MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Feb 25, 08 - 06:09 pm Comment from: ron

Well, that's the clappers. (You have to be a Limey to get it)

No, not the clap!

A lot of folks in this world get paid for sitting on their ass and getting in the way of the few who innovate and bring value to consumers.

Tell these asshats to carry it.

More law and government telling us what can and can't be done in business so as to limit one party in favor of another.

we were one of the last to get itms, it stands to reason we'll be the last to get the iphone... probably exactly due to rtards like this guy

@#$%^&*

Feb 25, 08 - 06:38 pm Comment from: WindozeKiller

With a twist, isn't this good for Apple? Look at it from this perspective: Apple says, "If you want to work with iPhones, we get a share of the revenue." Just like the AT&T;deal. Except by law, it's non-exclusive. Carrier 1 says, "HECK, yeah. They sell like hotcakes! we'll give up 10%". Carrier 2 says, "We want to sell iPhones, too! and we'll give up 15% or the revenue". Apple is no longer "stuck" in an exclusive deal with Carrier 1 and can work both deals. Everyone is happy (except the carrier who WANTS an exclusive)

Apple had the same problem in France. They have 2 prices in France, one with and the other without a contract. Apple gets their missing share up front if there is no contract.

I think they should offer the higher without contract priced iPhone now at the online Apple Store. Give them a rebate if they set up the contract with an approved wireless group later. Done!

Feb 25, 08 - 07:00 pm Comment from: MizuInOz

I live here in Oz and I have talked with the top three mobile carriers about the "Unfair Trade Practices Act" and they say that they can have an exclusive with a phone but the phone has to be unlocked. What does that mean? Well, if they have an exclusive - they will be able to provide all the services that the phone offers. Whilst the other carriers will have the phone but not offer all of the services. I feel that it will either be Telstra (sounds of retching, ralphing, puking) or Optus (sounds of heavenly choirs singing). Obviously, I have my personal choice here.

Apple will need to be G3 here to win the market though. Telstra is going exclusivly G3 and Optus is headed that way. So, Australia may just be good for the rest of the world. I know it is the Lucky country.

Oh by the way, it is Tuesday here and no new stuff in the Apple Store.

MDN, another request. Consider noting when a web site will NOT allow you to comment. I tend to ignore those sites as they proclaim then wash their hands of everything. Why read something when you cannot comment back.???

Note, If one can sim lock a phone, just how is that different than .... er ...... well, Apple iPhones only work with their sim card that only works with one carrier. Isnt that the same thing???


en

Feb 25, 08 - 07:34 pm Comment from: Sixvodkas

MDN Heads up;

Heads up;
In case you haven't noticed, whether or not it's "the same thing" or not, locking a SIM to a carrier in the USA is perfectly legal.
The story is about whether or not it's legal in Australia.

Well if other carriers in Australia can sign exclusive deals with mobile phone manufacturers and lock them to their network for the duration of the contract period, what would be so different about the iPhone?

Answer - Nothing!

This 'researcher' is a twit.

"It would be like Ford deciding that from now on all of the cars they produce can only use be used with petrol from Shell."

"If you fill your car up with fuel from BP the ignition system will detect that and shut down the car."

I think that says it all. And to those posters who live in countries that dwarf Australia's population perhaps you should think of what it is like when there is a lack of competition and perhaps you might understand why we have anti-monopoly laws in this country. And here's my case in point. Telstra is Australia's premier phone company; and they are absolute pigs.

Telstra has been in trouble with authorities for being anti-competitive, ripping off consumers and so on. If Telstra gets the (exclusive) service contract for the iphone not only will I refuse to buy one but I'll be one of many former Telstra customers that will be badgering Apple and mounting campaigns against the iphone.

Oh I forgot to mention that Telstra and Apple are in talks over the release of iphone in Aiustralia.

We know what apple is like. If they don't like a particular condition, they'll just sit and stare at you in the face until you change that condition...

in that sense, Apple can decide not to release the iPhone, which is sure to direct anger back at the government level... especially when the last two governments have been blaming each other for their inabillity to foster innovation through IT.

