This is exactly the business model. Another similar model is the one Qualcomm employed that caused Apple to file a complaint with the FTC.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Requires Comcast and Charter to Sell iPads and Apple TVs as Part of iPhone Deal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is exactly the business model. Another similar model is the one Qualcomm employed that caused Apple to file a complaint with the FTC.
The Charter box is useless on anything but Charter. If one decides on getting the Charter box, it is leased and Charter requires that it be returned to Charter. The customer is allowed to use an AppleTV and Charter's AppleTV app and pay the same $7.50 a month if they are buying the AppleTV from Charter. 24 months later, the AppleTV is the customer's and they no longer have a monthly payment for that part. It is actually a better deal for the customer. Even better if the customer already has AppleTVs for their TVs. Then they only have to download the Charter TV app and they don't need to buy anything saving $7.50 a month.
I'm actually thinking about switching to the Charter cell phone system. I use less than 1GB data and already have Charter internet so my cost is $14 a month for cell phone service. That is about half of what I'm paying now.
Or maybe they hate Comcast as much as everyone else and wanted to stick it to them.
No they weren't! Verizion and Sprint was kicking their ass! They needed signups and they gave in to everyone of Apple's request!
Comcast is a monopoly indeed in many markets, your stuck using their gear, they constantly raise broadcasting fees and other fees each year. Whats halarious is all they would have to do is port the Xfinity Stream app that is available on iPhone/iPad to tvOS and you don't need to rent the Xfinity X1 set top box.
Charter has a app that allows anyone to just use the ATV4k instead of a rented set-top box.
"Charter sells Apple TVs at $7.50 per month for 24 months -- or $180, the retail cost of an Apple TV. Alternatively, a customer can lease a Charter set-top box for $7.50 per month. In other words, Charter offers an Apple TV at the same price as a Charter set-top box, but a customer ends up owning the Apple TV and returning the Charter box."
Last edited:
Apple isn’t breaking any law here and does not have monopolistic power...at all.
No, they are still bringing in billions and billions. Everyone agrees Apple will sell over 200 MILLION iPhones this year and tens of millions of iPads. This is just standard industry practice when you want to carry a manufacturers product; they often require you carry all or part of entire line.
[doublepost=1560485204][/doublepost]
So much misunderstanding about "anti-trust" law. This practice has nothing to do with it, and is, in fact, a standard practice in the business world. It's not an "anti-trust" issue if you and I decide we want to sell a product for a company, e.g., we want to sell Rolex watches in our store, and Rolex decides they don't want us selling their watches, or they say you can sell them, but you're going to carry an entire line, you have to have a certain type of display space, or you have to guarantee a certain number of sales, etc. It's called the free market. No one is forcing these companies to sell Apple products. If Apple poses too onerous of terms, then there will be less demand for these companies to carry Apple products.
So, could this be good for the T-Mobile-Sprint Merger? There are two other carriers that want to compete more heavily with the top dogs. I wonder if this could also be a sign that they want to build out some networks.
And I suspect you are not a lawyer.
Apple does not have a monopoly or a near monopoly on the smart phone market in the US. It doesn’t even have a majority. Therefore tying is not illegal, just a normal part of business negotiations, two sides trying to get the best deal they can.
[doublepost=1560486004][/doublepost]
Nope, because they don’t even have a majority of smartphone sales in the IS, let alone a near monopoly. Nothing remotely anti-trust about this, standard business practice. See above.
[doublepost=1560486240][/doublepost]
No, the Qualcomm situation is completely different.
1. Qualcomm was demanding a cut of the entire device despite its patents not covering the majority of components
2. Qualcomm’s patents were standards based, i.e. they covered technology that all phones are REQUIRED to use and thus must be offered under specific pricing and use guidelines (FRAND) which Apple alleges that Qualcomm violated.
It had nothing to do with product tying.
Ummm.
