MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Aug 19, 09 - 07:59 am Comment from: Brian Allen

I think the author is confused.

"The new Palm Pre, another exclusive deal, this time by Verizon Wireless, tricked iTunes into thinking it was an iPod."

I don't think Verizon sales the Pre.

Aug 19, 09 - 08:11 am Comment from: breeze

Cellphone companies in the USA are ripping us off big time, forget for a moment the current iPhone issues and consider this:

In Europe and most (if not all of) the rest of the world Carriers don't charge the receiving party for cell phone calls - ie: only the caller gets charged. It's been like than for over 10 years...

Not only that but the transmission/voice/line quality are far superior than in the US (even in South Africa 13 years ago the voice quality was pristine and crystal clear)

That's millions if not billions of dollars being double billed while we have the shittiest quality service in the world .

This is what all Cell Phone users in the US should be up in arms about - Why is it that both the caller and the receiver get billed for the same call. Cellphone companies here can't stop laughing at how stupid the American consumer is - They ream us all day every day.

Aug 19, 09 - 08:13 am Comment from: Journo

You may want to believe that the government can intervene without unintended consequences, but I know of no such example.

Even in what seem like simple cases, things can go south quickly. Look at what happened when the Carter Administration tried to "punish the rich" by jacking up yacht taxes:

"Given that only the super rich can afford a yacht, this should have been the ideal tax on the rich. But the Carter Administration overlooked two things. First, the rich, like everyone else, hates to waste money. Second, and more important, while only the rich buy yachts, it is middle class workers who build yachts. As a result of the tax, most rich people did one of two things in that they either made do with last year's yacht or purchased a new one abroad where the tax did not apply. In doing so, the small American yacht industry was destroyed (one New Jersey town whose economy was totally dependent on yacht building faced economic disaster) and associated jobs and income tax revenues (unemployed people generally pay little or no income tax) were lost. This little episode only served to further weaken the nation's economy."

"The yacht tax fiasco, which even if it had been successful, was never projected to generate significant revenue. It was instead, driven more by a desire to punish the rich for their success than to raise revenue. However, the yacht tax is a clear demonstration of the truth of former President Regan's observation that Washington doesn't solve our problems, it IS the problem."

http://hubpages.com/hub/Problems-with-Taxing-the-Rich

I think MDN is confused, RIM is not on life support. Their phones outsold Apple in the latest quarter and they're one of the fastest growing company's.

Please stick to reporting the news straight-up.

Macs King,

Learn how to read.

MDN wrote:

"Reputable companies that are not on life support, like RIM..."

If Apple didn't charge so much for its products, there wouldn't be as large a subsidy, which means they wouldn't have to recoup so much from the data plan.

In the end, it's Apple that causes us to pay through the nose, not AT&T

Aug 19, 09 - 08:28 am Comment from: Ottawa Mark

@Macs King,

As much as MDN's take is often wrongheaded, they were not saying RIM was on life support; but that Palm was. The writing was poor, but its clear what was meant:

"Reputable companies that are not on life support, like RIM, unlike Palm, provide simple software to transfer those iTunes Store files to their devices."

@ Macs King
Please re-read the MDN take...straight-up ; )

Aug 19, 09 - 08:31 am Comment from: andintroducing

RIM is still bleeding jobs and dramatically missing market forecasts and lowering financial expectations. That's what they mean.

Still MDN should proof their articles better. Two missing words or errors in the article at publication. They make a good point, but could serve to proof their own work.

ApplePi,

You display a severe lack of basic business understanding.

How are Apple to recoup their tremendous R&D;outlay to create and develop the iPhone?

You obviously have no idea howe much went went into the creation of the iPhone or what each device really costs Apple (R&D;past and present, components, marketing, support, etc.)

Ottawa Mark,

Leave the writing criticism to others. MDN's writing is fine.

andintroducing,

Bzzzt! You obviously can't read, either. And you therefore look quite stupid proclaiming that MDN should proof their articles better.

Whew! What a heavy dose of "beggar thy neighbor" is being served up here!

Grow up, ApplePi, and do it quickly. Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone--or a Mercedes--or a Rolex--or a Cadillac--or any other product of quality, superior workmanship, and unparalleled design. Apple offers its products for sale in the marketplace: only YOU decide whether you wish to complete the transaction, you dolt. NOT THEM!

