Remember RIAA - they wanted a cut from each iPod sold because they claim without music the iPod would be nothing - and thus thought it was their right to claim a royalty payment.
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
Remember RIAA - they wanted a cut from each iPod sold because they claim without music the iPod would be nothing - and thus thought it was their right to claim a royalty payment.
Really? Please explain how they can legally lock down and brick iphones at the flick of a switch?
If it were so easy, why haven't they done it yet? Do you even recall the negative press they endured when novice unlockers foolishly upgraded their firmware?Google is trying to open things up, and profit at the same time. Only change I see Apple has made in the cell market is making a more robust UI. Others are now dusting off their touch screen protypes and working to get them to market faster with friendlier interfaces, but that could have been accomplished with an unlocked iphone as well.
So explain to me how Apple is changing things in the cell phone industry? Sure their product is amazing but warranty is the same, the handset and contract prices are still the same or higher, customer service is still the same, functionality is still crippled...Only thing that is different is they get to double dip by getting a share of the monhly tarriffs.
That's what is required of you in international business. You cannot go to Germany and apply the US business model if laws prohibit it. Perhaps there was an oversight somewhere.
So? Who cares if vodaphone stick a logo on the startup screen. Just remove it.
Neither does anyone else. Some carriers disable bits (that's pretty rare though - competition stops them disabling anything significant).. consumers who care just load the stock firmware and it all comes back.
That is *not* right. That's like saying Sony should get a chunk of my Satellite TV viewing subs. It's nothing like a record company.
Apple make the hardware. There it ends. Works for every other mobile phone company on the planet.. why should Apple be special?
Apple are trying to remove the healthy competition that exists in the phone market at the moment and replace it by *very* anti-choice and *very* anti-consumer lockin.
If I'm with a provider and they suck I take my business elsewhere. I don't have to buy a new phone to do this. Apple want to remove this.
If I want a phone I can choose the phone and go and find the best deal, enhancing competition. Apple want to remove this.
Do you work for them or something? I can't see how any of this is remotely defensible.
I live in Germany and have bought the iPhone with a 2 year contract. I hate the locked SIM policy from Apple. Its a shame that such a revolutionary device isnt available everywhere to everybody he/she wants it. I know many friends of mine that live in Greece that would buy it and there Apple doesnt offer the iPhone at all. This sovinistic behaviour should someday soon stop... Shame on you Apple...
Having said that, I have to say that using an iPhone on a network that doesnt primarily support EDGE, doesnt make any sense, so even if T-Mobile offers unlocked phones, I don't see how that would benefit the customer since he/she cant use Internet. Vodafone has no EDGE network here in Germany...or anybody else for the matter. In Germany only T-Mobile can offer the full iPhone experience. Everybody else is doomed to fail...T-Mobile should also offer one year contracts...
I love my iPhone and I think its a great device. Thats why I bought it ignoring the above...
Having said that, I have to say that using an iPhone on a network that doesnt primarily support EDGE, doesnt make any sense, so even if T-Mobile offers unlocked phones, I don't see how that would benefit the customer since he/she cant use Internet. Vodafone has no EDGE network here in Germany...or anybody else for the matter. In Germany only T-Mobile can offer the full iPhone experience. Everybody else is doomed to fail...T-Mobile should also offer one year contracts...
I love my iPhone and I think its a great device. Thats why I bought it ignoring the above...
So to clear everything up-
If an unlocked iPhone came to the UK it would cost the same as what o2 are charging, minus their fees?
Chances are I'll be with o2 since they offer unlimited internet. but it's nice to know that I can swop out to my Vodaphone sim and call my girlfriend for free on a top of the line phone
Well if the courts in germany have their way that could be next week - check ebay over the next few days
Once an iphone is unlocked it should work anywhare (and guarantees are already europe wide).. Apple could try to pull a fast one on the activation but I suspect that would be viewed by the courts as taking the piss.
