PDA

View Full Version : Vodafone Sells 100,000 iPhones in First Eight Days of UK Sales




MacRumors
Jan 22, 2010, 11:27 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/01/22/vodafone-sells-100000-iphones-in-first-eight-days-of-uk-sales/)

TechRadar reports (http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/vodafone-shifts-100-000th-iphone-already-665570) that in its first eight days of availability, 100,000 iPhones have been sold in the UK by Vodafone."The demand from both consumer and business customers has been phenomenal. They want an outstanding phone on an outstanding network and we're delivering that," claimed Vodafone UKCEO Guy Laurence.Vodafone previously announced (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/01/15/vodafone-reports-50000-pre-ordered-iphones-in-uk/) that it shipped 50,000 pre-ordered iPhones at launch last week. An additional 50,000 iPhones have been sold since launch day. Vodafone is the fourth wireless carrier to offer the iPhone in the UK, joining O2 and Orange, as well as Tesco Mobile, which operates in partnership with O2.

Article Link: Vodafone Sells 100,000 iPhones in First Eight Days of UK Sales (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/01/22/vodafone-sells-100000-iphones-in-first-eight-days-of-uk-sales/)



vincebio
Jan 22, 2010, 12:19 PM
would have been 150000 if they had actually done tariff's worth porting over for

happydude
Jan 22, 2010, 12:50 PM
and that's 100,000 complaints that will come in if iphone 4.0 and the next revision is announced this month.

RichTF
Jan 22, 2010, 01:05 PM
My O2 contract was up, so I switched to Vodafone on a sim-only 30-day contract, to see what their network was like.

For me, certainly, I'm getting better service -- 3G almost always, and often 4-5 bars.

The main reason I switched is I travel by train a lot, between London and Reading, and Vodafone (for historical reasons) have good coverage along the train lines. I can now browse the web uninterrupted on my way home. :cool:

O2 have had a couple of issues handling the increased traffic that came with iPhone exclusivity, but that by itself wasn't bad enough to get me to leave.

(Of course, if O2 had offered 12 month contracts then I wouldn't have had to buy my 3GS on PAYG, I would instead have stayed on another 12 month contract. And O2 would then have had me tied in until August. But no, the greedy telecoms are trying to force 18 month minimum contracts now. Stupid short-term thinking! :mad:)

Vandam500
Jan 22, 2010, 01:21 PM
and that's 100,000 complaints that will come in if iphone 4.0 and the next revision is announced this month.

Complaints? Why would they complain? And you said it right, "announced". Meaning that it is still a good 4-5 months before its actually released;)

EETFUK
Jan 22, 2010, 02:23 PM
Complaints? Why would they complain? And you said it right, "announced". Meaning that it is still a good 4-5 months before its actually released;)

I think they would only complain that a new iPhone is being released in another 5-6 months, and they should have waited to get the new one. They should be able to upgrade to firmware 4.0 though, no complaints about that...

iphones4evry1
Jan 22, 2010, 03:11 PM
Nokia must be shivering.

Just one more step as iPhone and Apple slowly takeover the world. :apple:

--
and that's 100,000 complaints that will come in if iphone 4.0 and the next revision is announced this month.

Apple is not stupid. They probably won't announce new iPhone hardware until March or April, with a June arrival. However, Apple may make those 100,000 people happy by announcing an iPhone 4.0 FIRMWARE update next week.

wolfie37
Jan 22, 2010, 04:53 PM
My O2 contract was up, so I switched to Vodafone on a sim-only 30-day contract, to see what their network was like.

For me, certainly, I'm getting better service -- 3G almost always, and often 4-5 bars.

The main reason I switched is I travel by train a lot, between London and Reading, and Vodafone (for historical reasons) have good coverage along the train lines. I can now browse the web uninterrupted on my way home. :cool:


mmmm but the extra cost of all that data you are downloading is gonna be massively expensive with Vodafone. The unlimited data with O2 is the clincher for me.

BlizzardBomb
Jan 23, 2010, 07:56 AM
Nokia must be shivering.

Just one more step as iPhone and Apple slowly takeover the world. :apple:

Apple is not stupid. They probably won't announce new iPhone hardware until March or April, with a June arrival. However, Apple may make those 100,000 people happy by announcing an iPhone 4.0 FIRMWARE update next week.

You can't take over the world with just a high-end smartphone. Not everyone is rich enough to own it. Apple needs to capitalize on the success of the iPhone and release an iPhone nano.

RichTF
Jan 23, 2010, 07:59 AM
mmmm but the extra cost of all that data you are downloading is gonna be massively expensive with Vodafone. The unlimited data with O2 is the clincher for me.