Your whining and paucity of mature, rational understanding of market forces and actions are astonishing and pathetic. You are truly a perfect example of the "me-want-it-now-and-me-want-it-for-free" generation. How I do loathe you and your tribe.

"Transition away from "owning" airwaves" - and transitition to what exactly? In economic terms, private property is extremely effecient and productive while shared property suffers from the "tradegy of the commons." you can't just say "end ownership of the airwaves" without suggesting some sort of reasonable alternative.

MDN, can you provide a version of your site without your comments? It will save me time having to click the 'Read Article Here' link so I don't have to read to your ubalanced (and sometimes political) viewpoint. I am a fan of Apple but not to the point of dismissing any other company, product or opinion.

I commend you on providing a great source of Apple articles, good job there, the only reason I look here.

Aug 19, 09 - 08:57 am Comment from: TowerTone

Brian
I think the author is VERY confused.

" End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network. Data flows freely."

WTF does that even mean? "Freely" how?

"As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned."

Deep pockets would own any area they want, until smaller carriers go under, by undercharging, thereby establishing the need for a 'floor' on pricing (in some minds), which leads to even more problems, because then quality deteriorates.

"End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies.... A little competition for cable will help the transition to paying for shows instead of overpaying for little-watched networks"

Does this guy live in a desert? Has he not heard of DSL, FIOS, Dirrect TV, or wireless cable? Exclusivity is designed to give a system the confidence to invest in an area, just like any service contract does. When it is up for renewal, the city can look at other cable companies, but unless the area actually OWNS the infrastructure, and the cable company merely managed it, most companies will not invest with a municipality that may kick them out in three years. Would you?

And BTW, there are many trade off in cable negotiations that benefit the municipality, such as free advertising, public access, EAS, and free bandwidth for essential services.

" Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones. It should more than double every two years. To homes, five megabits today should be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013 and 100 megabits in 2017. These data-connection speeds are technically doable today, with obsolete voice and video policy holding it back."

Sure, just snap your fingers. You don't just change out a piece of equipment in the head-end and wa-fscking-la everyone has faster internet. The FCC actually mandates ANALOG signals still be used for basic cable for the next three years, eating up a shitload of bandwidth. There is new systems on the horizon constantly, but which do you invest in? And every two years, you have to rebuild a huge part of the system. Guess who pays for that?

"Technology doesn't wait around, so it's all going to happen anyway, but it will take longer under today's rules. A weak economy is not the time to stifle change."

No, but it does stifle investment, dumbshit.

1. MDN keep on doing exactly what you're doing. The MDN Takes make this site.

2. DGUS, it's painfully obvious that you do not refute any MDN's points, but due to your discomfort at being confronted with ideas that are not readily broadcast to Americans on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. you resort to calling for their elimination. Sad, yet typical.

3. MDN is correct, as usual.

How would everyone feel if "carrier exclusivity" extended beyond cellphones to the entire Internet? As a hypothetical example: because you have Comcast high-speed internet, you can only select from these two computer brands (say only Dell and HP) to connect to their wires. Nope, no Macs for you! If you want the coolest computers you'll have to switch your ISP to Verizon, the ISP with the "exclusive" on all Apple computer products... Too bad if you don't like Verizon's prices, coverage (nope, not on your street, please move), rules (no Google Voice apps, no "big downloads"), etc., because you have a "choice" when it comes to your ISP.

By analogy, this is what MDN is arguing for. Though correct about CDMA vs. GSM technology (Verizon and Sprint networks could not support the current iPhone), T-Mobile USA could (it is also GSM) but it is not "allowed to" due to this antiquated subsidy model. In about 2 years, Verizon, AT&T;, and all the other carriers will be using LTE for 4G connections, and Apple will only have to build one iPhone. The technological barrier will have fallen completely, so the others ones should have too.

Aug 19, 09 - 09:05 am Comment from: Demon

Let's talk the public option! Washington thinks it will work for health care reform so, let us apply "the Public Option" to the cell phone industry.

The US government will build a massive cellular Network using existing unused Government control spectrum for Trillions of Dollars.
The Network will cover 99.9% of the complete US.
It will use a G6 speed type of technology but, will be GDM (Government Does Mobile) standard and not compatible with any other network or device.
To build a GDM device you must be a qualify hand set maker, which means you have no exclusive deals with carriers and you do not allow carriers to subsidize your devices cost to the public. you've pay the license fee to the US government to build the device and then pay a fee for each and everyone built.
The Public can use the Government GDM network for one tenth the yearly flat rate cost of the private networks.
The Government Option has no customer service but, no limits and the unlimited flat-rate service must be prepaid in 12 month blocks, low income people and families can apply for reduced costs, a monthly billed plan, or free service.

