Apple's Demands of Vodafone

[andintroducing]

"Restrict content" probably means that Apple didn't want Vodafone's interface branding, and didn't want Vodafone Live! software on the iPhone. Anyone who has ever used Vodafone Live! knows that it seriously sucks. If such was the case, then bravo to Apple for not caving in.

If the rumor is true that the exclusive carrier for Germany is T-Mobile, it would be very interesting to see how the relationship will play out, since Telekom also owns Musicload, the second largest online music portal behind iTunes...

I'm not convinced that that's what they mean by "restrict content." That does seem to be the most ominous line in the whole of the iPhone articles I've seen.

I mean, they're currently restricting application development to the web. Aren't they also restricting access to VOIP pages? Not sure.

But is there really content they're restricting now or in the future other than requiring certain standards for videos, etc? (Which is a mess in and of itself: no flv yet, some movie previews automatically grouping themselves as podcasts but other movie previews grouping themselves under movies [so the Ratat. preview is grouped under Podcasts, but the Die Hard preview can only be found under "movies," that makes sense, right?], and TV shows not bought in iTunes, just mp4s from Tivo get filed as "movies" not TV. Right! Why can't we label the files ourselves and group within Apple's big categories according to our own desires? Why even have the subcategories? Let's kust put everything in videos and I'll sort them myself).

But I digress. Content restriction on iPhone (no porn for you!): bad!!

Or was this just sloppy journalism and as others suggest Vodaphone was crying wolf ("restriction") when in fact they wanted to keep the Internet freebies restricted so they could sell individual wallpapers of Billie Piper at £2?

 

[andintroducing]

Originally Posted by mmzplanet
A powerbook G3 can do a lot more than an iPhone. Just because a phone can make calls, it does not suddenly become better than any full Macintosh.

I don't blame Vodaphone or Verizon for not wanting to cave in to Apple. I agree with OS and hardware lock-in because it makes things more stable. However, what Apple is doing with AT&T is like trying to make Macs only connect to the internet with one ISP.

Above is the most sensible post I've read on MacRumors.com over the last five and a half years. Seriously. Sincere thanks, mmzplanet.

Yeah, but reality says they have to commit with some carrier, especially when they want concessions from their carrier to change the way that wireless service works in the US! Not really that smart a comment.

While it's not entirely clear who is the ultimate winner as all of this shakes out (will be some years before we know the true impact of the decisions the carriers and Apple have made), it's clear that Apple had to go with someone and probably AT&T only made the concessions if Apple made a long term commitment.

It's not like locking on one ISP!

ISPs don't currently have an active and successful model of locking into particular computer models. The cell phone industry does! And Apple's move, far from being conservative and holding up all the pillars of the cell phone industry actually weakens those carriers hidebound models of the past. But one thing at a time or they'd never let Apple's phone work on ANY network!

Sucks for Verizon-philes out there, but otherwise brilliant!

 

[wdash]

Problems with iPhone in the UK

I can see a couple of major issues with the launch, both from a network provider point of view and consumer point of view.

1: Network operators need to be really careful about taking this phone on, especially if it is to be a premium product as uk mobile operators have built a very expensive 3g network across the UK and spent the last few years telling us we can't live with it out, releasing a 2g edge handset (do we even have edge??) as a major new release will sugges to the public that 3g isn't as necessary as we have been led to believe, which may make more than a few shareholders question why they have had to invest so much in them.

2: It is rare in the UK to pay more than £30 for any handset on anything but the cheapest of tariffs, if apple want to try and sell the iPhone for more than £50 with a contact they will struggle, there are already plenty of handsets that fill the niche its being seen as here (handset + music player), which are cheap, for example the W950i is free on a £35 tariff, and that has 4gb internal storage and is touch screen.

I mean with these two issues a £200/£300 iPhone on a £35 a month contract is seriously hard to swallow, the lack of 3G is a real dampner for the networks, and anyone wanting to use it for browsing can get faster handsets, sure they may not be all touch screen, but as it stands my M600i is quicker to browse the net on than an iPhone, and that cost me less than the supposed price here with a contact when I bought it sim free.

No 3G + high cost make it hard to believe the phone could do anything but bomb here.

