My point was that he wasn't comparing apples to apples. The CocaCola McDonalds exclusivity is an appropriate comparison.
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
My point was that he wasn't comparing apples to apples. The CocaCola McDonalds exclusivity is an appropriate comparison.
I don't ever recall having to enter into a two year contract for a pair of shoes, paying a "monthly service fee," and being charged a "roaming fee." Have you?
I like the example someone had above: If McDonalds has an agreement with CocaCola and only sells CocaCola, I can get in my car, drive somewhere else and buy a Pepsi. If I walk into an Apple Store and buy and iPhone and they say "we only sell AT&T service," I can't just get in my car and drive elsewhere and buy service for my iPhone.
you took my statement out of context. i was ONLY commenting on the idea that two entities have the right to enter into a contract with one another and that that act alone is not wrong or monopolistic.
i dont like contracts, high fees, etc etc, but i do have the choice NOT to enter into those. i may give up the opportunity to buy/own an iPhone in doing so, but its still a choice.
unfortunately, i dont believe the mcdonalds example really works here. if you are equating coca-cola to apple, and mcdonalds to att, then you only are proving the point that coke can choose to distribute their product through whatever channels they choose to. if what you were wanting was a pepsi then you must go to somewhere that sells that. the problem is, people are saying they want the "coke", but they think they should be able to buy it at any/all "restaurants" of their choosing without restriction or limitation.
Sure, just like it happened in other areas the govt. stuck their noses and taxing authority into like cable TV and local phone service.
I can understand having an exclusivity deal, but telling me that my phone is worthless unless I stay with AT&T after my contract is up is wrong.
If anything comes out of this, exclusive phones should be carrier unlocked once your contract ends so you can either stay with said company or go elsewhere with your phone. You own it - you should be able to use it how you wish.
If anything comes out of this, exclusive phones should be carrier unlocked once your contract ends so you can either stay with said company or go elsewhere with your phone. You own it - you should be able to use it how you wish.
the market isn't perfect, and only a few forces exist to fix the distortion that some companies create.
the government has no place telling companies how much to charge for a product, or what products to make, because these are things the 'free market' will take care of through supply and demand. but the government DOES have a place commanding firms to not mis-advertise (i.e., lie), or from muscling out competition through sheer market power (Microsoft, Intel, Google), or to force companies to consider their external costs (coal power generation, companies dumping PCB's into a river, taxing polluters).
I trust the government as much as I trust private companies - very little. But if I can arrange a deadlock between the two, the two bulls can keep themselves in check while I stroll by safely.
It would hardly be fair competition if the government told a business not to have exclusive deals with another business.
Sure, just like it happened in other areas the govt. stuck their noses and taxing authority into like cable TV and local phone service.
Care to be more specific? What is it you claim happened (or didn't)?
I'm only referring to cellphones and as far as they are concerned Europe is far better provided for.
I'd much rather the government at least had some say in how things were priced, rather than leaving it all up to companies who want to make as much money as they can, cutting as many corners as they can, customer satisfaction being simply an added bonus.
ok, let's explore a scenario.
Intel, through sheer market power, tells computer manufacturers "if you only sell Intel-based computers, you will get a steep discount in Intel chips".
How is that fair to the competition? Remember - the free market is based on the spirit of EVERYONE having a chance to compete, not just people or firms with massive amounts of capital and market power.
Yeah, how do you like your health care costs? Still expect the market to "work itself out" in your favor?
You might want to add Apple,Inc. to that list since it now pretty much controls how the smartphone market goes.
My opinion.ymmv
Just so you know:
competition is the cornerstone of Free enterprise.
unfair competition is the cornerstone of capitalism
USA was founded on protecting and encouraging free enterprise, capitalism didn't come along until later. Capitalism, without proper government control, has given us the the Great Depression and our current economic mess. Socialism, since you brought it up, arose as a response to uncontrolled capitalistic excesses. Neither has a thing to do with free enterprise, except that free enterprise is often wounded when the government and capitalism begin to shoot it out.
IIRC, didn't Intel do exactly that in Europe?
but yeah, let the free market work itself out! They have our best interests at heart, right? They don't just want to make gobs of money, right?
once again on this forum, someone who doesnt read before responding. my statement had no bearing on a SERVICE contract as it related to SUBSIDIES.
but I want an iPhone, not on the crappy AT&T network.
more bars in more places, more dropped calls and voice quality that sounds like darth vader over Xbox Live.
Your ignorance of reality is amazing.. There are exclusive phones on every network. If I wanted an iPhone so badly, that I am willing to buy it on AT&T at the moment, no matter where I live or work, is just foolish. If I can do some simple checking, look at the coverage map, talk to my neighbors, friends. others that maybe on AT&T and find that coverage in an area where I really need it is poor "before I buy", than I have to decide whether to go elsewhere, or live with it.
As far as it hurting Apple sales, sure it would always be good for Apple if they had other outlets to sell iPhones, and amazingly, they do, in how many countries now around the world? Last count I see, 88 countries.. Sure, it would be nice if there was another carrier here in the US that supports the iPhone, and right now the only one that could is T-Mobile, and you can go there if your willing to pay a high price for a used or new iPhone, and be on Edge only (no 3G with possible rare exceptions), and unlock your phone on your own.