Kessler: "Transition away from 'owning' the airwaves"

Uh, the carriers payed BILLIONS for the rights to those airwaves. (An acquaintance of mine at the FCC was involved in those spectrum auctions.) This is the market at work. Those who believed they can make most efficient use (i.e. make money) bid for those rights. Those who suddenly want to make them "free" will have to deal with the Constitution's "takings" clause.

One thing I do agree with is the absurdity of having to sign long term contracts to get cell phone service. I have signed my last contract! It expired a few months ago and I will not sign another one. So far Verizon has kept me on my existing contract which is a very good deal. Good enough that I am not tempted by the iPhone due to the huge increase in monthly cost I would have to absorb.

The other day I went into a couple of phone stores and asked this "Since your contract includes a subsidy for my phone, if I BUY the phone at FULL price, will you give me a cut in the monthly rate?" They looked at me like I was asking for a one-way ticket to Afghanstan!!

I want to be able to buy a phone - iPhone, Pre, Android, Nokia, whatever - and use it on any network it will work on. Period. My car runs on any gasoline I want to buy, my coffee maker uses any coffee I buy, my TV picks up any channel in my area, why can't my phone be used on an GSM network?

Enough of this nonsense!!!!!!!

I don't understand why AT&T;is the only phone company getting this kind of abuse. Every other carrier in the US is the same way! Their voice + unlimited data plans start at $70 just like AT&T;'s. So if you want to talk about an overhaul of carriers in general, that's fine. But stop singling out AT&T;and Apple just because they have a desirable product. This article was the ranting of an idiot who is letting emotion get in the way of logical and objectivity.

Aug 19, 09 - 09:30 am Comment from: TowerTone

Josh
"My car runs on any gasoline"
the iPhone runs on a battery.

Now try buying, for instance, that new Camaro at a Honda dealer.
Then tell them you want a HEMI in it, and want Ford to warranty it.

There's your correlation.

Aug 19, 09 - 09:30 am Comment from: DogGone

@Josh,

Eventually that choice will be available for all phones. Most US carriers offer pay as you go phones now.

Until the carriers have a unified network system (like land lines or internet) it will be hard for one phone to use any network.

One of the biggest issues is that technology is changing rapidly in the mobile arena. EDGE, 3G, now 4G. Phone capabilities vary so choice will be limited that way.

It is pretty clear that the ATT subsidies helped the iPhone be successful. I doubt that so people would have spent $600 up front for an iPhone. It certainly would have been a barrier for me because we would have to buy 2 phones and the initial bill would have been close to $1500.

The price gouging is very obvious and I can't believe companies make you pay for data and text separately.

All this stuff will play out very soon. Apple are in a win-win situation because by the time the monopolies are eliminated, Apple will have the economics of scale to compete head to head with any phone maker.

Aug 19, 09 - 09:33 am Comment from: TowerTone

TomW

Comcast doesn't buy internet spectrum form the government.
They are then not required to recoup said investments.

Aug 19, 09 - 09:42 am Comment from: TanZing

I think the whole business of carier exclusivity is just total BS. Look at how much the exclusive deal with AT&T;is harming rather than aiding the user. No MMS. No tethering! Sure they are coming sometime soon! And pigs will fly.

In France carier exclusivity is illegal and the iPhone is available on all networks. This has meant that the networks have to compete on features and quality to get iPhone customers. The French government doesn't force any cellphone manufacturer to make their phone compatible with every network. The onus is on the network to make put the technology in place, but what they can't do is artificially restrict customer choise by saying a particular phone is only available from a single carrier. In France the iPhone would be available to Verizon for sale but if it can't work with Verizon's technology then too bad for Verizon. As for phone features, visual voicemail is only available on one of the three networks, so if you want it you go to that network. If you don't particularly care then you can go elsewhere.

On that point MDN really has to get its facts straight. There is a big fallacy that if governments insist of customers having choice then it would mean governments having to get involved in running businesses. That has been proven in several cases to be just not the case. I can assure you that Apple aren't complaining about the extra business they are getting in France by being available on all networks and none of the networks are crying about regularly selling all their stock either.

