...Though is expected to launch on Mobistar first as early as May. The decision may have been forced upon Apple, however, as Belgium specifically prohibits the sale of "locked" mobile phones.
Article Link
It's MOVISTAR not MOBISTAR
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.
More Claims of Unlocked 3G iPhones... Belgium, India, Australia?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's MOVISTAR not MOBISTAR
It's to do with Apple's accounting system.
When Apple has added things to the iPhone it has been "free" because Apple is getting revenue from the subscriptions.
But, when the same feature is added to the Touch, Apple has had to bill for it. An example being the January Touch update that added Mail, Maps, Weather, Notes, and Stocks.
If the iPhone is sold without a subscription Apple will most likely bill for significant updates to it to meet their accounting requirements.... hence no more free apps.
There's just a handful of countries in the world where the iPhone is officially available now and although we're "up in arms" that we can't have them unless they're jail broken, Apple is still getting the revenue from the initial phone sales, further to that, when Apple briefly offered unlocked phones for sale they were markedly more expensive than the ones tethered to a contract.
Apple will still be able to have a dual sales model, with tethered units in some countries, and unlocked in others, which in some countries it is a legal requirement. I'd expect the price of the handsets to include the missing Apple revenue sharing from contracted customers coming to Apple as an upfront charge, in other words more expensive unlocked phones and less expensive ones if you commit to a carrier - which is more or less the existing model for hardware producers - a subsidized handset with a contract.
Can't wait for the "hopeful" June release of the 3G iPhone...
Still don't understand what a "jailbraked" iphone is...
From wikipedia
Once an iphone is jailbroken it can be unlocked using software utilities. ziPhone is a popular tool for jailbreaking an unlocking iPhones. Most the people I know with iPhones have them unlocked (as do I), Personally i do not really think that the O2 contract for the iPhone is a bad deal its just that people like to avoid lengthy contracts and I dislike the fact that apple only give you a one year warranty on a phone when they expect you to sign up to and 18 month contract, what exactly do you do if your phone breaks in the last 6 months, spend £35 a month on data you cant use, no thanks apple.
Jailbreaking and unlocking is very popular among iPhone owners and I will continue to remain popular if apple persist in imposing inflexible contracts.
As a company they really need to get a control over this situation, as an iPhone owner I am unhappy that my iPhone does not have warranty, but in all honesty it will be cheaper for me to just buy a new phone than to sign up to the official contract. In a few month down the line there turns out to be a serious known issues with the iPhone and people who have jailbroken their are refused service it would cause upset to a lot of people and bad press for apple.
Their product is very attractive, but the commitment required in purchasing one at the moment is not attractive at all.
Maybe it was the plan, but I doubt it.....of course that could just be my immense and proud ignorance of the inner workings of Apple.
How far reaching is this accounting requirement? If iPhone is sold on a contractual/revenue stream model in the US, and unlocked in other countries, do the same rules apply to non-US phones?
There is not one CDMA iPhone ever made in the world. You're out of luck, sorry to break it to you.
This sounds really cool. Anyone think this will come to the US? I want an iPhone really bad, but I will not go to AT&T, because I do not want to change my carrier, and that is the only thing preventing from getting it. I think that Apple stands to gain much more in the terms of profits (especially if they don't raise the price, i.e. lower the margin, but increase total gains) if they go to an open system, not being locked to a particular carrier.
yup, nothing coming up when I go to load the site. This is the message
apple. said:
However, http://www.apple.com/startpage/ works fine.
I'm confused.
Question for everyone to voice opinion
Can anyone answer this question.... Would apple make more money unlocking the phone and selling more... than keeping it locked and selling not nearly as much?????? The question seems pretty easy to answer but I was wondering if I am missing something???
Can anyone answer this question.... Would apple make more money unlocking the phone and selling more... than keeping it locked and selling not nearly as much?????? The question seems pretty easy to answer but I was wondering if I am missing something???
This makes the following report about Apple announcing the 3G iPhone in May a bit more plausible in my view.
It says that Apple will announce the 3G version in May and you'll be able to buy it at the Apple Store the day after it is announced.
I think Apple will release a 3G iPhone very soon, I just hope it's sooner rather than later!
I think so, especially if they do not raise prices, because even though it would give them a lower margin, they would more than make up for that with an increase in the total number of sales/profits.
BUT that is my point! If they have a dual sales model then that still gives the consumers a choice! Where as now we don't have a choice and basically we have to void the warranty on the iPhone to have it how we want it.
Whereas if they employ the dual sales model in some countries and not others... we're just going to get crazy... I know what we apple faithful are like... How much bitching has there been about countries being left out... the majority of Europe haven't got the iPhone still... If you could buy an unlocked 3G iPhone (at a higher price) from the apple store worldwide from June (WWDC) anywhere in the world Apple would be increasing their sales of the iPhone. then when they have finally sorted deals out for the country, they can provide a subsidised iPhone. It's the perfect deal.