Where is the Trade Practices Act when it comes to marketing by deceit? The plans of most carriers are too complicated. One typically gets 10 seconds of a seductive line usually involving the word "free" or "unlimited" and two seconds of disclaimers pointing out other conditions - the "fine print" - [there's an oxymoron for you] which is where they do a "gotcha."

Even if Telstra comes up with the best plan, Telstra-haters will wait for the competition to respond and go with the nearest equivalent.

Unscrupulous retailers will sell a sim and a prepaid plan to a kid that comes with a subscription to an astrology service. It takes a while for the kids to find out why their "load" goes down so fast.

> "It would be like Ford deciding that from now on all of the cars they produce can only use be used with petrol from Shell."

No, it's more like Ferrari saying their special high-performance engine needs a special fuel with lubricants to protect the engine, and its formula is sold exclusively by Shell.

LiM,

Just for the record, Telstra's latest self-inflicted problems is over it's attempts to turn off the CDMA network without providing a viable alternative…and lying to regulators that the replacement was up to scratch. Personally, I had to go to the Telecommunications Ombudsman before I could get a refund from Telstra for over-charging. Then there was the Telstra technician who lied to us about using a non-Telstra phone on a landline outlet.

Next was the situation when I'm talking to Telstra sales rep about the appalling mobile (cellphone) service in the south-west of New South Wales. His response: it was the phone because we bought it at K-Mart. Except Telstra sells the same phone!

The reason there are so many Telstra haters in Australia is because the company treats customers worse than Microsoft does. In fact, I view Telstra as the Microsoft of Australian telecommunications…too large, often provides sub-standard service and denies responsibility or blames someone else when something goes wrong. Give me a break, Telstra are a pack of bastards.

Oh, and for the record they have always had an anti-Apple focus in their service provision and in their computer purchases. (I just thought I'd throw that last one in for good measure.)

i actually think it is a good thing a wider base is better.

Huh ? What is the differences between Apple`s exclusive deals and the already accepted practice of SIM-locking ? I don`t get it. Also, this gal`s writing is rather poor for a `pro`.

I am a lawyer in Australia.

The I-Phone lockup arrangement is almost definitely third-line forcing under Australian trade practices law. If you say to someone that you can only acquire certain goods and services if you acquire other goods and services, then its unlawful.

I can't see why MDN is complaining. It encourages competition which drives down prices. Unless MDN is actually pro-Mac but anti-consumer.

Feb 26, 08 - 01:51 am Comment from: DogGone

Apple will adjust their selling technique to suit any country. This is still early days. We like at year 1 for the ipod.

There is nothing wrong with a phone network locking a subsidized handset to their network. It happens all time here in Oz. The difference is that the iPhone is not subsidized. You have to buy the thing up front. This is a big no-no in Oz. Either you buy the thing up front and it's yours to do with as you please. OR, you hire/purchase (subsidized by the network) the phone and it's locked to a network. You can't have it both ways.

Once again...
Third-Party Forcing is an issue in Oz because Apple charges full price for the handset, then still requires you to be locked to a network.

This article does'nt know all the points here : «In the United States iPhone buyers are required to sign a two-year mobile contract with AT&T;before the iPhone will operate. Similar agreements in the United Kingdom, France and Germany tie iPhone owners to one network.»

In fact the French have law against mandatory exclusive contract between network operators and cellular enterprises. SIM cards must be unlocked there, if customers request it and pay for that service. As Apple and his iPhone had to be compliant to the french law there, it should be compliant eventually to the Australia law.

And some others countries have laws that contradict the Apple's ideal business plan about the SIM card locked iPhone...

Doggone wrote, "Apple will adjust their selling technique to suit any country. This is still early days. We like at year 1 for the ipod."

Exactly. The phone has been on sale in the US for 9 months. This product is still slowly rolling out and Apple is finding their way in all markets.
Heck, when it first came out people thought it was too expensive and were concerned that it wouldn't sell.

MW: time as in "Time will tell."

Feb 26, 08 - 11:49 am Comment from: Ampar

"Need more input, Stephanie."

Nice "Short Circuit" reference.