Companies don't have rights... Unless I'm missing something they never did and if you can explain why they should, I'd like to hear it.
So would I.
However, as a company, the only right you have is deciding who you want to do business with.
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.
Orange Loses iPhone Exclusivity in France
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So would I.
However, as a company, the only right you have is deciding who you want to do business with.
Why should they be forced to do business with other companies if they don't want to? That's ridiculous.Companies don't have rights... Unless I'm missing something they never did and if you can explain why they should, I'd like to hear it.
All those analogies don't fit. It's more like forcing a manufacturer of toys to sell to more than one a retail store if they only do business with one particular store for whatever reason.I personally have no Pb with the way company is doing business.
However, I do have a Pb when that company choses on my behalf what, or what no to do, or who I have to do business with (carrier), should I choose to buy their product.
The logical answer would be:"Don't buy an iPhone then".
But what if I want an iPhone, do I have to get an AT&T (or Orange) contract?
No. When I buy a set of pickups for a guitar, the maker does not tell me I HAVE TO put them on a specific guitar. When I buy a car, I don't have to buy gas from any specific distributor...
They will not pull out of France. There are many other countries where the iPhone is available from more than one carrier.
Also, don't underestimate the power that Apple thinks they have. Unfortunately they tend to take things personally. I'm not saying they will pull out, only that they may.
The thing is, in some countries, like France, there are laws preventing unfair trade/competition. One cannot go against a countries' law. Apple (as well as Orange) are not above the law.
What prevails, the law of the land or the questionable "rights" of a company?
PS: I see your point though.
Well, get used to it, elections have consequences. The next administration here in the US share the same views as the {democratic?} French. Think not? Look at california, and the entire northeast.
What corporatists (the Americans). They can't even choose which provider they use their own phone with.
Ummm... Why is it 'crazy and illogical'..? Just because the US government lets big business walk all over consumers, it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to follow... It's no wonder the phone business in the US is so far behind the rest of the world with that kind of attitude
You're in the UK the same as me, are you saying that all exclusive deals in the UK between mobile phone manufacturers and the mobile phone companies should be ruled illegal? The iPhone / O2 agreement is just one of a large number of similar agreements already in place.
What about exclusive versions of books, cd's and dvd's that are common place with retailers? Should they all be ruled illegal as well?
We're talking about a single phone (available in two versions) which accounts for a small percentage of the mobile phone market, with similar products readily available from other manufacturers and mobile phone companies. So how can the exclusive deal possibly be detrimental to the consumer?
I'm not certain of the laws in France but I'd imagine this ultimately comes under the jurisdiction of the EU courts, who would throw it out on the spot - they've made similar rulings to allow exclusivity deals in other areas of retail over the last 5 years.
Was that necessary?
Besides - all people have wanted in the US was an unlocked iPhone where it doesn't have to be offered with AT&T or offered locked but by other companies - just because France is getting it more openly and you're jealous doesn't mean you can talk crap about a country.
In Belgium it's illegal to sell the any phone locked - what socialists
In US it's illegal to buy a Cuban cigar - what socialists!
Can't even choose to buy whatever cigars I want to buy.
The big difference is between a government being an entity that protects the rights of individuals or an entity that forces people and companies to act a certain way.
IMHO, laws in general should be prohibitive, not proscriptive. They should say "YOU CAN'T" and not "YOU MUST".
You can't kill people. You can't steal. You can't lie to consumers.
France is saying Apple MUST distribute its product through more than one channel. The law requires an action on Apple's part.
This ruling tells Apple they MUST do business with other companies. This is a burden on the business, because they actually must go out and strike up contracts with other retailers.
Don't forget that any company is made up of individuals, so of course it has rights - the collective rights of its owners. Just because you own a company you suddenly lose the right to decide who you do business with?
IMHO, laws in general should be prohibitive, not proscriptive. They should say "YOU CAN'T" and not "YOU MUST".
You can't kill people. You can't steal. You can't lie to consumers.
France is saying Apple MUST distribute its product through more than one channel. The law requires an action on Apple's part.
This ruling tells Apple they MUST do business with other companies. This is a burden on the business, because they actually must go out and strike up contracts with other retailers.
Don't forget that any company is made up of individuals, so of course it has rights - the collective rights of its owners. Just because you own a company you suddenly lose the right to decide who you do business with?
