iPhone without Contract in Germany? - 999€ UPDATE: Confirmed + 600€ for an unlock!

[Sijmen]

No, these laws are designed to be totally useless.

That's why after all the fuss about France suing Apple for itunes' DRM --- nothing happened. Useless consumer protection laws --- means useless government remedies.

It seems that DRM was a gray area there in France. Didin't really follow that one though.

You're providing no argument. You're just saying "they are designed to be useless" without backing it up.

When I buy a product online in the Netherlands, I have two weeks to return it no questions asked. For any product purchased remotely. (Well, not literally, there are some exceptions like stuff that's entirely custom built, or engraved etc.) Now tell me, how is that law useless?

 

[Archie-]

People act as if the choice were between limitless consumer choice and what we have now. The fact is that the real choice is what we have now or a world where the iPhone doesn't exist.

You present a false choice. I dont know if you noticed, but Apple is not 'embattled' anymore, and has not been for a long time.

The had a choice to make a reasonable profit or try for an outrageous profit, and guess which one they chose.

If they really wanted a revolution they could have sold their phones via their normal well developed retail channels, and still have made 60% margin. Instead they decided to go 160%+ margin, at the expense of the consumers.

Apple is in no danger of going out of business, but they are in danger of losing their main asset - their fans. It does not seem that they care however.

 

[samab]

As far as I know, most phones that come with a contract are not locked, while pay to go phones are. That's not governed by law, again, as far as I know. But they do have to give you unlock codes after 12 months, that's what I did when switching carriers.

The problem is that I don't know which country you are referring to --- some countries do have laws on a 12 month unlocking thing (Spain, Netherlands). Not UK, not Germany and not France (France is 6 months).

Netherlands is kind of useless with their simlocking laws as well --- a 2 sentence "policy" is not really a policy at all. It is an arbitrary number thrown up by some bureaucrat that didn't have any real explanation behind it.

When I buy a product online in the Netherlands, I have two weeks to return it no questions asked. For any product purchased remotely. (Well, not literally, there are some exceptions like stuff that's entirely custom built, or engraved etc.) Now tell me, how is that law useless?

States like California (which is the size of the 8th largest economy) also have pretty strict consumer protection laws as well.

But if you look at UK, France and Germany --- pretty useless so-called "consumer protection laws" in the case of the iphone.

 

[Sijmen]

The problem is that I don't know which country you are referring to --- some countries do have laws on a 12 month unlocking thing. Not UK, not Germany and not France (France is 6 months).

Sorry, forgot to mention: I live in the Netherlands.

States like California (which is the size of the 8th largest economy) also have pretty strict consumer protection laws as well.

But if you look at UK, France and Germany --- pretty useless so-called "consumer protection laws" in the case of the iphone.

So? We need better ones, but that doesn't make customer protection laws useless per se. I'd like to see a law here to forbid coupling of phone and contract. That would be beneficial.

 

[samab]

So? We need better ones, but that doesn't make customer protection laws useless per se. I'd like to see a law here to forbid coupling of phone and contract. That would be beneficial.

It is useless because it doesn't do the job.

Instead of France trying and trying to screw with the Apple with the iphone --- why don't they just allow a 4th national carrier. That will solve the high handset price and high monthly plans (rumours that the French iphone top plan is 120 euro a month).

 

[Sobe]

You present a false choice. I dont know if you noticed, but Apple is not 'embattled' anymore, and has not been for a long time.

The had a choice to make a reasonable profit or try for an outrageous profit, and guess which one they chose.

If they really wanted a revolution they could have sold their phones via their normal well developed retail channels, and still have made 60% margin. Instead they decided to go 160%+ margin, at the expense of the consumers.

Apple is in no danger of going out of business, but they are in danger of losing their main asset - their fans. It does not seem that they care however.

Oh so the issue is more that you disapprove of their level of profit?

I was happy to pay $599 for my iPhone and would gladly do it again because it seemed a fine price for what I needed in a phone and I had the money to spend.

If every single dollar is profit, I don't care and neither should anyone else.

Either the product is worth what they charge, or it isn't.