Well my 20 includes 500MB / month, which is admittedly a bit stingy. However, I checked my usage stats when I was on O2, and I averaged 300MB / month without even trying to cut down, so should be fine... :cool:

Ted13
Jan 23, 2010, 08:56 AM
Complaints? Why would they complain? And you said it right, "announced". Meaning that it is still a good 4-5 months before its actually released;)
Apple is never going to announce something 4 month before shipping it *for an already existing product*. The may talk about iPhone OS 4.0, which of course will be available for free for anyone who buys an iPhone 3GS now.

Abu Tech
Jan 23, 2010, 10:16 AM
I was tempted by getting a 30 day sim only tarrif from Vodafone to use with my (O2 Officially Unlocked) iPhone 3G, however O2 have persuaded me to stay with the new iPhone Simplicity Tarrif. Exactly the same has the 02 35 tarrif but for 20 (including Visual Voicemail) - This will be further reduced to 14 with my 30% friends and family discount.

Reception wise I have not had a problem with O2 but now and again I have experienced dropped calls but this hasn't happened for a while now. This will hopefully tide me over until the iPhone 4G launches and I can assess if that is the phone for me or if the competition have something better on offer.

I have no doubt Vodafone have better coverage than O2 and their 3G network is of greater capacity but their rates simply do not tempt me at all.

TastyOther
Jan 23, 2010, 10:36 AM
mmmm but the extra cost of all that data you are downloading is gonna be massively expensive with Vodafone. The unlimited data with O2 is the clincher for me.

Vodafone aren't charging anything differently for data. You get 1GB Fair Use and are not charged if you exceed it, though if you exceed it regularly, they may discuss a different tariff.

O2 also do "fair use", and they did previously charge if you exceeded their "fair use" limit. Their customer service is also appalling.

Vodafone's package allows you to have a 40/month contract with a 32GB 3GS for 75 for the handset. With unlimited texts, 1GB fair use data, and a fairly hefty number of minutes. I don't know where people are getting the idea that Vodafone's tariffs are expensive.

FWIW, Vodafone and Three are the only networks that the BBC supports iPlayer use via 3G on as well.

Vodafone's current failing is lack of visual voicemail. As they have implemented this in Australia, I expect it will come to the UK in due course.

RichTF
Jan 23, 2010, 10:54 AM
FWIW, Vodafone and Three are the only networks that the BBC supports iPlayer use via 3G on as well.

OMG, didn't realise that! Thanks loads for that bit of info, I can now catch up on Radio1 on my way home from work, great stuff!

Even happier I switched now. :D

aristotle
Jan 23, 2010, 10:47 PM
You can't take over the world with just a high-end smartphone. Not everyone is rich enough to own it. Apple needs to capitalize on the success of the iPhone and release an iPhone nano.
Uh... yeah. The point of running a business is supposed to be maximum "profit" in dollars, not sales. Apple has found the secret sauce where they don't have to sell the most phones to have the most profits in phones. I don't think Apple is interested exchanging marketshare for lower profits. Nokia and LG can fight over the scraps of the low end phone market.

I'd rather be in Apple's position rather than Nokia's spot. They have nowhere to go but down while Apple can slowly grow their marketshare without sacrificing their margins.

ToroidalZeus
Jan 24, 2010, 02:44 AM
You can't take over the world with just a high-end smartphone. Not everyone is rich enough to own it. Apple needs to capitalize on the success of the iPhone and release an iPhone nano.
Look how well that worked out for Blackberry with the Pearl/flip phone.

karimtaha
Jan 24, 2010, 05:03 AM
Apple is never going to announce something 4 month before shipping it *for an already existing product*. The may talk about iPhone OS 4.0, which of course will be available for free for anyone who buys an iPhone 3GS now.

I should have my 3gs delivered tommorow, knowing they have an anouncement this week i still decided to get the 3gs.

BlizzardBomb
Jan 24, 2010, 11:06 AM
Look how well that worked out for Blackberry with the Pearl/flip phone.

The Pearl and Flip failed because they were poorly designed and had a terrible UI. It was aimed at lower-end users but ridiculously difficult to use effectively. This is again a place where Apple can reinvigorate the market (just like they did with the iPhone where there were only a few serious competitors before). I'm not saying Apple needs to release a $100 piece of rubbish, but something to take the iPhone 3G's (not 3Gs's) place without looking like a piece of filler to hold a price point.

reverie
Jan 24, 2010, 01:17 PM
Uh... yeah. The point of running a business is supposed to be maximum "profit" in dollars, not sales. Apple has found the secret sauce where they don't have to sell the most phones to have the most profits in phones. I don't think Apple is interested exchanging marketshare for lower profits. Nokia and LG can fight over the scraps of the low end phone market.