You realize you can be both democratic and socialist right? Just like a country can be both totalitarian and capitalist. Democracy ≠ capitalism.
Look at California? No thanks, I'm homophobic-phobic, looking at them makes me feel funny inside.
And what does the new administration have to do with California or the northeast? What a nonsensical little rant.
I love large businesses: when times are good, they are the first to shout 'no government interference', yet, when times are bad, they cry out for government help, re: banks, insurance companies and failed ( and un-competitive US) car manufacturers.
:-\
Apple could sell many more iPhones if they didn't do exclusivity crap.
But they do sell it unlocked and without a contract. Just like in South Africa and Italy.
Finally something i can talk about. (I'm French).
This decision did not come from the government (especially from our liberal president) but from one of the uppest business court of France: the fair competition court. (So, don't call us Socialists. Not all of us at least!)
Of course, this will have impacts of the consumer's wallet. Today, an 8GB iPhone witha new 2-years plan at Orange costs 100, sorry, 99 (≈ $130), with a 50 a month plan. The french iPhone may become then the most expensive one in Europe, but with cheapest plans.
I bought a 16GB a month after its release (always sold out!) at 250 (by then, it would have cost $400 and $300 nowadays), with a non-iPhone 2h plan (I"ve got unlimited texts, Internet but no mails on celular network and no visual voicemail).
My point is that there is no way Apple gives up France. It'll make less money but will sell more iPhone because it is actually really cheap.
However, the troubles are coming for Apple because this decision might influence European institution which are extremelly liberal...
This decision did not come from the government (especially from our liberal president) but from one of the uppest business court of France: the fair competition court. (So, don't call us Socialists. Not all of us at least!)
Of course, this will have impacts of the consumer's wallet. Today, an 8GB iPhone witha new 2-years plan at Orange costs 100, sorry, 99 (≈ $130), with a 50 a month plan. The french iPhone may become then the most expensive one in Europe, but with cheapest plans.
I bought a 16GB a month after its release (always sold out!) at 250 (by then, it would have cost $400 and $300 nowadays), with a non-iPhone 2h plan (I"ve got unlimited texts, Internet but no mails on celular network and no visual voicemail).
My point is that there is no way Apple gives up France. It'll make less money but will sell more iPhone because it is actually really cheap.
However, the troubles are coming for Apple because this decision might influence European institution which are extremelly liberal...
I LOLd at this! Excellent point... Wonder if this will be lifted within the next 4-8 years?
I agree. Apple must LOVE this decision. Problem is the exclusive contract with Orange probably has Orange paying Apple a large huge chunk of money. Now, will Orange be able to back out of this contract now (since they will no longer be exclusive)? If not, then Apple gets to pocket Orange's money and sell more phone while they're at it.
It make you wonder what would make Apple more money: the exclusive deal with AT&T (which has AT&T subsidizing a portion of the phone and possibly paying a portion of people's monthly bill to Apple) or having the iPhone on all carriers (they would not get a cut from monthly bills, but would likely get subsidy money AND sell many, many more phones)?
And as for people making fun of the French; with all these bailouts, America is more French than France right now. And this will likely become even worse on January 20th.
Non!
Well, this decision is not socialist at all...
It will make the market more competitive, as consumers will be able to choose their provider and hopefully benefit from better deals.
At the moment with Orange it costs them around 50 EUR/month to use their iPhones. The second point? Well, why would any business withdraw from a market of 65Millions potential consumers? It doesn't make any sense. The more mobile phones providers will sell the iPhone, the more money Apple will make...
Well, this decision is not socialist at all...
It will make the market more competitive, as consumers will be able to choose their provider and hopefully benefit from better deals.
At the moment with Orange it costs them around 50 EUR/month to use their iPhones. The second point? Well, why would any business withdraw from a market of 65Millions potential consumers? It doesn't make any sense. The more mobile phones providers will sell the iPhone, the more money Apple will make...
Indeed, if you take the definition of capitalism, it is free competition. OMG, with these deal, is Apple Socialist? XD
But as I said, you can save lots of money by paying more for your iPhone and less for your bill (and then save for iPhone 3, of course)
But as I said, you can save lots of money by paying more for your iPhone and less for your bill (and then save for iPhone 3, of course)
Hi
I think Apple will be happy about this, its means that they can get out of their exclusive contract with Orange France. When the first iPhone when on sale it was linked to one carrier in each country. However when the 3G iPhone when on sale Apple signed up more than one carrier in a number of new markets incl Australia, Italy etc. iPhone on more carriers = more sales!