Ash

 

[Donnacha]

Everyone, just get a grip!

Yes, it is just sloppy journalism - when just newspaper, especially one with a reputation for being a bit sloppy, seems to get one of the major facts the other round from every other publication on the planet, you should probably presume that they got it wrong.

Seriously, the clue is that they also got the price of the iphone wrong by $100 - and you don't see everyone celebrating that as proof of an upcoming price-cut, do you?

So, don't panic, you'll have all the porn you want.

@andintroducing: most of the things you mention are software issues and Jobs made it crystal clear that there would be software updates to add missing the functionality. Do you really think that the entire staff of Apple, part-time and fulltime, who will all own iphones themselves, aren't going to do everything they can to fill in the gaps and improve the software?

 

[mmzplanet]

Yeah, but reality says they have to commit with some carrier, especially when they want concessions from their carrier to change the way that wireless service works in the US! Not really that smart a comment.

While it's not entirely clear who is the ultimate winner as all of this shakes out (will be some years before we know the true impact of the decisions the carriers and Apple have made), it's clear that Apple had to go with someone and probably AT&T only made the concessions if Apple made a long term commitment.

It's not like locking on one ISP!

ISPs don't currently have an active and successful model of locking into particular computer models. The cell phone industry does! And Apple's move, far from being conservative and holding up all the pillars of the cell phone industry actually weakens those carriers hidebound models of the past. But one thing at a time or they'd never let Apple's phone work on ANY network!

Sucks for Verizon-philes out there, but otherwise brilliant!

It sucks because there is a chance AT&T can ruin the iPhone before I can get it on a good network. To be honest I do still love my blackberry, I still wish I can get an iPhone. I just work in a place (hospital) that AT&T does not work indoors. Verizon works throughout the campus.

I am mainly whining because I want an iPhone but it would cause frustration using the part of it I need the most. I still have my iPod

Its bad enough I don't have a Mac at work (until I buy my own), now theres an awesome phone out there I can't have either Of all the boards I post on, I think this one could understand the frustration.

 

[andintroducing]

Everyone, just get a grip!

Yes, it is just sloppy journalism - when just newspaper, especially one with a reputation for being a bit sloppy, seems to get one of the major facts the other round from every other publication on the planet, you should probably presume that they got it wrong.

Seriously, the clue is that they also got the price of the iphone wrong by $100 - and you don't see everyone celebrating that as proof of an upcoming price-cut, do you?

So, don't panic, you'll have all the porn you want.

@andintroducing: most of the things you mention are software issues and Jobs made it crystal clear that there would be software updates to add missing the functionality. Do you really think that the entire staff of Apple, part-time and fulltime, who will all own iphones themselves, aren't going to do everything they can to fill in the gaps and improve the software?

Good to know. Saw the "restrictions" comment popping up all over the Internet. Wasn't clear there was only one source.

However, on software, you're wrong. FLV, yes, they've said they're addressing that. Everything else I wrote about though (essentially the organization system of video within iTunes) has been that way since day 1 with the video Pods. Not a bug or a new gap with the phone. Just shoddy decisions in terms of organization of video files many years ago, but now they've been using it for years.

Think it's really a stretch to imagine they're going to overhaul the system by which they manage the iTunes video section just because they added one device. And currently that device uses those systems entirely.

A remote possibility, yes, but rather remote. Incremental change, probable; overhaul, unlikely. Plan to have your video files sorted incorrectly ad infinitum.

(Beef: Some movie previews filing as "movies," others filing as "podcasts," TIVO rips of TV shows filing as "movies," TV show clips filing as "movies," home movies filing as "movies," and only purchased TV shows filing under "TV.") God only knows where FLV will go, though probably still not play FLV videos in the Pod section (affects Pod video sales?). FLV will probably only work when found ON a webpage, not when playing a file.

It sucks because there is a chance AT&T can ruin the iPhone before I can get it on a good network.

So how do u see AT&T ruining the iPhone exactly? Slower adoption maybe, but Apple had to get in bed w someone.

____
Posted from an iPhone

 

[RnSK]

Heheheheh...

You mean, you're not a developer, but you play one on macrumors.