You're conflating revenue and profit. A $10 product can be more profitable than a $100 product, and an iPod shuffle can have the same margin as an iPod touch without either taking away sales from the other.

Apple starts at the top because it allows them to bring maximum innovation and build brand recognitinion, which in turn will help them to distinguish their (sometimes less exciting) mid- and low-end products in the coming years and make good profits at every price point. That's what happened with the iPod, and that's what they will do with the iPhone. Why wouldn't they?

Remember, the Mac is in an extremely unusual market situation (surviving in the midst of a hostile monopoly) and it's there because of mistakes that were made while Steve was gone, not because Apple chose to be a niche company. The Mac business model is not how Apple acts in a free market like music players or phones.

The iPhone today costs $500 to $700 without subsidies. I have no doubt that Apple will, cost reductions permitting, go to $400, $300 and eventually $200 in order to bring 2, 4, 10 times more customers into the family (which will in turn help the Mac as well). And they will have to release a 2x4 inch smartphone (with a 3 inch screen), because the current iPhone is just too big for a lot of people, no matter how useful it might be, and Palm has shown that it's doable. Hence, iPhone nano.

sapporobaby
Jan 24, 2010, 01:30 PM
I think they would only complain that a new iPhone is being released in another 5-6 months, and they should have waited to get the new one. They should be able to upgrade to firmware 4.0 though, no complaints about that...

What are you talking about? Do you own an iPhone? When the 3Gs came out, people who had the 3G version were able to upgrade for free. Apple has stated that they will support free upgrades for 2 years.

Think before you type dude.

wolfie37
Jan 24, 2010, 02:17 PM
Vodafone aren't charging anything differently for data. You get 1GB Fair Use and are not charged if you exceed it, though if you exceed it regularly, they may discuss a different tariff.

O2 also do "fair use", and they did previously charge if you exceeded their "fair use" limit. Their customer service is also appalling.

Vodafone's package allows you to have a 40/month contract with a 32GB 3GS for 75 for the handset. With unlimited texts, 1GB fair use data, and a fairly hefty number of minutes. I don't know where people are getting the idea that Vodafone's tariffs are expensive.


Wrong O2 have a true unlimited data policy on the iPhone and have had so since day 1, they made that very clear and have never charged on iPhone contracts for going over a data limit. If I switched from O2 to Vodafone I would be paying a lot more due to the data charges. It's also interesting to note that in early speed tests O2 has outperformed both Vodafone and Orange on their respective 3G networks.

As for O2 customer service, I have always found them to be very good and better than most customer services I have had the misfortune to have to access.

*LTD*
Jan 24, 2010, 02:20 PM
Quite impressive.

wolfie37
Jan 24, 2010, 02:35 PM
FWIW, Vodafone and Three are the only networks that the BBC supports iPlayer use via 3G on as well.



Not quite correct either, O2 do support BBC iPlayer on 3G. However according to the BBC iPlayer is not available on Apple devices due to the Apple DRM, I don't know how DRM affects it but that's the official reason given by BBC. The strange thing is that you can access the iPlayer web page through Safari and watch the programmes there on your iPhone(though wi-fi is needed).

ToroidalZeus
Jan 24, 2010, 07:43 PM
The Pearl and Flip failed because they were poorly designed and had a terrible UI. It was aimed at lower-end users but ridiculously difficult to use effectively.
Which is exactly what a iPhone nano would be like. The iPhone's relatively large touchscreen is what makes the iPhone magic happen.

I'm not saying Apple needs to release a $100 piece of rubbish
In America a iPhone 3G is already 100 dollars with a 2yr contract.
The iPhone today costs $500 to $700 without subsidies. I have no doubt that Apple will, cost reductions permitting, go to $400, $300 and eventually $200 in order to bring 2, 4, 10 times more customers into the family

The iPhone costs Apple less then 200 dollars to make. The price without subsidies is because Apple has driven a hard bargain and made all the carriers pay them a ridiculous amount of money per phone. Cost reductions permitting nothing, Apple can already reduce the subsidy it gets, if it wants the iPhone price lowered.

BlizzardBomb
Jan 25, 2010, 05:21 AM
Which is exactly what a iPhone nano would be like. The iPhone's relatively large touchscreen is what makes the iPhone magic happen.

In America a iPhone 3G is already 100 dollars with a 2yr contract.

