MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

May 02, 08 - 12:41 pm Comment from: mr_matalino

C'mon CDMA version, c'mon!

May 02, 08 - 12:41 pm Comment from: January 24, 1984

Buy more AAPL.

Has anyone actually seen Apple & AT&T;'s contract? Has it really been reported on in the media (or just speculated on). During the past year, major media outlets have reported numerous times that Apple's iPhone agreement with AT&T;is for five years, but has any reporter actually ever seen this agreement? Do we know it's really for five years? I believe the Motorola RAZR initially was AT&T;only, and I think it was for one year only.

May 02, 08 - 01:11 pm Comment from: macoverdose_dot_com

if they kill off 200 on the price.. which I highly doubt they will .. it will seal the deal for the iphone taking over the world.

don't you have to sign a two-year contract for the current iPhone?

Just testing the water... Apple is just testing the water with iPhone 1.0

Anything can happen with iPhone 2.0:
- multiple models
- iPhone subsidy
- unlocked models
- multiple carriers
- GPS
- 3G
- and the unexpected...

May 02, 08 - 01:22 pm Comment from: Macintosh

Trying to duplicate the iPhones success is not going to be an easy task. Sure, companies could duplicate the hardware, but would probably be in violation of patents.

Then the software... Good luck starting from scratch and trying to develop something like OS X. And again, try doing it without violating patents.

Good luck!

"If by "duplicate Apple's formula for success," Hesseldahl means, "violate some or all of Apple's 200+ iPhone-related patents which CEO Steve Jobs has vowed to vigorously defend," then he'd be correct."

Yeah, well what about the 1000s of cell phone patents Apple is probably stepping on with their iPhone?

@ Mac+

Don't forget the FM radio!

"the five year contract" could easily contain terms that allow either party to remove the exclusivity in exchange for some particular consideration.

"notoriously slippery and heavy-handed"? Uh, Arik, we are talking about Apple, not MicroSoft. The record shows that Apple abides by its agreements, doesn't destroy partners, and delivers what it promises. The record for MS shows somewhat different behavior. It bugs me when people try to smear Apple just because they are hurting over the revelations of their preferred company.

May 02, 08 - 01:51 pm Comment from: Macromancer

Or perhaps it's a way to deter people from buying them and unlocking them for use on other networks.

Given Apple's track record of introducing new iPod/Mac models about every year, and given how mobile phones change quickly, I highly doubt that AT&T;would have agreed to a 5 year contract (or multi-year, as SJ stated) which only covered the initial iPhone.

Apple may have some kind of buyout clause, but let's be real here too – most of the world is GSM, not CDMA, and producing a CDMA iPhone would increase production costs. If Apple isn't getting revenue from Verizon Wireless or Sprint, then the incentive is not really there to produce a phone which works on a different network.

That's Apple's leverage, with Verizon Wireless, Sprint and AT&T;.

I was under the assumption that AT&T;was already subsidizing the iPhone. Since they are the exclusive US carrier, that would be transparent to the customer, anyway. Isn't that why in the countries where Apple is required to sell it unlocked, they charge a premium?

May 02, 08 - 02:51 pm Comment from: Crabs

You know, little man kinda has a point there. Isn't the revenue sharing agreement, especially when you look at the price of an unlocked iPhone in France, basically the same thing as subsidizing? They're knocking off something like 400 bucks from that phone, and that money (obviously not quite that much) is going to Apple. So, in a sense, AT&T;is subsidizing the iPhone already.

May 02, 08 - 04:05 pm Comment from: the other steve jobs

this cracks me up..

"None of these new phones has duplicated Apple's formula for success yet, but it may be only a matter of time"

I bet if i googled that statement, and replaced "phones" with "iPod", i'd get a million hits.

THey've been saying this for years with the iPod, and the next opponent is farther behind the iPod than Messier is behind Gretzky in scoring.

"I bet if i googled that statement, and replaced "phones" with "iPod", i'd get a million hits."

Sorry you lose your bet.

No results found for "None of these new iPod has duplicated Apple's formula for success yet, but it may be only a matter of time".

May 02, 08 - 05:52 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

@macoverdose_dot_com
You mean the North American AT&T;market world because, last I check AT&T;is not all over the world.