Wrong again

I think if you were a developer then you would know what a window server is and how the name of Mac OS X's is the Quartz window server (it is also an event server which I referred to as an "event manager", not a "window manager" though I would imagine either one a real developer would understand what I was talking about).

"Quartz" is in fact, the (fastly being depricated and superceded) 2D drawing layer for Mac OS X based on PDF Imaging (as opposed to Display Postscript) and QuickDraw.

As a *nix user and developer for over a decade, I'm well aware of the differences between a window server and a window manager.

Several apps are clearly not widgets. They are either Appkit apps or they are Appkit like apps like Safari on Windows. Which reminds me, do you actually think that Safari on iPhone is a widget?!?!?

Yeah...based on what...you looking at the pictures and making this determination?

"See! Weather and stocks are widgets because they look like the ones in the Dashboard! They don't have window elements!! Haha!"

The reality is of course a bit more complex.

They are in fact a new hybridized class of "application" made for the iPhone; Stocks.app, Weather.app, MobileSafari.app, MobilePhone.app...see the pattern?

There is a base binary in each bundle (like a desktop app) but the ui elements (including the main/base window, which like its wigety cousins is named "Default.png") are all individual pngs.

I believe here that we are getting wrapped up in my oversimplification of the nature of the apps themselves; they are more a new class of aplication "Mobile Apps" that hybridize widget design and native code.

Just as widgets can and do use native code (virtually all of the ones apple ships have a native code component) the way phone apps are constructed move this code but of the .widgetplugin bundle and makes it the main executable. Additionally, phone apps have no nibs (but the plist calls "MainMenu" likely for legacy and cohesiveness) but instead use pngs. They do still support localization via the .lprog/.strings mechanism.

The phone does not have Appkit or Cocoa...but again...because you say so, well...the facts of the matter mean nothing

Of course, you really can't tell any of this from *the pictures*...which seems to be the empirical method you seem to be using to make your assertions. It might be better to look at something tangible instead

 

[alFR]

Hmm, what no-one seems to be mentioning about these UK carrier rumours is that only one of the UK carriers has a deployed EDGE network - Orange. So, one of these scenarios must apply:

1. The Euro iPhone will be 2g i.e. GPRS (which would suck as it's so slow).
2. The Euro iPhone will be 3G (unlikely IMHO as I can't see them making a major hardware revision like that 3 months after the US launch: this would probably also suck as the battery life would suffer, unless they work some engineering magic).
3. Whichever carrier Apple make a deal with will need to roll out an EDGE network (after spending all those millions on the 3G licences? Not likely).
4. The deal will be with Orange.

Comments?

 

[shamino]

What happens when any phone contract ends?

That's right, the company has to unlock the phone for you.

Maybe in the country where you live. Here in the US, there's no such obligation.

When my current Verizon contract expires, they will be under no obligation to unlock my RAZR, and Sprint (being the other CDMA carrier) will be under no obligation to activate it for their network, should I choose to switch.

A Darwin OS based OS with Quartz graphics. Whether we call it "Mac OS X" or "OS X" its basically the same OS that we all colloquially refer to as "Mac OS X". The intel macs are missing Classic. Does that make them not Mac OS X anymore?

So by your definition, the Shuttle PC on my desk at home is also a Mac, because Apple could, theoretically, release a version of Mac OS capable of running on it.

By your definition every computer in the world is a Mac, because Apple could, theoretically, port Mac OS X to any of them.

In the real world, nobody uses such a pointless definition.

The iPhone is not a Mac, and you are just wasting everybody's time trying to claim the opposite.

 

[Plutonius]

Hmm, what no-one seems to be mentioning about these UK carrier rumours is that only one of the UK carriers has a deployed EDGE network - Orange. So, one of these scenarios must apply:

1. The Euro iPhone will be 2g i.e. GPRS (which would suck as it's so slow).
2. The Euro iPhone will be 3G (unlikely IMHO as I can't see them making a major hardware revision like that 3 months after the US launch: this would probably also suck as the battery life would suffer, unless they work some engineering magic).
3. Whichever carrier Apple make a deal with will need to roll out an EDGE network (after spending all those millions on the 3G licences? Not likely).
4. The deal will be with Orange.

