That's sort of what I was saying. Apple today is, in part, a result of purchasing other companies and bringing their people to make new products. Apple didn't buy Xerox and bring their people to make a mainstream GUI, however.
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.
U.S. Department of Justice Reviewing Wireless Carrier Exclusivity Agreements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's sort of what I was saying. Apple today is, in part, a result of purchasing other companies and bringing their people to make new products. Apple didn't buy Xerox and bring their people to make a mainstream GUI, however.
I was kind of hoping that AT&T would die by their own merit but I hope this helps. I like getting a subsidized phone, but it is kind of crappy that I can only get some phones with some carriers. I LOVE T-Mobile but they don't have cool phones anymore.
CDMA is dead?
Verizon has over 75 million customers.
So Apple throw together a CDMA phone sells it for 2 years then switches but continues CDMA 2 until 2013. But then the old CDMA iphones should either be low in numbers or Verizon offers a decent upgrade for phones under contract.
Imagine even at 5% of their customer base upgrading to the iphone that is 3.5 million units sold. If my calculator isn't broken that is about $2 billion in sales.
I am sure CDMA is dead, in some eyes, but there still seems to be plenty of opportunity for someone to make money off of it.
Verizon has over 75 million customers.
So Apple throw together a CDMA phone sells it for 2 years then switches but continues CDMA 2 until 2013. But then the old CDMA iphones should either be low in numbers or Verizon offers a decent upgrade for phones under contract.
Imagine even at 5% of their customer base upgrading to the iphone that is 3.5 million units sold. If my calculator isn't broken that is about $2 billion in sales.
I am sure CDMA is dead, in some eyes, but there still seems to be plenty of opportunity for someone to make money off of it.
Lol you're not thinking of boost mobile
Everyone saying that the govt has no right to meddle with carriers is oblivious to the fact that this institution is an extension of our selves.
If a majority of citizens want to be able to use their property ( ie iPhone ) in which ever way they want, the govt is there to make sure that happens!
Some person talking about the lack of a special voicemail server is a fool - each company will most likely provide their own voicemail server as it will probably become the standard in a few years
And ofcourse apple will be able to get the iPhone out to even more people
It scares me to think that there are people posting in this thread that thing what Apple and AT&T have is good thing.
It scares me to see so many welcoming the nanny state with open arms, looking to the government for conflict resolution to every aspect of their lives!
Here's a simple law: Prohibit provider-locking. That's it. Easy. I don't mind with contracts, subsidy, exclusivity, whatever, but why should we still be using a provider locked cellphones? Would anybody buy PCs locked into Comcast? Nope. Would anybody buy landline phones locked into QWEST? Nope. Why cellphone should be any different? Without provider locking, there will be a healthier competition as consumers can simply use the phones on another network if they don't like the service of the current one.
Before anybody whining about paying full price for unlocked phones, that's bull. I take Singapore, again, as an example. Over there, subsidized and under-contract high end smartphones, including the iPhone, are sold unlocked out of the box. Unlocked != no subsidy. It's unrelated, and US carriers are using this scare tactics to brainwash consumer to accept their provider-locking crap.
US DoJ is obviously missing the point. It's not about exclusivity. It's the provider-locking that's keeping the US cellular market in the stone age. I mean come on, we're still PAYING for incoming calls/SMS for God's sake.
Before anybody whining about paying full price for unlocked phones, that's bull. I take Singapore, again, as an example. Over there, subsidized and under-contract high end smartphones, including the iPhone, are sold unlocked out of the box. Unlocked != no subsidy. It's unrelated, and US carriers are using this scare tactics to brainwash consumer to accept their provider-locking crap.
US DoJ is obviously missing the point. It's not about exclusivity. It's the provider-locking that's keeping the US cellular market in the stone age. I mean come on, we're still PAYING for incoming calls/SMS for God's sake.
I'd just like to say that I hope this does not result in breaking the agreements between teh device makers and the service providers. I see nothing wrong with two companies being able to get together to offer a prodcut and service.
I highly doubt this would have evern been brought up had Apple not developed the iPhone for AT&T. If it was on Verizon then there would not be any issues.
I highly doubt this would have evern been brought up had Apple not developed the iPhone for AT&T. If it was on Verizon then there would not be any issues.
