What corporatists (the Americans). They can't even choose which provider they use their own phone with.
Also DRM is an American invention. Way to go free market!
What corporatists (the Americans). They can't even choose which provider they use their own phone with.
The big question is are any exclusive deals between carriers and mobile phone manufactures in the public's best interest?
The question should be; are exclusive deals against public interest, are they unfair on the customer and do they limit choice?
.
What stuff! Companies absolutely have rights. There are entire areas of law devoted to it. A company also has all the rights of an individual seller, along with a set of benefits available to corporate entities. Companies are also, in exchange, subject to a great deal more regulation (sometimes too much, very often not enough) than private individuals.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.![]()
There are such laws in all countries. The specifics vary, and part of France's planned economy legacy is a voiding of most exclusivity deals. The court applied French law and came to the correct decision for France.The thing is, in some countries, like France, there are laws preventing unfair trade/competition.
No, the ruling says that Orange can't be by contract the sole provider. There is no requirement that Apple go out and find a second distributor, but only that they may elect to do so and can't be stopped by an exclusivity deal with Orange.France is saying Apple MUST distribute its product through more than one channel. The law requires an action on Apple's part.
Free market capitalism is but one kind of capitalism, and it essentially dictates that parties can do whatever they want, and that includes exclusivity arrangements with other suppliers. The free market model says that consumers will determine the success of the model--they will buy other products from other sources if the terms exceed the value.Indeed, if you take the definition of capitalism, it is free competition.
In many cases, yes, at least to get a product introduced. Exclusive deals can be part of the compensation used to get a carrier to sell your product (nobody knew if the iPhone would be a flop back before it was announced), or they can be used as a profit source to help lower the price (if you get $500 million to cover your distribution costs, you don't have to build that into your per-unit price).The big question is are any exclusive deals between carriers and mobile phone manufactures in the public's best interest?
Yes, actually. Owner introduces convenient, low-priced product, contemplative of copy restrictions. Consumer weighs benefits and determines price is acceptable and purchases. Free market wins. Other sellers are free to compete with better quality, lower prices, less DRM if they so choose. I don't know where people get the idea that a free market caters specially to consumers. It does not. Sellers have all of the rights, and consumers have the money. It's a balancing game, and consumers never get more than the seller is willing to part with for the amount of money offered.Also DRM is an American invention. Way to go free market!
are they unfair - Yes. Some people in the UK can't get an O2 signal just like some people in the USA can't get an At&t signal. So is it not unfair that these people can't buy a product that would work just because Apple in this case has an exclusive agreement with a company that does not offer service in the area they live?
do they limit choice - Yes, choice of carrier.
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.
I was being sarcastic. DRM and mobile operator lockins are equal in suckyness. In both cases what consumer gets is a bag of hurt.I don't know where people get the idea that a free market caters specially to consumers. It does not.
The other question is: will Bouygues Telecom and SFR will be able to cut a deal with Apple or any middleman? and will they be able to do this fast, as in before Christmas?
European governments interfere way too much
Good point. Choice for the consumer is a terrible thing, much like socialism.
I just want to be absolutely sure about this...
I'm in Paris on holiday. I don't speak French but a sign in a store says I can buy a 16Gb 3G iPhone for 609 with Pay as you Go. My questions are; Will I be able to use this phone with SIM cards from other countries? Will I be able to update the software in the future without bricking the phone?
What socialists (the French). Apple can't even choose who they do and do not want to do business with in that effed up country.
The visual voice mail is optional -- many of their exclusive carriers worldwide have chosen not to implement it. Mine (Telia in Sweden) being one of them. So that's a non-argument.I'm sure it will take Apple a while to sort out an agreement with other carriers, then they've got to be happy with their network being compatible with the phone, properly test the visual voice mail, then it will probably take them a while longer to allocate stock and so on.
Excatly. Let the corporate world make their deals without any scrutinizing from the gouvernement. Worked wonders for the US Financial sector.![]()
And your EU economy is fairing well?![]()
Apple must allow other mobile carriers to sell the iPhone 3G in France based on a ruling today.Orange does not believe the decision will affect agreements in other countries. Bouygues Telecom "welcomed" the ruling and plans to sell the iPhone shortly.
Article Link: Orange Loses iPhone Exclusivity in France