Comments?

It was stated in an earlier thread that O2 can upgrade its GPRS to EDGE with a software change. If true, the UK iPhone carrier will probably be O2 as announced earlier.

 

[killerrobot]

I can see a couple of major issues with the launch, both from a network provider point of view and consumer point of view.

1: Network operators need to be really careful about taking this phone on, especially if it is to be a premium product as uk mobile operators have built a very expensive 3g network across the UK and spent the last few years telling us we can't live with it out, releasing a 2g edge handset (do we even have edge??) as a major new release will sugges to the public that 3g isn't as necessary as we have been led to believe, which may make more than a few shareholders question why they have had to invest so much in them.

2: It is rare in the UK to pay more than £30 for any handset on anything but the cheapest of tariffs, if apple want to try and sell the iPhone for more than £50 with a contact they will struggle, there are already plenty of handsets that fill the niche its being seen as here (handset + music player), which are cheap, for example the W950i is free on a £35 tariff, and that has 4gb internal storage and is touch screen.

I mean with these two issues a £200/£300 iPhone on a £35 a month contract is seriously hard to swallow, the lack of 3G is a real dampner for the networks, and anyone wanting to use it for browsing can get faster handsets, sure they may not be all touch screen, but as it stands my M600i is quicker to browse the net on than an iPhone, and that cost me less than the supposed price here with a contact when I bought it sim free.

No 3G + high cost make it hard to believe the phone could do anything but bomb here.

Ash

spot on. I agree 100%. The UK market is going to be a tough one for Apple. Like Japan, we have our own way of doing things. The iPhone is great, but remember that we have much better phones in the UK than the American market (bar iPhone?) and people are not going to pay £300 and £50 per month. Not many people anyway. Not me, that's for sure.

As for 3G - it is a step back to use EDGE over here. We can get 3G coverage most places now and I don't see people buying something because it's got a touchscreen. There's already phones out there with better cameras, faster internet, email and often come with a free ipod!

Did I say that? No one should be caving in to anyone. If apple wants that much more money, raise the price of the phone. My biggest issue with this is that I like the iPhone. But I find AT&T horrible.

All this Vodaphone and Verizon comparing.... Vodaphone owns 45% of Verizon Wireless. Verizon is the other 55%. It used to be 60% Vodaphone until recently. So it should be no surprise that Vodaphone is acting the same way Verizon Wireless did.

It's Vodafone!

Further to other comments, I think its important to realise people in the UK are NOT going to want a contract for 2 years!!! The 18 month ones are hard enough to digest. I fought with vodafone to keep mine at 12 months and £15 per month for 500 mins+500 SMS. I might want to move country in about 1.5 years so I don't want to have a contract with some loser mobile phone company.

Vodafone rejecting Apple's offer will not hurt Vodafone, it will hurt Apple.

Sure someone will sign up with Apple here in Europe, but I think over all, the iPhone will not have as much success in Europe as it will have in the States, especially if its locked down and involves a 2 year contract.

I think everyone is also forgetting that all the other cell phone makers aren't going to take this iPhone success sitting down. Lots of people in this thread act like no one is going to copy it, and make it better simply because it won't be locked down.

All in all, Apple is hurting Apple by demanding so much of the carriers and only trying to market with one. Had they struck deals with several carriers, they would have already tripled their sales of the iPhone (in my opinion).

 

[Compile 'em all]

All in all, Apple is hurting Apple by demanding so much of the carriers and only trying to market with one. Had they struck deals with several carriers, they would have already tripled their sales of the iPhone (in my opinion).

Apple can't do deals with more than one carrier because carriers won't let 'em. AT&T demanded that the iPhone to be an exclusive in return for sharing revenue with Apple. If the phone wasn't exclusive to AT&T, Apple wouldn't lose a dime. In fact they would be making much more money.

AT&T gain is people switching over from other networks. Apple gains nothing. You think if Apple could strike deals with more than one carrier, they wouldn't?

 

[killerrobot]

AT&T gain is people switching over from other networks. Apple gains nothing. You think if Apple could strike deals with more than one carrier, they wouldn't?