This is gonna be one hell of a mess
First of all I'd be very happy to see an unlocked iPhone. See, the current hacking solution kills the warranty. What happens to all the hacked iPhones, when the battery starts fading. Could you still send it to Apple for battery replacement (given you voided warranty)?
Second I think that there are so many cons regarding the one-carrier tie, that I don't mind the pros.
Third, and that being the most drastic part, all involved companies really play hard. It was Apple's mistake to think they could change the mobile handset industry. Being an Apple shareholder, this makes me happy. Being a consumer, I'm very angry. What, if the real big players in the mobile industry start that kind of behaviour and use the same stupid arguments. HDSPA is just taking off, and honestly, in less than five years iPhone will be reminiscent of a Stone Age internet communicator (it won't be remembered as a phone, as Apple touts us that it ain't a phone).
Imagine you have to change carriers, every time a new handset pleases you. This really is a worst case scenario.
Television on your mobile handset is just around the corner, and I'm not talking YouTube-stuff, I mean real television. Maybe we will see a first glimpse next year. I guess there are some people working on live mobile handset streams of the Beijing Olympic games.
Video conference calls will be all around, as soon as the mobile data networks pick up more speed. There already are mobile handsets, that utilize this technology.
Don't get me wrong. Apple did quite an impressing job with the iPhone (though I still have my gripes with it and won't get one). But the answer from the big players is just around the corner. I mean, seriously, have you taken a look at the N82 from Nokia. If not, you may also want to check out the LG KS20 (though I will never get a LG phone again, I hate my Chocolate!). And imagining those two companies follwing the 'We tie to one carrier' policy would be a real pain for the consumer.
First of all I'd be very happy to see an unlocked iPhone. See, the current hacking solution kills the warranty. What happens to all the hacked iPhones, when the battery starts fading. Could you still send it to Apple for battery replacement (given you voided warranty)?
Second I think that there are so many cons regarding the one-carrier tie, that I don't mind the pros.
Third, and that being the most drastic part, all involved companies really play hard. It was Apple's mistake to think they could change the mobile handset industry. Being an Apple shareholder, this makes me happy. Being a consumer, I'm very angry. What, if the real big players in the mobile industry start that kind of behaviour and use the same stupid arguments. HDSPA is just taking off, and honestly, in less than five years iPhone will be reminiscent of a Stone Age internet communicator (it won't be remembered as a phone, as Apple touts us that it ain't a phone).
Imagine you have to change carriers, every time a new handset pleases you. This really is a worst case scenario.
Television on your mobile handset is just around the corner, and I'm not talking YouTube-stuff, I mean real television. Maybe we will see a first glimpse next year. I guess there are some people working on live mobile handset streams of the Beijing Olympic games.
Video conference calls will be all around, as soon as the mobile data networks pick up more speed. There already are mobile handsets, that utilize this technology.
Don't get me wrong. Apple did quite an impressing job with the iPhone (though I still have my gripes with it and won't get one). But the answer from the big players is just around the corner. I mean, seriously, have you taken a look at the N82 from Nokia. If not, you may also want to check out the LG KS20 (though I will never get a LG phone again, I hate my Chocolate!). And imagining those two companies follwing the 'We tie to one carrier' policy would be a real pain for the consumer.
Victory Forthcoming
Hi, I just want to say that I am very glad to hear that Germany have took this stance. It will quite clearly give more choice to the consumer. As someone has already pointed out, once an iPhone is unlocked for Germany, it should pave the way for the handset to be unlocked in other countries (UK for example)
I owned an iPhone for about a week and a half and I really enjoyed using it. However, I was never going to keep it and I activated the phone knowing that. I have the right to terminate a new contract within 14 days of activation and I used that right to full advantage. It gave me time to play with the phone which has tied me over until it is eventually unlocked.
I was a bit disappointed with a few things like bluetooth file transfer, 2MP Camera and not being able to customise my own message alert OOTB, but on the whole I LOVED using it.