Firstly, that's why Apple needs to step in and show a new UI that makes smaller touchscreens work. No-one has done it well yet so this would be the kick in the behind the market needs.

Secondly, wasn't it obvious I was talking about unsubsidised?

ToroidalZeus
Jan 25, 2010, 05:43 AM
Firstly, that's why Apple needs to step in and show a new UI that makes smaller touchscreens work. No-one has done it well yet so this would be the kick in the behind the market needs.
You can make a phone smaller but you cannot make the human finger smaller(figuratively speaking, I mean yes you could but ...) nor can you make people's eyes zoom in.
Secondly, wasn't it obvious I was talking about unsubsidised?
Most people really do not care about buying an unsubsidized phone. Which is why Apple negotiated the subsidy sky high. They rather get the 200 or 300 or whatever dollars in profit at the moment of sale v selling more unsubsidized cell phones.

sapporobaby
Jan 25, 2010, 05:45 AM
You can make a phone smaller but you cannot make the human finger smaller(figuratively speaking, I mean yes you could but ...) nor can you make peoples eyes zoom in.

1) Most people really do not care about buying an unsubsidized phone.
2) Like I said the price of the iPhone is Apples doing. They have made the unsubsidized price ridiculously high because of the huge subsidy they require. - I'd assume this is one of the reasons Verizon originally turned down Apple.

You are talking about the US right? If you are referring to Europe or other countries, the people there already know that there is no such thing as a $99 phone. Only Americans are dumb enough to believe it and fall for what the operators tell them.

TastyOther
Jan 25, 2010, 05:56 AM
Not quite correct either, O2 do support BBC iPlayer on 3G. However according to the BBC iPlayer is not available on Apple devices due to the Apple DRM, I don't know how DRM affects it but that's the official reason given by BBC. The strange thing is that you can access the iPlayer web page through Safari and watch the programmes there on your iPhone(though wi-fi is needed).

O2 might support it, the BBC do not - officially. The BBC consider the iPlayer via Safari entirely adequate (and having used it since 2007, I am inclined to agree). I haven't tested TV over data yet as I'm not in an area with 3G coverage, however radio over GPRS on Vodafone works fine.

DRM doesn't "affect" it, it is a legal/contractual issue, not a technical one.

In response to your other post: O2 very quickly changed their definition of data for the iPhone in response to exceptionally poor press coverage directly prior to launch.

This is not coming from a position of random "zealot" attitudes to phone providers, either. I've been a long term customer of pretty much all the main networks in the UK - Orange, Vodafone, Three (the worst by far, though I was an early adopter), O2 and T-Mobile. Data usage is important to me - I've been writing about cellular communications since the mid '90s when I was working on early digital photography and using a Windows CE H/PC and Option One GSM modem to transit images. O2 were better than Three in some regards, and that's the best I can say for them - they blocked ports, enforced caps and charged excessive amounts for data, and were near-impossible to get straight answers or end the contract with (constantly losing letters, and so forth, even when sent recorded).

I suspect that under those circumstances, they're no better or worse than other providers, but my experience with them as a provider AND as a customer service experience was so poor that even the iPhone would not tempt me back; I'm very pleased it's on Vodafone, but would have been happier with T-Mobile (who may well be officially offering the iPhone from March, following the merger with Orange).

Ryeno: The iPhone does not cost Apple "less than 200 dollars to make". That's the cost of the materials. Assembly, packing, shipping, regional taxes, stocking, R&D and so forth are not free, neither is marketing. Of course, if you provide your time for free, I've got a few building projects and some household maintenance that needs doing.

ToroidalZeus
Jan 25, 2010, 06:03 AM
the people there already know that there is no such thing as a $99 phone. Only Americans are dumb enough to believe it and fall for what the operators tell them.
Are you trying to say cell phones should cost more then 99 dollars? I agree the iPhone costs more then 99 dollars. But the point I was making is that the majority of cost per phone does not come from the cost to manufacture but the wholesale markup by Apple and the retail markup by the carriers.
R&D and so forth are not free, neither is marketing.
True but that fact still remains that Apple is making more than enough money to cover those expensives off the iPhone.

TastyOther
Jan 25, 2010, 06:08 AM
Are you trying to say cell phones should cost more then 99 dollars? I agree the iPhone costs more then 99 dollars. But the point I was making is that the majority of cost per phone does not come from the cost to manufacture but the wholesale markup by Apple and the retail markup by the carriers.

That's true of any device. Nikon make lenses that cost 1800 when Sigma produces something of similar specification for 800, and the retailers are probably paying near half that before taxes.

