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.
Vodafone Gets Restraining Order On T-Mobile's iPhone Sales
- Thread starter ogee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Holy ****! This is a BIG deal!
Looks like abuse of the legal system to me. A company makes a deal with a supplier in order to get an in demand product, then company B which invested nothing in the rwelease of said product cries about it to the high court and all of a sudden they get to use the device as well with no investment. Let's face it, most companies will not bring disruptive technologies to market at high risk. It's foolish to attempt that in the big ring. It works in small business ventures, but tends not to in larger ones. So if a company can't get some sort of "better-than-chance" guarantee of at least breaking even, then they won'y jump in. While prohibiting "collusion" sounds good for consumers, and it can be in some senses, it really just functions to make companies more wary to bring new technology to market if they know that their ideas and tech can be pillaged by someone else who just doesn't feel like competing.
Is the iPhone being pick on or is this a requirement in Germany for all cell phones?
If not the same for all phones IMHO this has little to no chance to stand in court.
If there was such requirement by law, Apple and T-Mobile would have known up front.
If not the same for all phones IMHO this has little to no chance to stand in court.
If there was such requirement by law, Apple and T-Mobile would have known up front.
In some cases what you say would be true but I honestly feel Apple and partner companies have taken liberties with consumers. In the UK a 24 month consumer contract in almost unheard of, couple this with the fact that the price plans are unique but certainly not in a way that is entirely best for the end user and you do have a lot of unfairness.
People who sign the contracts have been told nothing formally about what will happen regarding upgrades, 2 years is a long time with the same phone. Apple's stupid 1 year warranty (which itself isn't lawful in many EU countries) doesn't even cover the device official for the contract term they have imposed.
I can't help feeling apple would have had a lot less agro had they worked with network providers but sold the device sim free. More handsets would have been sold, they could have removed a lot of the complaints they have had regarding pricing and they would have built a much larger and safer platform on which to build. iPhone 2 will not get anywhere near as much hype as the first model.
Yes but althougjt they're locked you can normally buy them with any operator. Sure, some models are exclusive to Vodafone or ORange or whatever, but Nokia selling tens of different models that's not such an issue.
It is, however, with the iPhone. Sorry Apple, I won't switch operators just for the iPhone.
Be ready to tack another 500 to the price of the iPhone if it has to be unlocked. Apple sold it at a particular price with the condition of a 2 year contract with a particular cell-phone provider. This provided them a source of revenue for a 2 year period that they worked into the formula used to price it for you.
If you eliminate the contract, then Apple will price it for you with no cantract and no lost of revenue to them, so you are looking at 500 more and that will hurt sales as the unlocked phone will cost close to $900 US and more overseas.
I love how people don't seem to take this into consideration before they shout Hurray.
Apple would rather pull out of the market than sell a phone and lose money in the deal.
They are not going to do what M$ is doing with the 360.
Apple wants to sell iPhones but only for a profit. No profit no phone.
Not a chance. An unlocked iPhone at $900 will sell exactly zero units.
Apple will just have to settle for being less greedy bastards and enjoy the profits made from the margins on the hardware, as should have been the case from day one.
Really the main major difference between buying an iPhone and any other phone is that most other service providers and phones are WAY more expensive when you buy them without new service activation. With the iPhone. It doesn't matter your paying 400.00 USD. No matter what.
There is no cost savings for the consumer when buying an iPhone and activating it in store with a service provider.
Example. Buy a sprint phone with new service contract and get the phone for 29.99. This same phone without a new activation would cost you 300.00.
So the market has made the cost of buying the phone with a service contract much more appealing for total out of pocket cost up front.
There is no cost savings for the consumer when buying an iPhone and activating it in store with a service provider.
Example. Buy a sprint phone with new service contract and get the phone for 29.99. This same phone without a new activation would cost you 300.00.
So the market has made the cost of buying the phone with a service contract much more appealing for total out of pocket cost up front.
So be ready to pay at least 270 more by your numbers. The iPhone as sold is using a model similar to that $29.00 phone.
If you remove the contract then you have to pay the difference. However IMHO is closer to 500 more.
No way it's that much.
However it means other providers will be able to compete with each other to offer the best deal, as happens now with every other phone on the market. No problem with that.. buy sim free for some amount, buy on contract with the provider of your choice for the price you pick, from free to a lot depending on the deal.
The iphone isn't getting special treatment here. This was entirely expected - I'm surprised at the speed, but it seems german law is particularly efficient.
But the ipod Touch is being sold for less than the price of the iphone even with the "discount" for signing the contract.
8GB Touch = 299
8GB iPhone = 399
There is no way that the iPhone is worth 899 (399 + your 500) when you can get a Touch for a third of the price.
The extra phone functions are never worth 600.
200 tops.
Unlocked.
I think Apple may be screwed on this one.
Excelent points, LOL.
Since there would be a single flat price for an unlocked phone, then Apple would be getting nothing for updates / new capabilities and enhancements. I guess they would need to sell applications and features and OS upgrades in order to make changes.