Anyway, for now I will stick with my Sony Ericsson K810i. When the iPhone is no longer SIM locked to O2, I will part with my cash (via my debit card of course).
Hi, I just want to say that I am very glad to hear that Germany have took this stance. It will quite clearly give more choice to the consumer. As someone has already pointed out, once an iPhone is unlocked for Germany, it should pave the way for the handset to be unlocked in other countries (UK for example)
I owned an iPhone for about a week and a half and I really enjoyed using it. However, I was never going to keep it and I activated the phone knowing that. I have the right to terminate a new contract within 14 days of activation and I used that right to full advantage. It gave me time to play with the phone which has tied me over until it is eventually unlocked.
I was a bit disappointed with a few things like bluetooth file transfer, 2MP Camera and not being able to customise my own message alert OOTB, but on the whole I LOVED using it.
Anyway, for now I will stick with my Sony Ericsson K810i. When the iPhone is no longer SIM locked to O2, I will part with my cash (via my debit card of course).
Not if T-Mobile or Apple decides not to sell, or to increase the price to compensate for the lack of a contract. The exclusivity is there for a sensible reason--to create investment in the product by the provider.
I'm on Vodaphone's side for challenging this, but anyone who says "Apple should just sell an unlocked phone" really doesn't see the big picture. People that say "Apple just builds the hardware, and it stops there" also don't see the big picture. Apple has faced a huge compatibility challenge with this product, and tying it to an exclusive partner gives them the control they need to deliver a consistent and reliable experience to the consumer. That's the gist of it. There are tremendous support costs required to support a device on the myriad of cell networks around the world. It's a shame that Apple has to forge such long-term agreements with partners (5 years is too long), but that's probably what it took to really make it worthwhile for the partner.
Imagine if Consumer ABC purchased an iPhone for use on Provider XYZ's network. Who does the consumer call for help with the product? Obviously XYZ won't have the technical expertise to support Apple's phone, so the consumer contacts Apple. Now Apple tries to help the consumer get the phone working on XYZ's network. The overall experience would be akin to today's Windows world... a mess. By choosing one partner, they can focus their efforts and train their staff accordingly, and the consumer's experience should be much better as a result. That's a big piece of the motivation behind this arrangement.
Remember that Apple may have created a piece of kit that has blown every other phone out of the water, but Apple is still a baby in this industry. It would've been a mistake for them to try and bite off more than they could chew. Their strategy plan is obviously spread out over the 5-year agreement they have with AT&T, and at the end of it, they'll be in a much better position to expand their offerings.
Nonetheless, I say keep the pressure on Apple. They may be new in the industry, but they are very good at what they do, and will quickly adapt to whatever changes need to be made to keep their offerings ahead of the competition on many levels.
Imagine if Consumer ABC purchased an iPhone for use on Provider XYZ's network. Who does the consumer call for help with the product? Obviously XYZ won't have the technical expertise to support Apple's phone, so the consumer contacts Apple. Now Apple tries to help the consumer get the phone working on XYZ's network. The overall experience would be akin to today's Windows world... a mess. By choosing one partner, they can focus their efforts and train their staff accordingly, and the consumer's experience should be much better as a result. That's a big piece of the motivation behind this arrangement.
Remember that Apple may have created a piece of kit that has blown every other phone out of the water, but Apple is still a baby in this industry. It would've been a mistake for them to try and bite off more than they could chew. Their strategy plan is obviously spread out over the 5-year agreement they have with AT&T, and at the end of it, they'll be in a much better position to expand their offerings.
Nonetheless, I say keep the pressure on Apple. They may be new in the industry, but they are very good at what they do, and will quickly adapt to whatever changes need to be made to keep their offerings ahead of the competition on many levels.
The larger picture doesn't matter -Apple must follow the laws of the country its trading in.
Vodfone has EDGE in Germany too! Not that well built up, but they have it...
