MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Now: HOW ABOUT THE US!
PLEASE!

May 06, 08 - 01:46 pm Comment from: rahrens

Quote:

"But it does not look like Apple is back-pedaling on its prior agreements with exclusive partners... "

No, not in the US!

"The move is logical, according to Gartner Research analyst Carolina Milanesi. "

Ignorant! In Europe it is just a matter of legality! Other places, other laws, period.

Plus, europeans don't accept to be forced to buy at a sole provider's.

May 06, 08 - 01:48 pm Comment from: Spark

Gotta wait for those ATT contracts to expire.

May 06, 08 - 01:49 pm Comment from: Spark

I'm wondering if these companies can provide the visual voicemail feature.

May 06, 08 - 01:56 pm Comment from: Willie G

@Spark,

Considering that I have a visual voicemail widget running in OSX that works with my TMobile account, I have to assume that VVM is a matter of software, not a feature that relies on carrier compliance.

May 06, 08 - 02:01 pm Comment from: Ampar

To Spark:

More information on other implementations of visual voicemail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Voicemail

May 06, 08 - 02:02 pm Comment from: MikeK

I'm wondering if these companies can provide the visual voicemail feature.

--------------------

Of course it will, as long as Apple has agreed to multiple carriers in any given country, all features should work as promised.

"It may not be what Apple had initially wanted when it first brought the iPhone to Europe last year, but it makes business sense"

Initially, as well as today, Apple's model is to make money. They are "not married to any model". They'd said themselves. Initially, they were just testing the water. In the future, people be surprised how flexible is Apple model

May 06, 08 - 02:07 pm Comment from: Spark

There are a lot of people bitter over the exclusive ATT deal in the U.S. and the other international exclusive deals. I understand these complaints because every one of the providers has service issues somewhere and people understandable want choice. But I don't blame Apple for wanting to take this route. They obviously wanted to include special features (Visual Voicemail, and maybe others we don't know about yet) and negotiate special voice/data pricing to make the iPhone a very useful tool. I don't think that Apple could have done this using the entrenched models of manufacturer/service provider relationships. To date I've seen no reporting on how these issues are shaking out in countries, such as France, where exclusivity is not allowed, or with these new multi-provider deals. Any French iPhone users out there that can shed some light on data plans and full feature functionality of the iPhone in France? (or any multi-provider country) I am curious as to which model benefits the iPhone user. In my area, ATT happens to be the best choice for service, so I had no issue with Apple's choice, and the voice/data package is really very good. So I see Apple's decisions as being very beneficial. Chime in.

May 06, 08 - 02:18 pm Comment from: MikeK

@Spark

The number one reason Apple wanted exclusive deals is so that they could negotiate monthly revenue deals with the carrier.. Once they sign with multiple carriers, there is no incentive for any individual carrier to give Apple a portion of its their monthly revenue.

May 06, 08 - 02:21 pm Comment from: Demon

The Reason Apple can make markets work is the fact that their models are very flexible.
Microsoft is so ridged they failed to make a deal to buy Yahoo. And, because Ballmer as no stones, for business, he'll never cut the companies losses on their failure looser products and services if they ditched would steam their looses and help refocus the company.

My bet is that AT&T;was the best or only deal they could get in the US, not because of the iPhone product, but because the other carriers did not sign up for it because they did not see the iPhone for what it would become.

I think they are regretting it now.

Artificially created exclusivity rarely works wherever its tried. But both sides probably got the best deal they could based upon what they thought they knew at the time. That happens thousands of times a day in business.

Of course the situation is different to that of France when the iPhone was introduced there. Can you really not see the difference? It is obvious that Apple is modifying and adapting its strategy, quite rightly, through experience of each particular market, and to simply deny that simple fact clearly makes you look stupid. Perhaps you will keep your own silly quotes for us to reference when Steve Jobs/Apple in one interview or another in the future admits to this change of strategy. Surely arguing black is grey is pointless when Apple is actually being quick witted, nimble and flexible in it's strategy to increase its presence in any given market and no doubt when possible its overall strategy. That is to be admired surely.

There is still an incentive for the carrier to give Apple a portion of their monthly revenue – they get the iPhone! These aren't exclusive deals, but at least the company is in on the action and not out in the cold.

Paying Apple monthly subscriber fees is also more desirable than paying to subsidize the iPhone. The subsidies have to be paid to Apple immediately, while payments from subscriber revenue only gets paid after it's collected.