With the Mac they sell the new version of the OS and give you for free bug corrections and security updates (with some minor features trown-in from time to time to glue it to some other service/product). I would assume under the same type of model, the iPhone would see little changes, mainly bug fixes and security updates and newer hardware models every 18 months or so, to keep their kids in college.
Riddle me this
Where is the proclamation that using any mobile phone on any network of choice is a RIGHT? That's what I am hearing here. I realize there may be laws to that effect, but that's different, and I still would ask why they were enacted.
I have consistently seen comments concerning the iPhone to the effect of "they're locked to one carrier; I won't get one." That is the way it should work. Let Apple learn a lesson one way or another. They have no right to success; it has to be earned. If you don't like the price/product/package, whatever, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY THE THING. If too many people feel the same way, the phone won't sell and Apple (and partners) will be forced to make a decision. However, people who are old enough to purchase an iPhone shouldn't be acting like two-year olds, throwing a tantrum because they can't get what they want simply because they want it.
To me, this injunction discourages companies from working together to bring innovation to the market because they'll be forced to give it to others. You may argue about whether that applies here, but I still see it as a consequence.
Where is the proclamation that using any mobile phone on any network of choice is a RIGHT? That's what I am hearing here. I realize there may be laws to that effect, but that's different, and I still would ask why they were enacted.
I have consistently seen comments concerning the iPhone to the effect of "they're locked to one carrier; I won't get one." That is the way it should work. Let Apple learn a lesson one way or another. They have no right to success; it has to be earned. If you don't like the price/product/package, whatever, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY THE THING. If too many people feel the same way, the phone won't sell and Apple (and partners) will be forced to make a decision. However, people who are old enough to purchase an iPhone shouldn't be acting like two-year olds, throwing a tantrum because they can't get what they want simply because they want it.
To me, this injunction discourages companies from working together to bring innovation to the market because they'll be forced to give it to others. You may argue about whether that applies here, but I still see it as a consequence.
i see both sides...
Ok, as a consumer i'm all for having the phone opened. Heck, my iPhone runs on Tmobile. BUT...
at the same time these lawsuits are really pissing me off. You can't sue because you didnt win the bid for exclusivity.
Hell, maybe I should go sue because I can only play Halo 3 on ONE console, and not the rest!!!!!!
Ok, as a consumer i'm all for having the phone opened. Heck, my iPhone runs on Tmobile. BUT...
at the same time these lawsuits are really pissing me off. You can't sue because you didnt win the bid for exclusivity.
Hell, maybe I should go sue because I can only play Halo 3 on ONE console, and not the rest!!!!!!
First, I don't see a problem with Apple and Networks selling the iPhone locked. I think that as Apple is the manufacturer, they have the right to say who carries their product and no law should try to prevent this. It is hardly anti-competitive. If other networks want to have a slice of the iPhone hysteria pie, they should simply push other manufacturers to push out better handsets.
However, what I am against is Apple getting a share of the contract the end user pays to the network. If they do get something here, then the same logic should apply to the music companies/studios etc who want a piece of the iPod revenue. And I don't think either Apple, or the music studios are entitled to this.
David
However, what I am against is Apple getting a share of the contract the end user pays to the network. If they do get something here, then the same logic should apply to the music companies/studios etc who want a piece of the iPod revenue. And I don't think either Apple, or the music studios are entitled to this.
David
Apple's problem is the same as Microsoft's problem and the problem with most corporations in this world which cause most of the world's distribution of wealth problems...Corporate GREED. I only wish some country would sue Apple over forcibly tying their Operating System to the Macintosh computer hardware. I would like to be able to use MacOSX on any hardware I choose (we know they only do it because of obscenely high profit margins on their hardware). Let's face it. Microsoft got taken to court for something as little as packaging/tying in a browser directly to the Operating System. That's kind of a valid use for the technology within an operating system and it never stopped anyone from adding Firefox on their own (I know I don't use IE on my PC. I use Firefox on both my Mac and PC). But here's Apple forcing you to buy their hardware in order to use their OS which otherwise could/would run on ANYONE's PC (same architecture; same hardware being used save a few bootup items they keep to make sure you can't buy off the shelf hardware for the MacPro as they want their cut on everything. I suppose next they'll be making deal with the next generation of Super Drives (i.e. blu-ray and HD-DVD) so that only exclusive licensed Apple drives will work on Apple hardware due to some chip/check or something so you won't be able to buy X's drive to use in the next generation iMac; you'll have to shell 2x as much to buy an Apple one or they'll just stick you with an ancient CD-RW drive instead (Macbook anyone?)
I love MacOSX, but I'm not terribly fond of Apple or Microsoft. Why even have a PC or Windows on a Mac? It seems my favorite Pinball Simulator/Emulator software which I build pinball recreations with only works with Windows (VBSCript tie-ins ,etc.) and I like pinball better than any single OS so even when I get a new Mac (current one is PowerPC), it will have WinXP on it and either Parallels or Fusion. I'll likely throw Linux on there as well for good measure. Each OS has its best uses over the others (Windows has software; Linux has selection/preferences/open standards and Mac has stability and ease of use).