We allready have more speed and its called UMTS - HSDPA
The lawsuit does not go against having the product locked ! It is against the contracts that come with the iPhone. They say that you should be able to pick any contract that the provider offers.
Again - they complain about having special contracts with this iphone and not ANY T-Mobile contract.
I dont even know where to start on your post. you hate apple, but like osx. osx would not exist if it were not for apple's business model.
If you had osx available on ANY hardware, osx would fail to exist as there will be no money to fund its further development.
A carrier should not depend on a good phone to get customers, it should depend on good coverage and service -- the actual products of the carrier. Let the phone manufacturers benefit from the appeal of their phones. The customer, in turn, can benefit from chosing the best combination of the two for his/her needs.
if ford made an amazingly great car (highly unlikely), and made a deal with a particular brand of fuel. who cares? Maybe, just maybe, the car is amazingly great BECAUSE they share the profits from the fuel???
Because without these profits the car would cost far too much to develop, and price the car out of the market...
No, but you can sue for possibly violating law, which is why the court heard the case and agreed it had some merit and didn't throw it out. Now it goes to the higher courts for review. It's how the law works. Personally in the end I think the court will drop the claim, I don't know about German law exactly, but usually deals similar to this in the EU as a whole will be okay so long as the colluding companies both don't have a virtual monopoly in their respective market (30% or lower) and so long as the deal is under 5 years.
According to this Spiegel article [1], it's not only Vodafone but Debitel as well who already filed a complaint at the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) in October about tying the iPhone to a T-Mobile contract, as this apparently violates mobile phone licensing laws.
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/mobil/0,1518,518515,00.html
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/mobil/0,1518,518515,00.html
Apple is all about the larger picture. They wouldn't be Apple without that. My statement had nothing to do with breaking laws.
Now we know why gadgets cost more in Europe. Every country have different laws open to different interpretations. Cost of compliance gotta be high. Of course, this won't stop anybody from complaining, as it is easier to cry about some grand conspiracy for higher prices.
In a more relevant note, should we force Tivo to open its devices up so that it could work with any server? Would such devices be ever produced if no hardware is ever allowed to be packaged with a particular service? Why is it so hard to say, I like the device, but not the service provider, so I'll buy something else? Why do you need the big hand of the government to step in?
In a more relevant note, should we force Tivo to open its devices up so that it could work with any server? Would such devices be ever produced if no hardware is ever allowed to be packaged with a particular service? Why is it so hard to say, I like the device, but not the service provider, so I'll buy something else? Why do you need the big hand of the government to step in?
1. Why do the carriers need to brand when Apple, the media and the carriers blazon the fact that it is only available from certain parties in certain countries. Branding only happens (and even then not all the time) when it is unclear what network are on.
2. A lot of phones just have off the shelf firmware, all my motorola's have the only difference usually comes from internet applications but the phone itself is as it would be for any other network.
3. From the figures that have been banded about Apple are getting a lot more than just a bit of data tariff money.
The argument saying the iphone would be more expensive without a contract doesn't hold up. Apple have stated the price is not subsidised. By slashing the price from launch all they have done is reduce their profit margins. The similarities with the iPod Touch probably mean the devices together will recoup any investment very quickly. Just keep an eye on financial results, if Apple's margins really depended on tariffs to make a profit from the iphone we'd see such anomalies.
If the iPhone was subsidised then lock it in and charge what you will for the tariffs but if your paying £269 you should have more choice on what to d with it.
If Apple were taking the profit they were making and actually adding features that would be something but we get tiny point updates and a wifi music store!! More money spinners. Why not add phone features people want.
So you believe that Apple was unable to finance development on the iphone and was dependent on subsequent profits from the carriers.
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.
Apples and oranges, stop crying like a whambulance.
Is there anything in a Mac that is so bloody special that it prohibits OSX from running on regular PCs? Sure! A anti-consumer big brother chip!