May 02, 08 - 06:38 pm Comment from: Macintosh

@ @the other steve jobs:

There is one result now... Try it again.

in God's name, would anyone want an FM radio? Do people still listen to that pap? The thing is connected to the INTERNET for Pete's sake! Go find some good music to listen to! Does anyone give a rat's ass about a friggin' radio on their iPhone? Does it play cylinders too?

Bizlaw
I believe Japan is CMDA. That's a bunch of iPhones if I'm correct.

"only a matter of time" until Apple's would-be iPhone fakers get to start dealing with lawyers, lawsuits, and courtrooms,"

Sorry, multitouch done by others first. large touchscreen only phone, done by others first. Idea of a user interface where you push a button on a touchscreen to do things, done by others first. Onscreen keyboard, done by others first. Email/web browsing/mapping etc on phones, done by others first. of Apple's 200 patents probably none will stand up.

May 03, 08 - 01:00 am Comment from: ichi

@Sorry, et al...

got some press reports or something on all those infringements and whose claiming them?

well i do not doubt some may be, but "done by others first" is not a "legal" term.

"The record shows that Apple abides by its agreements, doesn't destroy partners, and delivers what it promises. "

Unless you happened to be a mac clone maker. And for the most part Apple promises nothing. That's a hard promise to under-deliver on.

On the rare occasion where Apple does promise something, they're usually late or deliver a less feature rich product than promised.

"well i do not doubt some may be, but "done by others first" is not a "legal" term."

No, the legal term is Prior Art. But I doubt you would understand that so I was dumbing it down for you. It means if somebody's already done it, you can't patent it. It doesn't stop people from trying and succeeding because they understand that the patent office isn't too good at identifying prior art when it comes to technology.

But most of those patents issued on that basis don't stand up when challenged.

"got some press reports or something on all those infringements and whose claiming them? "

And I'm not saying people are trying to enforce claims against Apple, rather that Apple will have no luck if it tries to enforce claims against others. Hence why lots of phones that use one or more aspects of the interface or design used by the iPhone exist, but you haven't seen a single patent infringement claim from Apple yet.

The 200 patents comment was classic Steve puffery. There's nothing there in the UI that Apple will successfully protect.

May 03, 08 - 01:47 pm Comment from: MacConvert

"The 200 patents comment was classic Steve puffery. There's nothing there in the UI that Apple will successfully protect."

Can MDN save this for when the first court document is filed. I bet it will be in Marshall, Texas.

May 03, 08 - 02:25 pm Comment from: TheConfuzed1

Apple promised me a free mac.com email address for life, via iTools. I love Apple, but as they've demonsrtated with Dot Mac, they're not above backing down from a deal.

I've been a paying subscriber since my iTools account expired, but that doesn't mean I'm not bitter about it.

May 03, 08 - 07:44 pm Comment from: ken1w

It doesn't matter if the deal on paper says 5 years with AT&T;. Apple can renegotiate a deal that AT&T;considers advantageous.

For example, AT&T;gets to exclusively sell a locked and subsidized iPhone for X number of years for $199 (or whatever price). Apple gets to sell an unlocked and CDMA version of iPhone for a higher price, which can be used on the other major carriers. This will drastically increase iPhone sales.

When the contract with AT&T;expires, Apple negotiates contracts with all major carriers for locked and subsidized iPhones, provided they make the necessary modifications to their network infrastructure for proper iPhone operation. Meanwhile, Apple continues to sell an unlocked iPhone for an unsubsidized higher price.

Eventually, iPhone will no longer need exclusive contracts in any of its markets to give Apple a strong position in negotiating contracts.

May 04, 08 - 03:46 pm Comment from: ron

Needs voice activation. The law regarding using cell-phones in Cal. changes July 1st this year. Come on Apple, help us avoid fines.

Quote: "None of these new phones has duplicated Apple's formula for success yet, but it may be only a matter of time,"

Well Arik, you may have to wait a bit.

Before thinking about the phone, any true competitor to iPhone has to develop a rival OS to OSX.

Windows CE or Mobile can't. Symbian can't. Linux can't.

So, expect a long, long, long wait.