An item is worth precisely what people are willing to pay.

And the market has spoken. Loudly and often. The iPhone is worth every penny, whether it's all profit or not.

They aren't selling an AIDS vaccine here and making money off the lives of dying villagers in Uganda.

It's a mobile phone for pete's sake, and a luxury item at that.

 

[Sijmen]

It is useless because it doesn't do the job.

Instead of France trying and trying to screw with the Apple with the iphone --- why don't they just allow a 4th national carrier. That will solve the high handset price and high monthly plans (rumours that the French iphone top plan is 120 euro a month).

Generally, customer protection laws do do the job. That France implemented them bad in this case, is not the fault of the concept.

If they forbid phone-contract coupling, how would that be bad for the customer?

 

[edesignuk]

An item is worth precisely what people are willing to pay.

And the market has spoken. Loudly and often. The iPhone is worth every penny, whether it's all profit or not.

You're right. The market has spoken.

 

[samab]

If they forbid phone-contract coupling, how would that be bad for the customer?

It was so bad that every single country except Belgium has abandoned that kind of consumer protection.

 

[boz0]

It is useless because it doesn't do the job.

Instead of France trying and trying to screw with the Apple with the iphone --- why don't they just allow a 4th national carrier. That will solve the high handset price and high monthly plans (rumours that the French iphone top plan is 120 euro a month).

"France" isn't trying to screw with Apple. Apple has designed a business model around the iPhone that doesn't work with French laws, and won't work in a number of other European countries as well.

A fair number of people are going to buy an iPhone with a 12-months Orange contract (and, according to the same rumour, the less expensive contract will be 49 euros a month, more expensive than what we're used to, but not expensive enough to deter everyone). At the end of those 12 months, they'll be entitled by law to unlock their iPhone, and they'll be free to use it on any network they like, without Apple getting a single cent from that money.

The point is, Apple's business model in Europe has, at best, a 12-months life span. Then the carrier-generated revenue is going to fall, and probably become negligible in 12-18 more months. By that time, Apple might try and repeat the operation with a new version of the iPhone, but it'd have to pack some serious upgrades for people to even consider changing their 1st-gen model.

 

[Sobe]

Generally, customer protection laws do do the job. That France implemented them bad in this case, is not the fault of the concept.

If they forbid phone-contract coupling, how would that be bad for the customer?

Why would anyone need protection from something that is a completely optional purchase -- and a luxury item at that?

If it were the price of stents for angioplasty or the cost of antibiotics or vaccines, at least one could make a compelling arugment for a greater good based on the access to healthcare among the poor.

But we're talking about a $400 mobile phone.

For comparison, for $450, you could vaccinate a girl against Human Papilloma Virus which is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide.

Efficacy is basically 100%.

"Protecting" consumers from cell phone carriers and manufacturers is a joke.

 

[samab]

"France" isn't trying to screw with Apple. Apple has designed a business model around the iPhone that doesn't work with French laws, and won't work in a number of other European countries as well.

A fair number of people are going to buy an iPhone with a 12-months Orange contract (and, according to the same rumour, the less expensive contract will be 49 euros a month, more expensive than what we're used to, but not expensive enough to deter everyone). At the end of those 12 months, they'll be entitled by law to unlock their iPhone, and they'll be free to use it on any network they like, without Apple getting a single cent from that money.

The point is, Apple's business model in Europe has, at best, a 12-months life span. Then the carrier-generated revenue is going to fall, and probably become negligible in 12-18 more months. By that time, Apple might try and repeat the operation with a new version of the iPhone, but it'd have to pack some serious upgrades for people to even consider changing their 1st-gen model.

France has a 6 months simlocking law.

 

[Archie-]

And the market has spoken. Loudly and often. The iPhone is worth every penny, whether it's all profit or not.

Apple can forget about even that 1% market share then, or that 10 million goal. The market is being flooded with competing devices, and buyers who prefer to pay over the odds will end up looking pretty foolish to their peers.

"Protecting" consumers from cell phone carriers and manufacturers is a joke.

