS X)? If not, how is that analogy fundamentally any different from Apple dictating that you must use AT&T cellular service with the iPhone?

It's not fair, ethical, morally acceptable that I have no In-and-Out burgers in Indiana.
It's not fair, ethical, morally acceptable that there is no Bush Gardens close to my home.
It's not fair, ethical, morally acceptable that I can't get German beer on tap in every restaurant or bar.
It's not fair, ethical, morally acceptable that French food is more expensive in the US than in France.
It's not fair, ethical, morally acceptable that I can't have a full blown Octoberfest in Chicago.
It's not fair, ethical, morally acceptable that there no Apple store near me.
It's not fair, ethical, morally acceptable that Döner Kebabs cost a lot of money in the US, and taste like crap.

WTF ? I demand the government to step in.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This is NOT a monopoly. You should consult a dictionary.

It's an exclusive sales/marketing agreement. There's NOTHING wrong with that, it's the right of any producer of products to chose their sales/marketing strategy.

-t

Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
http://www.answers.com/monopoly

Orange most certainly has exclusive control over the sales of the iPhone in France, even in your own words. You can't really argue that Orange doesn't have a monopoly over iPhone sales in France. All you can do is argue that it doesn't matter (which is perfectly valid, but then you'll have to argue against the Microsoft anti-trust rulings as well)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
http://www.answers.com/monopoly

Orange most certainly has exclusive control over the sales of the iPhone in France, even in your own words.

Geez, people.

The product / commodity is a cell phone.
The service is telecommunications and mobile internet.

How the fark does only Apple and Orange offer that in France ?

Like I said before, if you narrow it down enough, you can define a monopoly for everything.
Coca Cola Co. has a monopoly for Coke. McDonalds has a monopoly for Big Macs. Etc.

The point is that there are tons of substitutes for Coke, Big Macs and iPhones.
Therefore, it's NOT a monopoly. Can we please lay this to rest. It's really getting ridiculous.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Geez, people.

The product / commodity is a cell phone.

In this case, France has decided that the product/commodity in question is the iPhone. Do you believe that Microsoft was also unfairly penalized in the anti-trust rulings against it?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

In this case, France has decided that the product/commodity in question is the iPhone. Do you believe that Microsoft was also unfairly penalized in the anti-trust rulings against it?

The litmus test is whether there is a substitute or not.

There are not a lot when it comes to OSes, but there are tons when it comes to multimedia cell phones.

And just because France decided that iPhones are a commodity of their own doesn't make it right. In fact, that's the whole point of this discussion. And IMO, making the iPhone a commodity by itself is ludicrous.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The litmus test is whether there is a substitute or not.

There are not a lot when it comes to OSes,

I dunno ... I think there are quite a few alternatives to Windows ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._distributions

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I dunno ... I think there are quite a few alternatives to Windows ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._distributions

Pfff, look at the market share of Windows in France, an the market share of iPhones in France, and then report back.

Secondly, there are no substitutes to a OS, but there are tons of substitutes for multimedia cell phones (i.e. regular cell phones, MP3 players, laptops etc...).

-t