People gotta make a living. If you want a phone that costs 99 dollars, unsubsidised, then who is making money producing it? Bearing in mind that the bulk of the "material" cost of the iPhone is pretty similar (memory aside) to most handsets, yet the end device is very, very different due to Apple's research, design and so forth. You can only trim so much fat.

Unsubsidised iPhones are expensive largely because the retailers can get away with charging that much for them. If you want a genuinely expensive handset as an example, look at the Nokia 8800.

True but that fact still remains that Apple is making more than enough money to cover those expensives off the iPhone.

Define more than enough. They're making a profit. That's why they're in business (and frankly, that's why they're STILL in business). I don't see why a firm should reduce their profit margins just because it seems to an individual that they're making "too much money" - what sort of resentful attitude is that? Apple needs revenues, Apple's shareholders want profits, and Apple users want improved products that cost money to develop.

Apple is making enough money. There's no such thing as "more than enough" when it comes to profit; if people will pay for your product and it's very profitable, then well done - you'll either enjoy the profits until someone develops something better, or you'll re-invest and make something new to tempt them. It's a reward for thinking as well as making.

Do you also feel that people selling thousands of crappy apps that merely redirect to websites of other people's work are also making "more than enough"?

ToroidalZeus
Jan 25, 2010, 06:13 AM
If you want a phone that costs 99 dollars, unsubsidised, then who is making money producing it?
I really do not have a problem with buying a subsidized phone and neither do most people. The point i was trying to make originally with 99 dollars was that the iPhone device cost is already relatively inexpensive to the consumer. Considering most consumers do not care about contracts. So Apple making a cheaper iPhone is not really going to do anything.

TastyOther
Jan 25, 2010, 06:20 AM
Those two are not mutually exclusive.

I really do not have a problem with buying a subsidized phone. The point i was trying to make originally with 99 dollars was that the iPhone device cost is already relatively inexpensive to the consumer.

That depends so much on territory that it's a silly argument, unless you say "in the US" or "in the UK" or whatever.

You can get a free iPhone in the UK on some deals. I'm sure you'll have seen the old arguments about "OMG iPhone costs 1000!" because someone added up the cost over the life of the contract; people forget that as well as a product they're also buying a service.

My 32GB 3GS was 75 with a contract costing 40/month, which provides unlimited messaging, fair-use 1GB data (exceed it and don't get charged, but it isn't properly unlimited by my definition), and some insane number of minutes (I don't even know how many, 1200 or something). I thought that was pretty cheap.

Maybe I'm misreading your argument somewhere along the line, because it comes across to me that you think Apple should not be making so much money on it.

ToroidalZeus
Jan 25, 2010, 06:22 AM
I don't see why a firm should reduce their profit margins just because it seems to an individual that they're making "too much money"

You can get a free iPhone in the UK on some deals. I'm sure you'll have seen the old arguments about "OMG iPhone costs 1000!" because someone added up the cost over the life of the contract;

Maybe I'm misreading your argument somewhere along the line, because it comes across to me that you think Apple should not be making so much money on it.
If they lowered the subsidy than the carriers could in turn lower the cost of the device and the contracts that come with it. Apple would then in turns make more sales because more people could afford the iPhone (contract/monthly payments/device cost). But obviously Apple negotiated the deals this way so they do not want a cheaper iPhone. Which is the reason Apple making an iPhone nano is ridiculous because they could already lower the iPhone cost to take up a lower cost bracket.

reverie
Jan 25, 2010, 07:23 AM
The iPhone costs Apple less then 200 dollars to make. The price without subsidies is because Apple has driven a hard bargain and made all the carriers pay them a ridiculous amount of money per phone. Cost reductions permitting nothing, Apple can already reduce the subsidy it gets, if it wants the iPhone price lowered.

You're referring to the bullsh it figures from iSupply which of course have no clue what Apple is actually paying for materials and production as Apple has created several exclusive high-volume deals with its Asian suppliers.

But if we assume the numbers are reasonable--iSupply is estimating roughly the same $200 for several smartphones, like the Droid, the Pre or the Nexus, and none of them sell for less than ~$500 without contract. Equally ridiculous or a typical price point for a smartphone?

Obviously a big part of the cost of a phone are related to research, patents, hardware and software development, advertising and logistics. That's what Apple's 35,000 employees are doing all day. iSupply tells you nothing about that.

I do agree that the iPhone could be $100 cheaper by now, and I believe that Apple failed to drop wholesale prices when it released the iPhone 3GS last summer (according to their financial reports, the ASP for all iPhones went from $500 to $600). Apparently they were confident that the competition is too weak and decided to take some excessive profits this year.