So you have no problems with cartels and collusion, do you? Businesses prefer not to compete if they dont have to, and without laws to prevent it would set pretty doing nothing all the time.

 

[samab]

So you have no problems with cartels and collusion, do you? Businesses prefer not to compete if they dont have to, and without laws to prevent it would set pretty doing nothing all the time.

That's why no matter how much France put into their simlocking laws --- it would be no use because they only have 3 national carriers.

 

[Sijmen]

It was so bad that every single country except Belgium has abandoned that kind of consumer protection.

Every single country? Okay, let's start with the country where I live, the Netherlands. There never was such a law here, then how did they abandon it?

 

[Rot'nApple]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. No company is above the law, though many act like they are. What you're saying, basically, is that companies' interests should supersede countries' interests. Trust me, you don't want to live in a world where that behaviour becomes general.

A country's law doesn't make the law right and since when were laws made by governments absolute? We had a law here in the U.S. backed by the US Supreme Court that made slavery legal! Of course it took activists and a civil war to bring the government around to realizing, thank God, that the law wasn't right.

I would imagine that there have been similar laws passed by European Governments that turned out to be not right. No government is above the law, though many politicians act like they are.

To paraphrase you, "Apple, if you don't like the laws in Europe, do business somewhere else".

I wonder what would happen if Apple pulled out of Europe because European laws interfered with Apple's business plan. Apple would probably still be sued and the courts would force Apple to do business in Europe while following Europes laws. If that happened, what you're saying, basically, is that countries' interests should supersede businesses' interests. Trust me, you don't really want that either.

 

[GoodWatch]

Why would anyone need protection from something that is a completely optional purchase -- and a luxury item at that?

If it were the price of stents for angioplasty or the cost of antibiotics or vaccines, at least one could make a compelling arugment for a greater good based on the access to healthcare among the poor.

But we're talking about a $400 mobile phone.

For comparison, for $450, you could vaccinate a girl against Human Papilloma Virus which is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide.

Efficacy is basically 100%.

"Protecting" consumers from cell phone carriers and manufacturers is a joke.

Ahhh, following that cleverly disguised dogmatic debating technique, all luxury items are superfluous. Gold watches, large cars, big houses, someone’s Ferrari collection. The list is endless. Even the iMac I type this on falls under this category. I hang my head in shame.

 

[samab]

Every single country? Okay, let's start with the country where I live, the Netherlands. There never was such a law here, then how did they abandon it?

Well, when responsible governments do certain things, they will look at what other countries have done --- and the trend is that countries with such laws have been abandoning them.

The world isn't full of George Bush --- the whole world is telling him that he is wrong, yet he maintains his course.

 

[Rot'nApple]

You present a false choice. I dont know if you noticed, but Apple is not 'embattled' anymore, and has not been for a long time.

I would disagree, it seems like every time I log on to one of these Apple rumor sites, some entity, be it here in the US or internationally, is suing them.

The had a choice to make a reasonable profit or try for an outrageous profit, and guess which one they chose.

A reasonable price determined by who? YOU?! I would imagine that you would squawk quite loudly if it were your profits from the good or services you offered that were in question.

If they really wanted a revolution they could have sold their phones via their normal well developed retail channels, and still have made 60% margin. Instead they decided to go 160%+ margin, at the expense of the consumers.

Since you know all about their margins etc., please break down Apple's expense via other companies technologies that Apple inherited when Apple purchased said company. How many people worked on the iPone project - and not just hardware and software. What was the payroll of said people? How many years of R & D did Steve say? Over two years? What's that worth? So now Apple is charging a price to cover not only the production of their NEWLY released product but recoup it R&D expenses and other extraneous expenses not to mention monies for potential lawsuits and monies for the next revision of iPhone that may be introduced with a lower price. Kind of like all those new flat screen LCD tv's and plasma tv's and yes other manufacturers cell phones (what did the RAZR phone cost when it first was initroduced to what you can get it for today?) etc.

Apple is in no danger of going out of business, but they are in danger of losing their main asset - their fans. It does not seem that they care however.