I know saying this is a waste of time, but I really wish MDN would stick to Apple issues and stay out of political punditry. You guys are do a good job of staying on top of Mac and other Apple news, but your take on politics is embarrassingly bad. You have no balance, you have no particular insight, you just repeat the same old conservative talking points. Snore.

TanZing,

And how much does an iPhone cost in France, genius?

Sticktomac,

Can't refute MDN's points, so you demand their silence?

@Regular Reader

I did not ask for "elimination" (are you a gun toting republican by any chance?) I asked for the option (you understand that by asking for a version of their site without the comments, that means option right. . . just checking, like the public heathcare OPTION!).

I did not say I agreed with MDN (why would I otherwise ask for the option of a version without their commnets), I did say I like the fact they bring a lot of good Apple news together in one place. That they do well and I like. Just because I don't like the biased and unilateral viewpoints of MDN does not mean I am not interested in facts. You will rarely see news on Apple on any of the chanels you list (normally the day they launch something but that is not why we all look here right).

Aug 19, 09 - 10:21 am Comment from: Gregg Thurman

Kessler is an idiot.

He decries ATT's "embarrassingly high" wireless margins (25%) while failing to acknowledge that prices are set by ready, willing and able buyers and sellers. ATT's wireless business is growing faster than any others in the US: ergo buyers don't think ATT's prices are too high. Further, one of the prime reasons ATT's wireless business is growing so fast is buyers desire to get the iPhone, which enjoy gross margin of 57%.

The rest of Kessler's diatribe is chock full of equally stupid statements

Aug 19, 09 - 10:29 am Comment from: pk de Cville

Can't believe you write this 'analysis'!

"First of all, data is data. It's absurd and a scam that SMS (texting) is charged separately and extra. But, the consumer agreed to be fleeced this way, did they not?"

1 - I don't know anyone who AGREED to the telecom scam. What planet are you on?

2 - The additional network cost of a texting iPhone user (already paying $30/mo for 'unlimited' data) is a rounding error to AT&T;.

How can they legitimately charge 40 cents a msg (sender and receiver) or $20 extra a month for something that costs nearly nothing?

Note this: Wrt to the iPhone, AT&T;is a monopolist.

Aug 19, 09 - 10:35 am Comment from: His Shadow

I hate analogies. For the most part, they are innaccurate. If you actually believe that molecules are little marbles, you will make all kinds of erroneous assumptions about the nature of matter. For another, analogies are rife with biases and are many times an attempt to drive the discussion down another track.

For the most part, the car analogy works for description of exclusivity arrangements between handset makers and carriers. But it gets away, to some extent, from the rather simple reasons Apple sought an exclusive arraingment: they had never made a phone before. Throwing an untested, unproven device with a 700 dollar price point at every carrier with no support from said carriers would have been a disaster. The arraingment between AT&T;and Apple allowed a degree of integration and flexibility but also control over availability and distribution.

Had Apple had their own wireless bandwidth, this would all be a very different story. But they aren't an ISP.

Please see the bottom of the WSJ article: "Mr. Kessler is a former hedge-fund manager..." Yeah, I'm going to take any advice on business futures from THIS guy? And the blatant Verizon/Sprint mistake about the Pre should give another clue that Mr. Kessler has an inherent inability to scope the landscape. Give him a show on Fox News, but keep him out of intelligent discourse.

Aug 19, 09 - 11:05 am Comment from: Predrag

Josh the iMac Guy said:

..."I have signed my last contract! It expired a few months ago and I will not sign another one."

In today's mobile market place, that is foolish! You are donating your money to Verizon!

I never let my contract expire without renewing it and getting a new phone in the process. Here's why.

When you are on a monthly plan (voice, with or without data), you are paying the minimum of $40 for voice, plus $20-30 for data. With AT&T, this is the absolute minimum, and with most other carriers, it is the same; there aren't any cheaper monthly plans. In other words, if you want a cellphone on a monthly plan, you cannot have it for less than $40 per month. Now, this monthly price includes a subsidy for a phone. When you pay your monthly plan 18 months, part of that money goes towards your free phone. When those 18 months expire, you continue to pay the same money, only now, AT&T (or the carrier of your choice) gets to keep that part. Your monthly bill won't get reduced, now that you have paid off your phone.