Lol. You are one of the MANY fools here to think the government needs to "intervene" to create "fair competition and market". The government only succeeds in jacking up the prices in the process because they could not stay out of it not to mention they can't even manage the IRS and you want them to to "stick it to AT&T and Apple" for having an agreement? Right. Ok.
What is unfair competition? Someone has more money than another? Someone has a better/newer product and is only available here or there? Isn't that what competition is? How the hell do you have competition if EVERYONE has the same thing? Where is the incentive to provide quality service? There is none. How about this, I think Verizon should have to sell some of their towers to all the other carriers so EVERYONE has a fair chance at providing good service.
A mobile phone bailout. Yeah. Why not fix the gas prices first. Find an alternative to gas. Provide incentives and money to it's people to switch over to solar power. Help create a cleaner world and a country that does NOT have to depend so much on others.
Nah, that won't happen because all the whiners over at Verizon want the iPhone and think it's UNFAIR that only AT&T has it - boohoo...waaaah. What a bunch of loosers!
IIRC, didn't Intel do exactly that in Europe?
but yeah, let the free market work itself out! They have our best interests at heart, right? They don't just want to make gobs of money, right?
Yes, it was a true scenario.
The free market works a few things out: the effective distribution of inputs and outputs, and price.
The free market does NOT sort itself out in terms of market power. Concentration of power begets more concentration, and it starts destroying the incentive to effectively distribute inputs and outputs, and by the time the day is over, a single company makes whatever it wants and charges whatever it wants, not with supply and demand in mind, but with revenues in mind.
A company in truly perfect competition "takes" prices, it doesn't "set" them. There is nothing wrong with trying to maximize profits, but that all happens within the framework of supply and demand, not within the framework of "I'm going to charge as much as possible to maximize profits".
Think about water, water is something we pay relatively little for, because no one can set prices. If someone jacks up the price of water, we just go buy someone else's. Demand is almost perfectly elastic. Imagine if there was only one person that could make and sell water. He could charge thousands for a gallon, if not more. A single person may be willing to pay $1,000,000 for a gallon, but if he set that price, then only one person would buy water. A monopolistic firm will set a price that will maximize profits (price x sales), making the price number bigger while sales going down involves an important tradeoff.
I hate to sound like a jerk, but IMO, you just have to wait until AT&T upgrades their network in your area, or until AT&T loses exclusive rights to the iPhone. IMO the government should be able to force companies to make phones available for every carrier. It gets way to complicated with CDMA networks. If Apple or another company has to provide every model of their phone to every network operator, there are going to be problems. Exclusivity agreements motivate companies to snatch up the next big thing, and are good for business IMO.
Don
I don't ever recall having to enter into a two year contract for a pair of shoes, paying a "monthly service fee," and being charged a "roaming fee." Have you?
I like the example someone had above: If McDonalds has an agreement with CocaCola and only sells CocaCola, I can get in my car, drive somewhere else and buy a Pepsi. If I walk into an Apple Store and buy and iPhone and they say "we only sell AT&T service," I can't just get in my car and drive elsewhere and buy service for my iPhone.
No, but you can get in that same car and drive down the road to buy another phone and another service. You're not forced to buy the iPhone. It's been stated on this thread earlier, a monoply is on a market, not a product.
Good lord!!
The amount of people claiming to understand how business works and how this is nothing more than government meddling is nothing short of
Government sets the rules by which businesses operate.
Governments do NOT have a profit motive only a duty to represent the best interest of the people (even if they screw it up)
To those who say government shouldn't ever be involved in business....too late!!
If you break your ridiculous 2 year agreement and refuse to pay the ETF where do they take you? That's right.....court (part of the Judicial branch in the US)
And how is it possible to even entertain a 2 year agreement with ETF's that are non negotiable and completely legal? Yep....the Legislative Branch of government.
Businesses have NO problem using the government to swing everything to its advantage. However, when the people decide that the government is supposed to work in the interest of the people, suddenly there's a cry of "interference"................ nonsense.
Beyond that, the real way businesses work has nothing to do with competition . As an earlier poster stated, its about "competitive advantage". However, there is a point at which trying to gain competitive advantage itself becomes anti competitive.
Competition takes place in the market place, NOT in who can buy a Senator to change laws to favor business. To that end, many large companies in the US do not compete, they consume or sabotage.
The amount of people claiming to understand how business works and how this is nothing more than government meddling is nothing short of
Government sets the rules by which businesses operate.
Governments do NOT have a profit motive only a duty to represent the best interest of the people (even if they screw it up)
To those who say government shouldn't ever be involved in business....too late!!
If you break your ridiculous 2 year agreement and refuse to pay the ETF where do they take you? That's right.....court (part of the Judicial branch in the US)
And how is it possible to even entertain a 2 year agreement with ETF's that are non negotiable and completely legal? Yep....the Legislative Branch of government.
Businesses have NO problem using the government to swing everything to its advantage. However, when the people decide that the government is supposed to work in the interest of the people, suddenly there's a cry of "interference"................ nonsense.
Beyond that, the real way businesses work has nothing to do with competition . As an earlier poster stated, its about "competitive advantage". However, there is a point at which trying to gain competitive advantage itself becomes anti competitive.
Competition takes place in the market place, NOT in who can buy a Senator to change laws to favor business. To that end, many large companies in the US do not compete, they consume or sabotage.