They don't care because that kind of talk has been heard before, in all facets, like what I hear when listening to someone say, I'm never going to vote for "insert party affiliation here" or I'm never going to watch that tv show, listen to that radio program or see any movie that stars that actor/actress ever again. While someone who says that may be strongly committed, your absence is quickly replaced by another fan. If anything Apple has to worry about is it not being "chic" because when a company is no longer "in the know" and is what is "hip", that's when they loose the consumer base, make less money, and can't afford to stay in business and ineffectively compete and either shut their doors or are bought out. Now that I have seen happen over and over again but not because of a boycott due to disgruntledness.

 

[Sobe]

Ahhh, following that cleverly disguised dogmatic debating technique, all luxury items are superfluous. Gold watches, large cars, big houses, someone’s Ferrari collection. The list is endless. Even the iMac I type this on falls under this category. I hang my head in shame.

The point is that the customer is willingly buying something they want. Not that they need.

If a company wants to make a fortune by overcharging for luxury items and the consumer is free to purchase it or not purchase it, then what is the nature of the protection that is being offered?

Essentially it is saying that you don't have the self control or the discipline to make responsible purchasing decisions so the government will do it for you.

So, for a hypothetical example, if your iMac cost you $5,000 because Apple has a special deal to jack up prices to you, but you buy it anyway, is that really something we need "protection" from?

I'd rather go build a PC for under $1k and laugh at Apple.

But hey if people insist on letting themselves get taken advantage of, I don't have much sympathy for them unless it's something necessary to preserve life, liberty, and property.

And no, an iPhone is not necessary to anyone's liberty.

 

[Otaviano]

It is useless because it doesn't do the job.

Instead of France trying and trying to screw with the Apple with the iphone --- why don't they just allow a 4th national carrier. That will solve the high handset price and high monthly plans (rumours that the French iphone top plan is 120 euro a month).

How is that going to get you a lower price when the iPhone is locked to Orange? Orange has no incentive to lower the price regardless if there are two, three, four, or fifty other carriers. You are forced to use them and forced to use the ridiculous iPhone special plans.

I live in Sweden and pay €56 a month for 3,000 minutes, SMS, MSS, and 1000MB data plan. When the iPhone comes out with it's one carrier, said carrier will have no need to match my carrier's price because it has a monopoly on the product.

If the phone was unlocked and a rival carrier wanted to sway over potential iPhone user then they could easily have by lowering the price 6 Euros or offering double the data at the same price. That would have me immediately cancel my plan, and move my number over to their service.

So making a law that prevents the locking of phones that are purchased outright would certainly help. Because if the iPhone was selling like hot-cakes then all carriers would be scrambling to provide the best iPhone plan out there in an effort to sway over new customers.

As things stand now, once you buy an iPhone you are screwed because you have a contract for 2 years and even if you terminate it you can't move the phone to another carrier. So if the quality is bad, and you get bad coverage in your area there is no reason for them to address it. If rolling out a better EDGE coverage doesn't seem like a good investment they don't need to do it because they already got you. If the customer service is terrible, keeps you on hold, is rude, and doesn't solve your problems ... you just have to take it. Then once the contract is done you either renew it or go buy a different phone. That's hypothetical of course, the service could be great. However it could be easily atrocious and in that case you only option is to pay an early termination and go purchase another phone.

The ability to leave creates more competition amongst the carrier. Acting like a 4th carrier is needed in France is a bit of a stretch because in all the countries (EU) the iPhone has been released in thus far there are much better deals available than the plans for the iPhone.

Plain and simple

 

[samab]

So making a law that prevents the locking of phones that are purchased outright would certainly help.

Why should the government make a special case out of mobile phones?

I can sell you a one time use disposable digital camera --- that you purchase "outright" without a contract. I can sell you a DIVX disc that can only be watched within a 48 hour period --- that you purchase "outright" without a contract.

The ability to leave creates more competition amongst the carrier.

And this is why number portability, clear uniform ETF rules, clear uniform trial periods (i.e. change of mind period)... those things are important.

 

[GoodWatch]

The point is that the customer is willingly buying something they want. Not that they need.