So, you are okay with two companies controlling a market, and every desirable phone that comes out being on an exclusive contract with one of these two?
You do realize, of course, that this amounts to communism (by having a market planned centrally by about 10 people--the top execs of each of the two companies), and bars any startup competitor from entering the market unless they have a once-in-five-hundred-years innovation? Or stage a murderous coup?
Cartel capitalism == the worst stereotypes of communism. It's a circle, not a continuum.
No, the exact same fricking thing would be happening, only it would be LOCKED on VERIZON.
Guess what? Apple went to Verizon first, Verizon turned them down. Blame Verizon for not having the iPhone.
You got it wrong. It's the other way around. US cellular providers are forcing manufactures to make their phones provider-specific-locked, with provider-specific firmwares. Apple is selling the iPhones unlocked straight from Apple store in Hong Kong. Cellphone manufactures do not want their devices to be locked down (another reason why we, in the US, don't see that many Nokia/Sony Ericsson phones). All we see are people with ancient RAZR phones.
ummm just what we need GOVERNMENT CONTROLING companies and who they should sell to..
yeah its great for all those that want verizon or whatever.. but just BACK OFF government!
Well well.... you asked someone here if he has any understanding of how business works, but you seem to miss one of the most prevailing aspects for Apple consumers... which is quality.
And yes sir, I do know how business works – I've setup my first company in 1986 and stopped working in 1999 (at age 37) simply because I had the money for it.
Did we had exclusive deals? Sure we did, but only because we were ahead of all of our competitors, and our service was top notch and thus there was no need for us to tie a rope around our customers.
Ever notice that there's dozens of brands to choose from, or *gasp* you can turn on the faucet in your house and it comes out?
Last time I checked, I can't turn on the faucet in my house and have cell phone service come out. Or choose from dozens of brands of cell phone service, costing anywhere from $.25 to $3 a bottle, at the grocery store.
"I can only watch Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel, but I want to be able to watch it on Cartoon Network!"
Childish, all of this.
Childish, all of this.
so now that the Executive branch is genuinely socialist Congress feels that they have the means to violate the sanctity of contract law.
Any of you in support the USDOJ realize that it then won't stop with 'wireless carriers'?
Keep your rolleyes to yourself. If you had kept read a civics book that isn't edited by Ayn Rand, you would know that there is no "sanctity" of contract law.
The government (ooooo, the big bad government) is the only reason that contracts can exist, and they can (but don't often enough) reasonably assert that some things are bigger than contracts. Freedom is bigger than a contract, so you cannot sign yourself into slavery. A free market is bigger than a contract, so if a company finds themselves in the fortunate position of attaining a monopoly or being a member of an oligopoly, they cannot make anti-competitive contracts that erect a priori barriers to entry for possible competitors. Because, you see, if there are artificial barriers to competition, we lose the free market, and descend into cartel capitalism which is the same thing as communism--except the people get less say.
1. Yes, they'll sell more.
2. NO. It's their most profitable item.
3. Yes, they'll get more people.
4. Yes, we'll actually have a non-warranty-voiding choice.
I've never read any Ayn Rand but as has been mentioned this exclusivity has been happening for years.
The .gov didn't feel they had the juice before to go after it. It all screams of socialism.
Socialism at its best..
Obama is already in the auto buisness, hiring and firing CEO's, why not take over the cell phone companies to...
The market can handle this just fine without "big brother" dictating who should be able to sell what. If people didn't buy the iPhone and let it be known that it was their dissatisfaction with ATT, Apple would do something about it. Since we just "have" to have the iPhone we get to use ATT until the contract expires.
If ATT controlled cellular service in the U.S. exclusively, that would be a monopoly. Having a phone that you want on a network you don't is just too bad. Don't worry though...daddy will make it better...
Obama is already in the auto buisness, hiring and firing CEO's, why not take over the cell phone companies to...
The market can handle this just fine without "big brother" dictating who should be able to sell what. If people didn't buy the iPhone and let it be known that it was their dissatisfaction with ATT, Apple would do something about it. Since we just "have"
to have the iPhone we get to use ATT until the contract expires. If ATT controlled cellular service in the U.S. exclusively, that would be a monopoly. Having a phone that you want on a network you don't is just too bad. Don't worry though...daddy will make it better...