They agreed to not deal with others because of AT&T. They could've rejected that and said no, we will sell to whoever we want. I personally think when they locked themselves in to one provider, they hurt themselves.

LG and Nokia (phone makers just like Apple now, not service providers) have phones on just about any network, why can't Apple? I think Apple needs to get the hell out of demanding stuff from the providers and concentrate on selling the phones. If anything screws up the success of the iPhone, it will be the service plans and the providers. (That's my opinion.)

EDIT: It's kind of hard to claim it's going to revolutionize the world when only 1% of the cell phone users will ever even get to use it. I think Apple is selling their product short by dealing with one provider.

 

[kallisti]

The only way to get content into the iPhone is by syncing via iTunes and a USB cable. And the only way to get photos out is to e-mail them.

Actually, you can get photos out either by emailing them OR by importing them into iPhoto during a sync. Not sure if it can import into other programs (such as Aperture).

Your point about BT currently being crippled for syncing is still valid, but I just wanted to make sure you knew that emailing photos isn't the only way to get them out of the iPhone.

 

[Cleverboy]

Restrict content? What content? In the US, is any content restricted?
Perhaps it means Vodafone's Vodafone Live! service, which is only accessible via the Vodafone network, and in my experience charges you a very high premium for very poor quality content. I can see why Apple would want to restrict that, and I could see why Vodafone would go off to sulk in a corner.

It's the EXACT same type of deal here in the U.S. We iPhone users do not have access to ANY of AT&T's custom content features. This was outlined in the training manual leak weeks back. Apple wants iPhone to be a carrier agnostic platform and isn't looking to have iPhone users "confused" by features concocted by the networks so that iPhone's in different countries, on different networks, have a different set of features to support. It would be an utter nightmare to be certain. The snubbing of Verizon's "VCAST" was certainly an issue with them. I'm all broken up that I can't use "Song ID"... sniff...

It's Vodafone's loss.

Yep.

~ CB

 

[Plutonius]

If this story is true, I don't blame Verizon for passing up on the iPhone. There is no reason that Verizon should be held hostage for a product like that. Personally, I will have a really hard time justifying the money for an iPhone. They are really expensive. But that seems to be Apple's thing. Wanting a percentage of the cell phone service is totally absurd. Apple wouldn't be doing anything to assist the service, contributing to the service, or anything else. They would just be stealing money from the other company. Of course, I only feel this way it this is all true. And I don't think Cingular will pick up a bunch of new customers because of the iPhone unless they will be discounting the service greatly. The phone is very pricy and when you can get good phones for next to or for nothing with other contracts, I don't think the iPhone is going to be a must have thing.

This was a sample of the many postings on MacRumors before the iPhone was released in the states. Like the states, I believe the iPhone will end up selling very well in Europe after a 3G version is released sometime next year.

 

[Cleverboy]

They agreed to not deal with others because of AT&T. They could've rejected that and said no, we will sell to whoever we want. I personally think when they locked themselves in to one provider, they hurt themselves.

Everyone and their sister knows WHY. You can't pretend this was an arbitrary and needless decision. It was because we wouldn't get a number of features and benefits if we didn't. Exclusivity was the carrot that got us unrestricted WiFi, Visual Voicemail, iTunes activation, improved EDGE performance and more.

LG and Nokia (phone makers just like Apple now, not service providers) have phones on just about any network, why can't Apple?

Because Apple's not a whore and can negotiate better deals from that exclusive position of strength?

I think Apple needs to get the hell out of demanding stuff from the providers and concentrate on selling the phones.

Like the ROKR? No thanks, man. Apple shouldn't make demands on providers? Why not?

If anything screws up the success of the iPhone, it will be the service plans and the providers. (That's my opinion.)

No, there's a number of other ways to screw up. Trust me. Service plans and providers are only one way. Apple has a strategy beyond just "selling phones" and we'll all be much better off if Apple continues to battle for the evolution of the platform and not simply whoring itself out to every provider in the market and crippling all of its features by compromise.

EDIT: It's kind of hard to claim it's going to revolutionize the world when only 1% of the cell phone users will ever even get to use it. I think Apple is selling their product short by dealing with one provider.