If a company wants to make a fortune by overcharging for luxury items and the consumer is free to purchase it or not purchase it, then what is the nature of the protection that is being offered?

Essentially it is saying that you don't have the self control or the discipline to make responsible purchasing decisions so the government will do it for you.

So, for a hypothetical example, if your iMac cost you $5,000 because Apple has a special deal to jack up prices to you, but you buy it anyway, is that really something we need "protection" from?

I'd rather go build a PC for under $1k and laugh at Apple.

But hey if people insist on letting themselves get taken advantage of, I don't have much sympathy for them unless it's something necessary to preserve life, liberty, and property.

And no, an iPhone is not necessary to anyone's liberty.

No, that is not the point. At least not mine. And I’ve learned from own experience that the price of a given product often has little to do with its cost. It has to do with its value in a certain market. Product prices are often established for those same, separate markets. Not for commodities but for items like the iPhone. What are perspective buyers prepared to pay for a given product? For commodities another rule of thumb is applied. What are perspective buyers capable of? That’s why the very same Philips low energy lamp is 6 times more expensive in my country as it is in Indonesia. Both are made in China. If Philips would charge the same amount as they do here, they would sell far, far less lamps. The average Indonesian would just not be able to afford it. Zero sales. I understand the principle.

Mr. Jobs understands it as well as he knocked $200 off the iPhone’s price very swiftly. It was priced too ambitious for the US market. “Well done Apple”, was the praise from later buyers. Do you realise that the very same, too ambitious, price is being used here? Praise from the other side of the ocean for the lower price, but if a European dares to complain, it is all boos and hisses and “don’t whine”. But still, it falls within the above-mentioned marketing strategy.

It is very easy to dismiss another person’s objections as whining in the knowledge that you yourself are not confronted by those same objections. So we will hear not one single objection from US citizens when the oil hits $150 a barrel. After all, you don’t need to drive a big SUV. You could easily drive a very small and fuel efficient Korean car. It’s not the car you want to drive of course..... But hey.....

On a more serious note: yes, all this small talk about a mere inanimate object like an iPhone pales in comparison to all the misery in the world.

 

[Otaviano]

Why should the government make a special case out of mobile phones?

I can sell you a one time use disposable digital camera --- that you purchase "outright" without a contract. I can sell you a DIVX disc that can only be watched within a 48 hour period --- that you purchase "outright" without a contract.

That makes no sense what so ever ... I can buy a disposable one time camera. Why would I purchase a disposable camera and then be upset when I've used it the one time. How can you compare that to purchasing a phone?

Apple provides the hardware, they have no right to dictate what network I use it on!

If I purchase a Ford, I don't have to only fill up at a shell station because of an agrement made between Ford and Shell where Shell gives them a portion of my gas bill.

If I purchase a Windows PC I don't have to sign up for a Microsoft chosen internet service provider so that Microsoft can receive a kickback.

You have the option to shop around and pick what's best suited to your needs. If you remove that, then you are no longer guaranteed quality, competitive prices, or good customer service.

And this is why number portability, clear uniform ETF rules, clear uniform trial periods (i.e. change of mind period)... those things are important.

That's not even a proper sentence.

And you never answered my question.

 

[samab]

If I purchase a Ford, I don't have to only fill up at a shell station because of an agrement made between Ford and Shell where Shell gives them a portion of my gas bill.

If I purchase a Windows PC I don't have to sign up for a Microsoft chosen internet service provider so that Microsoft can receive a kickback.

Unless an auto company decides to build a car that uses some sort of special biofuel or some sort of fuel cell technology that is available from a single source.

If you don't like my "free pc's" business model --- then I can make a "subsidized pc" business model. Sign up with my ISP and you can buy a pc for $50. Nothing wrong with that. Or if you don't like the "subsidized pc" business model --- I can ask porsche designers to make me a special pc for full price that you can buy (only if you sign up with my ISP).

And you never answered my question.

Both US and Europe face the same iphone business model.

American hardware and service plans are cheaper than Europe. So the number of national carriers, the level of competition within the country, the effectiveness of national anti-trust legislations, and the effectiveness of national consumer protection legislations will come into question.