1. Why does a box that only works with one provider cost as much as an Apple TV? Either the Apple TV is grossly under priced or the advertised cost of a cable box was paid off by the last customer who used it.
2. If you keep the provider box for more than 24 months why do you keep paying for it? There is no way it costs more than an Apple TV.
[doublepost=1560486733][/doublepost]
Comcast is trying to leverage their position as a monopoly as an ISP to squeeze market share in the wireless sector. And yes, Comcast is a monopoly in most of the country where they provide broadband service. Where I live they are the only option for broadband internet and their prices reflect their knowledge of that. Why does Comcast offer pricing based on your specific address and not nationwide? It isn't tied to your location to one of their switches. You pay less in areas where they have competitors regardless of the cost to provide you access.
[doublepost=1560487248][/doublepost]
I really dislike this sentiment. Tmobile and Sprint are top dogs. They have a modern nationwide network. They have the spectrum to compete with ATT and VZW. What they don't have is the subscriber base to generate as much revenue. T Mobile has been doing a great job gaining market share. There is no resource limitation for their market share, but rather Sprint isn't number 1 (or 2) because they are as competent as a bank. Oh wait, they are a bank.
Merging isn't necessary for Pink and Yellow to compete. It's just the financial path of least resistance. The alternative is getting their act together and that doesn't grow stock fast enough.
Last edited:
No license, no chips. If you want to buy the chips, you have to buy a license first.
Typical hypocrite apple. Complaining about things they themselves do.
So, monopolistic practices are OK if they're performed by Apple?
[doublepost=1560491624][/doublepost]
You make that sound like a bad thing.
License to a patent. Patents are by definition monopolies granted by Congress (read the Constitution). Not only that, the issue was over standards essential patents, which again are creating monopolies by forcing everybody to buy your patent. Both cases are when monopolies are allowed by law.
What a stupid comment. Things are going great for Apple, and this kind of thing makes things go even better.
[doublepost=1560500245][/doublepost]
All that because Rolex doesn't have a monopoly in watches, not even a monopoly in high-end watches. And "Rolex watches" is not a _market_ where you can have a monopoly.
Another problem with the "anti-trust" is that something like "you cannot sell Samsung watches if you want to sell iPhones" would be a much bigger problem, because it would make it difficult for Samsung to _compete_ in the watch market. They don't do anything like that.
Hmm, from the article, it sounded like Comcast and Charter were the ones asking for a deal, so Apple took the opportunity to push iPads and Apple TVs. It's not Apple is doing bad, it's Comcast and Charter doing not so well that they are succumbed to whatever contract Apple wanted.
Where do you see that? I’ve been following all the threads for awhile and haven’t seen anything but vague rumors.
Edit: nvm I see now, nice I can finally get off TMobile’s bad coverage.
Actually they were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility
The iPhone was a Cingular phone - they later rebranded to AT&T wireless.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-the-Phone-with-iPhone/
When I hear Comcast, for some reason I think "gonorrhea", warts, or gonorrhea warts.
Comcast is headquartered in Philly (I live in the suburbs), and they've taken over everything. Tallest building in town, the Flyers, I could go on.
I despise Comcast, more so than Verizon (I'm stuck with either or for my ISC so I go with Fios) and cut the cord years ago. If something is on I want to see, I'll watch it. Otherwise I'll watch Amazon Prime or read a book.
I have no desire to pay for propagandist cable news services (on both sides) or licensing fees for the broadcast of major league lacrosse or subterranean woman's professional wrestling.
Comcast is headquartered in Philly (I live in the suburbs), and they've taken over everything. Tallest building in town, the Flyers, I could go on.
I despise Comcast, more so than Verizon (I'm stuck with either or for my ISC so I go with Fios) and cut the cord years ago. If something is on I want to see, I'll watch it. Otherwise I'll watch Amazon Prime or read a book.
I have no desire to pay for propagandist cable news services (on both sides) or licensing fees for the broadcast of major league lacrosse or subterranean woman's professional wrestling.