Time value of money, and the carrier hasn't subsidized an iPhone that John Doe takes to its competitor or unlocks. This way the carrier only pays Apple when the subscriber still pays for his account with the carrier.

It would be both a surprise and down right funny... if it turns out that AT&T;has an exclusive contract for only one year or only for the "Edge" iPhone only!

And it ended up that the new G3 i[Phone was released as a open platform!

One would have to say thet Stevwe Jobs won yet again!

I've always felt that the revenue sharing deal was to offset the costs of the technology in the iPhone long enough for the component costs to go down over time.

May 06, 08 - 02:51 pm Comment from: MobileAdmin

It's amazing how many people don't understand the mobile industry. Apple is married to At&t;with the current Iphone. The new 3G Iphone is going to be tied to At&t;'s 3G network. There is no 3G standard until LTE lights up and that is likely 2010 if not later (which we'll likely see 3 or 4 model iphone by then)

Seeing how Verizon didn't like Apple's terms I don't see a verizon iphone anytime soon and don't think they even discussed with Sprint. *IF* Sprint does get bought be Deutsche Telekom it changes the mobile landscape and TMO becomes a major player.

So get used to at&t;in the states and hope you have coverage for their 3G network (read major cities)

MobileAdmin is right, Apple approached Verizon first. Seeing as Verizon is the best network in the US in terms of coverage and sales volume, this makes business sense (some people may disagree that Verizon is the best, but it is in terms of sheer numbers, individual experiences may vary). Verizon didn't like Apple's demands to get nearly 20% revenue from new subscribers to Verizon who purchased iPhones. That, coupled with Verizon's nazi-like control over their network (Apple wanted control over iPhone support) and it was a no-go. After I read this, I immediately dropped Verizon and switched to AT&T;. Maybe that's dumb to some, but consider that Verizon seems to care less about its customers than it does about making money. Otherwise, it would've realized what a sweet deal that would've been for everyone involved, and accepted Apple's terms. And please don't respond that Verizon's phones are CDMA and ATT's are SIM, that is a minor change to the internals of the phone, something Apple engineers could've easily packaged into the iPhone. It's a shame, but Verizon's gonna regret not getting the iPhone. Even unlocked ones won't work on their network. Lame.

May 06, 08 - 05:28 pm Comment from: ken1w

Apple only has to do the "exclusivity" thing until the carriers are generally willing to meet Apple's demands for making accommodating technical changes to the network and revenue sharing. Therefore, for any market that currently has an exclusive iPhone carrier, once that agreement expires, exclusivity will be a historical footnote. And Apple will certainly have a CDMA version of iPhone at that point.

c'mon ppl, we all know that the real reason behind the shift of strategy is (and dont talk about France, Apple is going unlocked there only because they are mandated by law): iPhone is NOT selling in Europe..the sales figures are pretty pathetic (prolly around 250-300k in Q1/2008).

Why would any carrier in Europe want a revenue sharing deal when they can't attract customers from other carriers? Thy will be lucky to break even as it stands now, they have lowered the price of the iPhone to that of a candybar.

May 06, 08 - 06:48 pm Comment from: BiZarRo BaLlmEr

will there be a jeff burton iPhone car?

May 06, 08 - 08:44 pm Comment from: Spark

@MixMaster
It's not surprising that a non-3G phone is finding it hard to get traction in Europe. What is surprising is that the iPhone is selling at all based on the virtually obsolete telephony technology as it applies to Europe. Obviously that is going to change. Apple is just catching up to the curve with v2 iPhone. I predict that v3 will put them ahead.

There is another explanation. iPhone isn't selling that well in Europe so no carrier in Italy was willing to bend over like AT&T;.

Here are a couple of nice quotes;

Will Draper, an analyst for Execution, said: “This is definitely a sign Apple is capitulating.”

Ben Woods, telecoms analyst at CCS Insight, said: “I think Apple has recognised that its exclusive deals with operators pushed more people to unlock iPhones and meet demand from customers on competing networks who wanted Apple’s hot product.”

@bizlaw

I’m guessing the accountants that hammered out the deal between Apple and AT&T;understand “the time value of money” and factored it in. After all Apple and AT&T;are big companies, they probably have people with degrees and everything.

As expected, Apple's attempt to change the way the cellphone industry does business has failed.

Nobody will be giving Apple a revenue share to get iPhone 2.0