With regards to this possible judgement effecting agreements in other countries it simply does not.
However in the last two years the EU has started to look at the mobile phone industry. The first thing they did was to set a cap on the roaming charges for voice calls inside the EU. From next summer there will also be a cap on the cost of sending text message (not more than Eur 0.11)and data charges. This is all good news for us as it means lower costs, but they are also going to consider if carriers should be allowed to start to charge customers to receive calls as well as makeing them.
My point is that if Apple were to kick up a stink with regards to a judgement re their exclusive agreement with Orange France & the iPhone, then its likely that the EU will look at all exclusive deals between mobile phone manufactures and carriers. Then make a judgement that is valid in all 27 EU countries based on what the EU thinks is the customers best interest.
Alex
I think Apple will be happy about this, its means that they can get out of their exclusive contract with Orange France. When the first iPhone when on sale it was linked to one carrier in each country. However when the 3G iPhone when on sale Apple signed up more than one carrier in a number of new markets incl Australia, Italy etc. iPhone on more carriers = more sales!
With regards to this possible judgement effecting agreements in other countries it simply does not.
However in the last two years the EU has started to look at the mobile phone industry. The first thing they did was to set a cap on the roaming charges for voice calls inside the EU. From next summer there will also be a cap on the cost of sending text message (not more than Eur 0.11
)and data charges. This is all good news for us as it means lower costs, but they are also going to consider if carriers should be allowed to start to charge customers to receive calls as well as makeing them. My point is that if Apple were to kick up a stink with regards to a judgement re their exclusive agreement with Orange France & the iPhone, then its likely that the EU will look at all exclusive deals between mobile phone manufactures and carriers. Then make a judgement that is valid in all 27 EU countries based on what the EU thinks is the customers best interest.
Alex
Hi
The big question is are any exclusive deals between carriers and mobile phone manufactures in the public's best interest?
Exclusive deals between the makers of books, CD's or DVD and shops is not the same as exclusive deals between handset manufactures and carriers.
Example
If I want to buy an iPhone or Blackberry Storm etc my only real way of doing this is to enter into some kind of agreement with O2 for the iPhone or Vodafone for the Storm. So if I want an iPhone, Storm or G1 etc "I" have no choice in what carrier I get to use it with.
(Ignore turbo-sims, unlocks & ebay we are talking of the shelf)
If CD or DVD publishers were to work in the same way as mobile phone makers and carriers can, then it would be like them saying yes you can buy the latest Bond movie but we have made the DVD is such a way that it will only play with the DVD player that we sell.
So if you want product A (iPhone) you must sign to to product B (agreement with O2)
Alex
.
Isn't this kinda like the DRM'd MP3s that Apple sells through iTunes only being able to be played on the iPod? This type of business model is nothing new to Apple.
Dig at France all you like but this is great news for consumers. The Mobile phone market in the UK is extremely competitive meaning the latest smart phones can be free depending on your monthly contract length and cost. The constraint of just the mobile operator O2 in the UK carrying Apple iPhones should in theory mean its an expensive purchase but to keep up with the Sony Ericsson/ Nokia offerings the costs are actually reasonable.
£35 Month = 600 mins, 500 texts, + unlimited data/wi-fi
The phone costs £96.89 = 8GB, £155.61 = 16GB
or buy the phone @ £342.50 pay & go. data/wi-fi free 12 months then £10 month.
Competition is good, cartels are bad .... see how Opec operate.
More iPhone distributors will equal better tarifs.
£35 Month = 600 mins, 500 texts, + unlimited data/wi-fi
The phone costs £96.89 = 8GB, £155.61 = 16GB
or buy the phone @ £342.50 pay & go. data/wi-fi free 12 months then £10 month.
Competition is good, cartels are bad .... see how Opec operate.
More iPhone distributors will equal better tarifs.
We'll see how this goes... I wonder if other carriers will exnay the visual voicemail? I like to believe there's a reasonis so tight about its partnerships. And I'm pretty damn sure the french gov't doesn't know more about telecom than Apple + Orange. We'll see!
Visual Voicemail doesn't work with o2 Ireland either, and o2 Ireland is the exclusive carrier for the iPhone here.