The point is that the competition is not cheaper than Apple, and that's exactly what Tim and Steve have said several times their pricing strategy would be. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10225484-37.html

reverie
Jan 25, 2010, 07:40 AM
If they lowered the subsidy than the carriers could in turn lower the cost of the device and the contracts that come with it. Apple would then in turns make more sales because more people could afford the iPhone (contract/monthly payments/device cost). But obviously Apple negotiated the deals this way so they do not want a cheaper iPhone.

I believe that the bottleneck today is not Apple's pricepoint, but the carriers' networks. About 10 % of AT&T customers now use an iPhone or similar, and their network in some cities is close to meltdown. I don't believe for a second that Verizon could handle much more. Give it a few years, and the networks will catch up, Apple will lower the wholesale price, and AT&T and Verizon will either give away the iPhone for free or (preferrable to Apple) lower the subsidies and bring the monthly cost down by $10 or $20.

An iPhone nano could have a plastic screen and a slower processor, for example. And it wouldn't have to focus on being cheaper, but on the form factor. Women and Asians (and I) want smaller phones. Apple will cater to them.

ToroidalZeus
Jan 25, 2010, 08:13 AM
Equally ridiculous or a typical price point for a smartphone?
The former. Apple set the bar with the iPhone so now everyone else can follow.

I personally would not be surprised if one of the reasons Verizon originally rejected Apple's deal was because of the high subsidy.
An iPhone nano could have a plastic screen and a slower processor, for example. And it wouldn't have to focus on being cheaper, but on the form factor. Women and Asians (and I) want smaller phones. Apple will cater to them.
and then everyone would be complaining about the cost being too close to the regular iPhone but the features and usability are beyond crippled. So you are better off just getting the regular iPhone.

As for women wanting a smaller phone. Most of them carry around relatively 'huge' handbags or purses.

Chris.L
Jan 25, 2010, 06:04 PM
Wrong O2 have a true unlimited data policy on the iPhone and have had so since day 1, they made that very clear and have never charged on iPhone contracts for going over a data limit. If I switched from O2 to Vodafone I would be paying a lot more due to the data charges. It's also interesting to note that in early speed tests O2 has outperformed both Vodafone and Orange on their respective 3G networks.

As for O2 customer service, I have always found them to be very good and better than most customer services I have had the misfortune to have to access.

It is unlimited yes, but it is still Policed. People on the O2 forums have received emails and texts saying they have used too much data and to cut down.

Its built right into the T&C's as well. They don't set a limit, but use too much and they might slow you down or cut you off after trying to contact you.

Also, streaming content is not allowed under their T&C's

to allow the continuous streaming of any audio / video content, enable Voice over Internet (Voip), P2P or file sharing

BBC iPlayer is streaming, so use that and O2 have got grounds to cut you off, if I understand that correctly, especially as they don't define continuous

Delta-NC
Jan 26, 2010, 01:19 PM
Wrong O2 have a true unlimited data policy on the iPhone and have had so since day 1, they made that very clear and have never charged on iPhone contracts for going over a data limit.

Wrong. The O2 'Unlimited' data has always had a limit from day one. Unlike the other networks they just don't reveal their hypocrisy on the leaflets. (It's 1GB BTW)

It's also interesting to note that in early speed tests O2 has outperformed both Vodafone and Orange on their respective 3G networks.

As for O2 customer service, I have always found them to be very good and better than most customer services I have had the misfortune to have to access.

Lucky you! Most of us get treated like crap when we call up about our lackluster connections. Search @VodafoneUK and @O2 on twitter and see who is coming off better for customer service.

I think it says a lot that Vodafone sold 100,000 iPhones in just over a week, way more than Orange did, while being the fourth network to get the device! Clearly people waited for a reason.

Not quite correct either, O2 do support BBC iPlayer on 3G. However according to the BBC iPlayer is not available on Apple devices due to the Apple DRM, I don't know how DRM affects it but that's the official reason given by BBC. The strange thing is that you can access the iPlayer web page through Safari and watch the programmes there on your iPhone(though wi-fi is needed).

You know why it's strange? because its a crock of merdo.

iPlayer is fully compatible with iPhone, and works just fine on Three and Vodafone networks. The reason it does not work on O2 networks is because O2 disallow it. You can trick it into playing by loading the program page over WiFi and then leaving the WiFi network. (Currently streaming 'Mock the Week' over EDGE on O2).

O2 are a bunch of anusuloj and I can't wait until June when I never have to deal with them again. They left our entire area without reception for three weeks in late December and demonstrated no sympathy whatsoever. They also made me jump through hoops before they would adjust my bill appropriately.