That's nonsense. 1% according to who? You mean Apple's initial target for 2008? By dealing with one provider, Apple is able to set a standard. If you're not paying attention to WHAT they're doing with the ONE provider, then your missing most of the story. Apple has made their platform network agnostic. The phone simply requires Internet access as well as WiFi and call services. From there, Apple intends to make it capable of all sorts of things while lowering the price year over year. Not revolutionary? Who ELSE is taking this approach? Did I miss something? With the iPod, it was about revolutionizing content delivery and portable music. With the iPhone its about revolutionizing portable communications. With companies like Nokia that pride themselves on a vast and ever changing range of products, they've made a lot of money by preying on factors of price and a myriad of varied features for different consumer segments/types. Apple, conversely, has prided themselves on a small product line (something they'd strayed from prior to Jobs return).

Steve Jobs broadcast on CNBC via YouTube
"As far as this goes, y'know... this is the future. And, its' not... Y'know... I wish we could sell it for $100 today, we can't. It's a little more expensive than that. But, as we bring the cost down, year over year, and can appeal to more and more people, I don't see why everybody wouldn't want one of these."

~ CB

 

[killerrobot]

@CB
I like how your think my opinions are nonsense. Notice how I call them my opinions.

I'm still waiting for all your "facts" to check out.

 

[Much Ado]

Hmm, what no-one seems to be mentioning about these UK carrier rumours is that only one of the UK carriers has a deployed EDGE network - Orange. So, one of these scenarios must apply:

1. The Euro iPhone will be 2g i.e. GPRS (which would suck as it's so slow).
2. The Euro iPhone will be 3G (unlikely IMHO as I can't see them making a major hardware revision like that 3 months after the US launch: this would probably also suck as the battery life would suffer, unless they work some engineering magic).
3. Whichever carrier Apple make a deal with will need to roll out an EDGE network (after spending all those millions on the 3G licences? Not likely).
4. The deal will be with Orange.

Comments?

No-one in the UK will buy a phone that expensive without 3G.

It's been said before, but the mobile set-up here in Europe is extremely developed. And even Apple wouldn't put out a GPRS phone for web browsing

I'd happily wait a few more months to get a 3G phone.

 

[whooleytoo]

I think the "OSX vs MacOSX on iPhone" argument is a rather silly semantic argument.

We all knew some time ago the iPhone OS would be a substantial branch of the OSX we see on our Macs with several frameworks we're used to seeing on the Mac removed and (likely) several new added.

On the other hand, it is OSX and does run binary executables.

What we call it (OSX/Mac OSX/iPhone OSX/iPhone OS) is pretty irrelevant, surely.

Will they/can they offer it in Europe as in the US? (i.e. a 2 year contract, 5 year network exclusive?)

Do we yet even know how it works in the US? My impression is: when the 2 year contract expires, purchasers will be free to switch network, but you still won't be able to buy a new iPhone and use it with any network other than AT&T until the 5 years are up.

 

[garybUK]

And remember that Vodafone is Verizon's carrier in the UK.

Err try the other way around dude, vodafone is the largest cell operator in the world and own 45% stake in Verizon Wireless, thereofore Verizon is Vodafone's carrier in the US

 

[Cleverboy]

@CB
I like how your think my opinions are nonsense. Notice how I call them my opinions.

killerrobot, don't be so sensitive. You said, and I quote "I think Apple is selling their product short by dealing with one provider." I said that "that's nonsense". And, I really DO think that's nonsense. I would never say that your opinions are nonsense in general, but anyone is capable of making a nonsensical statement.

I'm still waiting for all your "facts" to check out.

Easy enough. My over-arching statement in response to yours was "If you're not paying attention to WHAT they're doing with the ONE provider, then your missing most of the story." Here are a list of the "facts" I listed and where I'd source them.