I can't see how that is a bad thing at all...? Can anyone else see a flaw in my reasoning?
In all honesty I think the accounting requirement is a bit of non-sense. had they sold you and iPod touch and then developed an application specifically for it, then i guess they could justify charging for that application, but this really isn't the case here, they just got a handful of application that they had already made for another purpose and made them available on another product and it not like the inclusion of the application really significantly raises the value of the product enough seeing as they new programs are included at no extra cost on the current iPod touch models.
They honestly should make the App store freely available for iPod Touch owners as only they will be loosing revenue from lost application sales. Also them restricting peoples access to the App store will make their platform less attractive to developers, who as it stands will already be developing for a relatively small market.
1. Ebay offloads Skype to Apple at a bargain price of $1 billion (plus a symbolic number of shares to somewhat obscure the terrible, terrible mistake they made in buying it for $2.6 billion).
2. Skype's app, fully integrated into the iPhone's core phoning functionality, becomes the central plank of June's spectacular 3G + apps launch.
3. No longer able to justify charging it's telco partners outrageous amounts for exclusivity (because Skype will destroy any juicy long-distance profits the they might have hoped for), Apple embraces the open market at no price increase.
4. Instead, they will make more money from a $22 per month Unlimited International calling + an All-You-Can-Eat iTunes music subscription, decimating AmazonMP3 and all the other music download stores, solidifying iTunes' dominance.
5. Apple gives no other VOIP apps licenses to appear on the iPhone. Apple becomes a major provider of phone and video calls, while the telcos become big dumb pipes, competing tooth and nail to sell simple bandwidth at commodity prices.
Think it won't happen? Just watch
Donnacha
God, if only that would happen. I'm especially in favour of the part where the Telco's become nothing more than pipes. Then we'd see some REAL competition here in North America.
Something I'd like to know is how much an iPhone costs Apple to make (materials, labor to assemble/package/ship them, R&D costs, marketing, etc.) compared to how much they make on an iPhone (price you pay @ the store & any revenue they get from their partners like AT&T). I'm sure there's a pretty hefty premium Apple has on it. I know some people only count the bill of materials, but, like I said, the R&D costs, assembly, shipping, etc. to add on. One thing I hate about Apple is they never really cut their prices after a product has been out for a few months. If you pay $500 on day something out, you have the newest technology. But wait 6 months, and you'll still pay $500 for 6 month old technology. I've heard Apple cut prices on iPhones in some countries, but they're still super expensive.
what worries me is this...
if they release the iPhone like nokia does, would they start charging us for the updates?
like ipod touch?
because then they would have no compensatory commission coming their way.
or maybe they are thinking that 2.0 is it. like 10.5. and would only provide us with bug fixes. and whatever they have missing, the devs could take care of it using the SDK??
i think this is where apple's going now.
if they release the iPhone like nokia does, would they start charging us for the updates?
like ipod touch?
because then they would have no compensatory commission coming their way.
or maybe they are thinking that 2.0 is it. like 10.5. and would only provide us with bug fixes. and whatever they have missing, the devs could take care of it using the SDK??
i think this is where apple's going now.
I agree with you, and the larger the user base the better - my question is based on the assumption that the reason that they charge for the upgraded firmware is a legal requirement, (although I don't see why 2.0 couldn't be bundled with the first purchase from the app store).
What I'm wondering specifically is the US requirement for a charge for an "improvement" required for customers outside of the US borders if they own an unlocked iPhone (assuming that AAPL will eventually cave in one market pressures). For example can AAPL Australia get away with giving the upgrade away to Australian juristrisction customers with an unlocked and hence no revenue stream back to AAPL - or are they forced to charge because ultimately all the subsidiary companies are wholly or partly owned by Apple Inc?
I want to know why other places like Italy and such can get away with not signing two year contracts. Would this system work in the US?
That's "mobistar", not "movistar"
but that report from Belgium isn't new. I sent it in over a month ago, and it was then mirrored in the major Belgian newspapers
but that report from Belgium isn't new. I sent it in over a month ago, and it was then mirrored in the major Belgian newspapers
billions actually, because there are over 4 million subscribers. each contributing say.. $240 over 2 years...
nope.. not actually billions but close.
I second that. Telcoms are just sucking on our money for some crappy service. I'd love to see communism (Skype) rule the world..
Btw, any chance of iPhone taking over Japanese market ?
Apart from the digital TV/bar code scanner/crazy-stuff bundled phones, I still think it has a chance there (now if only it comes out in W-CDMA)..