Back2Bedlam
Jan 27, 2010, 02:59 PM

wolfie37
Jan 28, 2010, 08:44 AM
Wrong. The O2 'Unlimited' data has always had a limit from day one. Unlike the other networks they just don't reveal their hypocrisy on the leaflets. (It's 1GB BTW)



WRONG!!! I've had an iPhone from day 1 in the UK (yeah I was one of those who queued at the Regent Street Apple Store on launch day. One of the reasons for going for it was the O2 unlimited data plan. I have never used less than 1GB of data per month, in fact I use over 10GB of data per month (although much of that is through Wi-Fi so doesn't count). I'm not holding up O2 as being the perfect company, far from it, but I am making comparisons to the rest of the market (and especially Vodaphone). In real use terms I don't know anyone who gets a cheaper deal than on O2 (one of the reasons why I have stuck with O2 over the years). Orange does have some tempting deals but not the reliability of coverage. As for contacting customer service, again I'm not going to pretend that O2 are perfect but on the (thankfully) infrequent occasions I have had to contact them I have always been treated politely and honestly. Recently I considered switching my broadband connection to them but they told me not to bother as my distance from the exchange would not give close to any of their advertised speeds, whereas the company I ended up going with happily accepted me and failed to ever deliver even a tenth of their advertised speeds.

With these kind of comparisons I go by real life experience rather than internet forums which can be skewed by posters who have axes to grind or who are employed by competitors.

TastyOther
Jan 30, 2010, 04:01 PM
whereas the company I ended up going with happily accepted me and failed to ever deliver even a tenth of their advertised speeds

Assuming, since you're talking about tech, in a tech-driven forum, surrounded by posters who potentially have a great deal more tech experience... assuming that you know something about technology...

Why on earth did you think that ANY provider would be able to increase the speed available? Given that the whole shebang is essentially managed by OpenReach and the wires from the exchange to your house are the same? Did you think that they'd have an exchange somehow closer?

I'm also very interested in how you're using over 10GB of data per month on an iPhone (and why you'd count your WiFi usage in order to claim that larger number). I used my T-Mobile contract as a substitute for broadband whilst waiting for OpenReach to fix the mess left by the previous Sky customer not paying their bills (I wanted to go to Be Pro - the speed is naturally the same, but they offer a better pricing structure for my usage; note that "limited" broadband is no use to me at this stage) - this was the usual workload of image desk and publishing work, including large advertising files and raw files from medium-format cameras, plus backing up changes to a >2GB website.

T-Mobile did not charge me, or restrict me, for exceeding my 3GB "fair use" allowance. They also allow modem/tethered use, and IRC/chat applications (excluded by O2; indeed back when I had a communicator on O2, actively blocked). The signal is excellent - far better than O2 or Vodafone here. That's obviously variable.

Anyway, it's great that O2 are good for you. It's also great that people now have the choice when they want an iPhone.

ajreeves37
Jan 31, 2010, 09:38 AM
What are you talking about? Do you own an iPhone? When the 3Gs came out, people who had the 3G version were able to upgrade for free. Apple has stated that they will support free upgrades for 2 years.

Think before you type dude.

Wrong - You had to buy out the O2 contract AND buy the new 3GS. When the G came out, you could upgrade then without buying out your contract.

Know before you type dude
:)

Schtumple
Jan 31, 2010, 09:43 AM
Wrong - You had to buy out the O2 contract AND buy the new 3GS. When the G came out, you could upgrade then without buying out your contract.

Know before you type dude
:)

This is true, I was laughed at by a O2 rep despite them sending me an email saying I could upgrade to the 3GS from my current contract for free on any tarriff, I had to pay 180 for the handset, I dislike O2s tactics and would've loved to have gone with Vodafone...

wolfie37
Feb 1, 2010, 05:04 AM
This is true, I was laughed at by a O2 rep despite them sending me an email saying I could upgrade to the 3GS from my current contract for free on any tarriff, I had to pay 180 for the handset, I dislike O2s tactics and would've loved to have gone with Vodafone...