• "Apple has made their [iPhone] platform network agnostic." - This is an easily verifiable observation (disclosed in the training manual). All of AT&T's network media services have been excluded (with the exception of call-based services). While many of their services are tied to the network in "function", they are not proprietary TO the network (meaning, they can be implemented on ANY network that chose to partner with them).
• "The phone simply requires Internet access as well as WiFi and call services." - This is another easily verifiable observation.
• "Apple intends to make it capable of all sorts of things while lowering the price year over year." - This from a statement by Steve Jobs, during the CNBC video I linked in the previous post.
• "With companies like Nokia that pride themselves on a vast and ever changing range of products, they've made a lot of money by preying on factors of price and a myriad of varied features for different consumer segments/types." - There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back that detailed that Nokia's approach in designing the 8800 series, and how it breaks up its customers up into numerous categories and actively markets a wide assortment of phones with different features to each of those categories. The practice isn't as remarkeable as the number of categories.
• "Apple, conversely, has prided themselves on a small product line (something they'd strayed from prior to Jobs return)." - This is a well known fact. Steve Jobs very famously reduced Apple's product line to a 4 segmented square, and has kept the iPod from blossoming past its 3 descreet categories (iPod Shuffle,iPod Nano,iPod) each time new versions are released the old are no longer produced.

So, I'm not sure why you would be "waiting" to see if my "facts" check out. If something I've said is wrong, I'd be more than willing to own up to it. I don't think its fair to make vague comments about whether something I've said checks out though. Just say it.

~ CB

All in all, Apple is hurting Apple by demanding so much of the carriers and only trying to market with one. Had they struck deals with several carriers, they would have already tripled their sales of the iPhone (in my opinion).

The crazy thing is, that you're talking as if Apple is the ONLY phone maker that makes exclusive deals with certain carriers. I'm not clear you understand why phone makers like Research in Motion or Nokia introduce phones that are exclusive to a specific carrier, because none of your statements, that I've read, take this into account.

When you suggest a company like Apple should "simply" [sic] deal with everyone, you have to take into account WHY it wouldn't do so in the first place, and exactly what it would be giving up on. If there was NO compromise everyone would agree with you.

~ CB

 

[killerrobot]

@CB
"Apple's not a whore" . I don't agree. Every business is a whore. They succumbed to AT&T's demands.

I'm not being sensitive, I just don't see you're point of dissecting my now "nonsensical" argument that Apple is selling themselves short. That's my opinion, how are you going to prove that wrong? I think they managed it wrong. How are you going to prove that wrong?

You need to quit being so "sensitive", and accept someone's opinion as an opinion. If you don't agree, say you don't agree and don't throw quotes around from who the hell knows where to make it sound like you're right.

I'm waiting for facts to be checked because the iPhone has been on the market a whopping two weeks. That's a little too soon to see if they played it right or not in the US market let alone how it will turn out with the European market.

EDIT: In reply to your double post. I understand it all. I don't agree with Apple's marketing department as I said before. Also, I don't THINK Vodafone will hurt from this decision IF they turn it down. Also, "simply" is spelled "simply" so you don't need a [sic].

 

[Plutonius]

I'd happily wait a few more months to get a 3G phone.

It will be about a year before you see a 3G iPhone. People will have to make their own decision but I think that many will choose unlimited EDGE data over the current expensive 3G data plans. Many will also get the iPhone for its wifi connectivity. You can't really appreciate the iPhone till you actually try it out / hold one.

 

[wdash]

Will they/can they offer it in Europe as in the US? (i.e. a 2 year contract, 5 year network exclusive?)

They could, there is nothing to prevent them, there are plenty of exclusive to carrier deals, however in my experience all handsets are available sim free, even without the deals (used to work for a large mobile phone wholesaler and I could buy pretty much any phone from them, regardless of which network it was locked to prior to shipping out of the warehouse).

2 year contracts just don't exist in the UK, atleast not at personal level, 18 month ones have been around for maybe a year and they aren't particularly successful, they often come with a lot of bonuses (e.g. free broadband) because no one is signing up for them, so a 2 year isn't going to work.

It was stated in an earlier thread that O2 can upgrade its GPRS to EDGE with a software change. If true, the UK iPhone carrier will probably be O2 as announced earlier.

They wont upgrade to Edge, even if it is software, at massive expense (testing, trials etc) simply for one handset, if O2 doesn't have EDGE inplace (which i'm 95% sure it doesn't) it wont put it in place for the iPhone, it just wouldn't make financial sense...

Ash