I love MacOSX, but I'm not terribly fond of Apple or Microsoft. Why even have a PC or Windows on a Mac? It seems my favorite Pinball Simulator/Emulator software which I build pinball recreations with only works with Windows (VBSCript tie-ins ,etc.) and I like pinball better than any single OS so even when I get a new Mac (current one is PowerPC), it will have WinXP on it and either Parallels or Fusion. I'll likely throw Linux on there as well for good measure. Each OS has its best uses over the others (Windows has software; Linux has selection/preferences/open standards and Mac has stability and ease of use).
The courts may force Apple in Germany to follow the French iPhone sales strategy where there is no exclusivity:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200711200503DOWJONESDJONLINE000177_FORTUNE5.htm
"Apple tried to secure a similar exclusive deal in France with France Telecom SA's (FTE) mobile operator Orange, but due to French consumer law other telecommunications companies have been selling the iPhone, offering contracts with rival operators Bouygues Telecom, the telecom division of Bouygues SA ( 12050.FR), and Virgin Mobile."
Looks like Vodaphone fear the Apple style of selling may encourage other manufacturers do follow suit ( which would be bad for consumers ) - so protecting themselves. Though I'm sure that Vodaphone wouldn't be complaining if they'd won rights to sell the iPhone.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._germany_to_sell_iphone_without_contract.html
"Vodafone Germany chief executive Friedrich Joussen in a statement said his firm's goal is not to prevent sales of the device but rather allow for consumers to purchase iPhones without binding themselves to long-term agreements with any one carrier."
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200711200503DOWJONESDJONLINE000177_FORTUNE5.htm
"Apple tried to secure a similar exclusive deal in France with France Telecom SA's (FTE) mobile operator Orange, but due to French consumer law other telecommunications companies have been selling the iPhone, offering contracts with rival operators Bouygues Telecom, the telecom division of Bouygues SA ( 12050.FR), and Virgin Mobile."
Looks like Vodaphone fear the Apple style of selling may encourage other manufacturers do follow suit ( which would be bad for consumers ) - so protecting themselves. Though I'm sure that Vodaphone wouldn't be complaining if they'd won rights to sell the iPhone.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article..._germany_to_sell_iphone_without_contract.html
"Vodafone Germany chief executive Friedrich Joussen in a statement said his firm's goal is not to prevent sales of the device but rather allow for consumers to purchase iPhones without binding themselves to long-term agreements with any one carrier."
Let's be real...
The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that as many as 5000 Vodafone Germany customers have bought iPhones. That's 5000 customers who could have otherwise purchased a Vodafone Qbowl - which was released in Germany the same day as the iPhone - and Vodafone is NOT happy about that. Vodafone has not done this in the interest of the customer, they've done this to stem the tide of customers defecting to T-Mobile. If you look at the plan that they offer for the Qbowl, the terms are even worse than T-Mobile's plans for the iPhone, plus the Qbowl is exclusive to Vodafone. Problem is: nobody cares about the Qbowl.
This is a classic example of sour grapes from a company who missed out on a good thing and are regretting it.
It does, however, raise a very interesting question: what happens when your 2 year contract runs out, and you want to switch carriers? You have to resell your iPhone to a T-Mobile user, or you're screwed. This is the only reason I hope they are able to get T-Mobile to take the SIM Lock off of the iPhone.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that as many as 5000 Vodafone Germany customers have bought iPhones. That's 5000 customers who could have otherwise purchased a Vodafone Qbowl - which was released in Germany the same day as the iPhone - and Vodafone is NOT happy about that. Vodafone has not done this in the interest of the customer, they've done this to stem the tide of customers defecting to T-Mobile. If you look at the plan that they offer for the Qbowl, the terms are even worse than T-Mobile's plans for the iPhone, plus the Qbowl is exclusive to Vodafone. Problem is: nobody cares about the Qbowl.
This is a classic example of sour grapes from a company who missed out on a good thing and are regretting it.
It does, however, raise a very interesting question: what happens when your 2 year contract runs out, and you want to switch carriers? You have to resell your iPhone to a T-Mobile user, or you're screwed. This is the only reason I hope they are able to get T-Mobile to take the SIM Lock off of the iPhone.
Apple get a cut of the contract. This sweetens the deal for them so they can offer the iPhone at a reduced price. There is room here to interpret that at subsidization. An unlocked iPhone is highly likely to cost more.
As long as we have that clear then this may work out ok for the consumer but the device price won't stay at current levels if its unlocked.
As long as we have that clear then this may work out ok for the consumer but the device price won't stay at current levels if its unlocked.
Wow, someone should sue Sony for not allowing XBox games to be played on the PS3. How come nobody is suing Porsche for not allowing their keys to start Ferraris? That is SO anti-consumer.
MS didn't get busted for tying IE to the Windows OS as such: it got busted for HOW they did it.