But this is true with any phone from any company; unless you have bought the handset upfront then you have to pay an upgrade charge if you want to change handsets before the end of the contract period. With the original iPhone the only way to get one was to pay upfront, therefore you totally owned the handset from day 1, therefore when the 3G came out you could upgrade straight away as you had no outstanding handset charge. The 3G contracts did offer the usual option of getting the handset discounted, or free, based on taking out a contract where the cost of the handset is paid off over the length of the contract(this is the usual model used by all mobile phone companies in UK). Therefore when the 3GS came out many people had still to finish off paying for their 3G handsets so could only upgrade with a charge. Again this is not unusual, this is the standard contract model used in the UK by all mobile phone operators.

wolfie37
Feb 1, 2010, 05:11 AM
Why on earth did you think that ANY provider would be able to increase the speed available? Given that the whole shebang is essentially managed by OpenReach and the wires from the exchange to your house are the same? Did you think that they'd have an exchange somehow closer?


I was getting a very poor service from my the provider, kept losing connection, sometimes getting no connection. When I decided I would transfer to O2 their customer service explained to me that as they used ADSL2+ my distance from the exchange was a limiting factor, however ADSLMAX would get me better speeds. This is refreshingly honest as they could have just taken my subscription. In the end I went with a company that offered ADSLMAX although I have since went with cable through Virginmedia.

So having a different provider CAN lead to different speeds depending on the system they use!

sapporobaby
Feb 1, 2010, 05:11 AM
Wrong - You had to buy out the O2 contract AND buy the new 3GS. When the G came out, you could upgrade then without buying out your contract.

Know before you type dude
:)

O2 is not the only provider in the world. Duh !!!!!

wolfie37
Feb 1, 2010, 05:15 AM
I'm also very interested in how you're using over 10GB of data per month on an iPhone (and why you'd count your WiFi usage in order to claim that larger number).

Well I monitored my data usage for a while, just out of curiosity. The app I used counted all data(including wifi) and I hit 10GB a couple of times, I don't know exactly how but I do know it was at the time that my home internet wasn't working reliably(at all). That did include a fair bit of iPlayer catch-up.

TastyOther
Feb 1, 2010, 11:47 AM
So having a different provider CAN lead to different speeds depending on the system they use!

ADSLMax isn't any sort of system. It's not a technology, it's not a protocol, it's a marketing term covering ADSL in various forms, as offered by BT/OpenReach. Did O2 recommend Be as a provider offering "ADSLMAX", by any chance? ADSLMax, or rather the products associated with it, pre-date ADSL2+ (ADSL2+ being generally associated with 24Mb service, though that's now offered with higher speeds through port bonding); it's tied in most packages to rate-adaptive 8Mb ADSL.

wolfie37
Feb 2, 2010, 04:11 AM
ADSLMax isn't any sort of system. It's not a technology, it's not a protocol, it's a marketing term covering ADSL in various forms, as offered by BT/OpenReach. Did O2 recommend Be as a provider offering "ADSLMAX", by any chance? ADSLMax, or rather the products associated with it, pre-date ADSL2+ (ADSL2+ being generally associated with 24Mb service, though that's now offered with higher speeds through port bonding); it's tied in most packages to rate-adaptive 8Mb ADSL.

O2 didn't recommend any provider. I had been with freedom2surf and had been getting speeds of around 2meg then after several buyouts there service provision dropped (frequent outages). They finally got bought by TalkTalk so that was time to move, O2 told me that because of my distance from exchange I wasn't suitable for their service and would get speeds of around 0.5meg, they used an analogy of 2+ being a thick tube which was easy to push lots of stuff down over a short distance, whereas MAX was like a thinner tube that had a bit more power behind it and was able to reach further distances. I ended up going with Plusnnet who were appalling(despite some very good reviews and knowing several people who are very satisfied with them). I went weeks at a time without any service, I did get 2.5meg for a couple of days then it disappeared again. As I say I'm now with Virgn and impressed with my speeds and service.

Back2Bedlam
Mar 22, 2010, 03:35 PM

Jenkins12
Mar 22, 2010, 04:30 PM
and that's 100,000 complaints that will come in if iphone 4.0 and the next revision is announced this month.

Just what I was thinking... it's going to be one big kick in the nuts

OllyW
Mar 22, 2010, 04:42 PM
Just what I was thinking... it's going to be one big kick in the nuts

The original post was made 2 months ago just before the iPad keynote.

iPhone 4.0 and the next revision weren't announced. :D

wiliamjoan
Mar 24, 2010, 08:14 AM
Just what I was thinking... it's going to be one big kick in the nuts

Consumers have not fallen out of love with the iPhone, if Vodafone's 100000 sales figures after just one week are anything to go by.I agree completely. The idea of locking a piece of hardware, a mobile phone especially, to one specific carrier is very arcane. Surely laws should be in place, as with some places in the EU, that allow the consumer to freely use whatever device he/she purchases in whatever way... in some countries it is actually illegal for companies to sim lock a phone, which makes complete sense... I spent my money on it