As soon as I become eligible for a new subsidised phone, I order it from AT&T. As soon as I get the phone, I ask AT&T for the unlocking instructions and they always give them to me (8 unlocked phones so far). I immediately sell the old (unlocked) phone on eBay. Usually, it fetches between $100 - 150. That way, I have recovered some of the money I have given AT&T for that phone (nominal subsidy is around $200-250). In the end, my actual phone bill is reduced by $7-10 per month, after the sale of the old phone on eBay. In addition, at any given time, my phone is never older than 18 months, which means that there will never be a period of more than 6 months that my phone would be out or warranty.

Letting your two-year subsidised contract expire without getting a new phone is throwing your hard earned money at your carrier. If for any reason you ever need to get out of your contract before it expires, you can always use one of those contract swapping sites (cellswapper.com, celltradeusa.com). You give your existing subsidised phone away, together with the remainder of your contract and you're free of any monthly contract and can sign with whomever you wish.

While the author is wrong about "exclusivity" (no, Apple should not be forced to make a CDMA phone), I agree that tying the iPhone to AT&T is bad.

I have no problem with the idea that AT&T subsidizes the phones, making them available to more people. I just want the option to buy the phone from the manufacturer and take it to a compatible network provider.

If I want to use an iPhone, I should be able to go to Apple and pay $599 to get an iPhone and go to T-mobile (a GSM provider) and say, "I want to use this phone on this network." If the hardware will support it, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to do this.

I don't have a problem with the fact that not all features will be supported. I won't get 3G speeds because T-Mobile uses a different frequency than AT&T (though it would be good if Apple allowed me to change frequency, if such a thing is possible). I won't get Visual Voicemail because the provider doesn't support it (although the provider should be able to get/license the specs from Apple if they want to implement it themselves).

In other words, I can go into AT&T, sign up for their service and get an iPhone for $199 (plus $70/month for two years). Or I can get the specs and info for the iPhone and check with other providers in my area and see what kind of support they offer and buy the phone outright and attach it to their network, with the appropriate caveats.

I think most people will take the "simple" plan. But they at least have an option.

Aug 19, 09 - 01:03 pm Comment from: lurker

I agree with the author. The data path is like roads. You don't have each car maker or oil company building their own roads. They are a public good and should be funded like any public good. What we have now is cell phone companies and cable companies and landline companies all trying to build and maintain their own separate toll roads.

Time to recognize data transfer for what it is, a commodity level public good. Let companies develop brilliant apps and sell them, or brilliant hardware that uses the data transfer infrastructure and sell that. Time for America to have a road (data) to every home.

i hate that exclusive deal with AT&T;as well. so, what is new? AT&T;pretty much has spotty coverage where i live.

So, until that opens up... i really could care less about all the crying going on.

Wouldn't Google Voice have at least been awesome with an iPod Touch? Anyway, i don't have that either... Just my laptop Mac.

the iPhone Mac will wait.

Aug 19, 09 - 01:53 pm Comment from: TanZing

@David,

An iPhone in France starts at €89 (US$125) for a 3G and €159 (US$224.5) for a 3GS and that's including a sales tax of 19.6%). Check for yourself,

http://www.laboutique.bouyguestelecom.fr/selection-telephone-mobiles41.html

All contract phones are subsidised in France without the carrier lock in. Please check your facts and backup your arguments before trying to resort to insults.

And for your information I am a member of MENSA http://www.mensa.org/

Aug 19, 09 - 02:01 pm Comment from: TanZing

@David,

Also in France, by law, a carrier must unlock your phone from the network for free if you ask them to after 6 months. You can also break your contract without at anytime without paying a penalty if you can provide a compelling reason for doind so, such as leaving the country.

So much for big bad socialist Europe.

My apologies in advance as this isn't really a political argument and politics should never be brought into it.

MDN, get a grip. You speculate too far on this Exclusivity issue, and your arguments have no merit. Let me answer your silly questions:

Who's up next?
- Anyone who competes unfairly according to US and/or international laws.

Maybe the government could take over the U.S. wireless industry, too?
- Not bloody likely. Since wireless carriers charge 40-50% higher than European carriers for plans with greater restictions and fees, however, some regulation is in order.


The idea of a limit to the length of exclusive deals is an intriguing idea. What do you think?
- Damn good idea. Likewise, patents and copyrights should be limited to shorter durations than their current overgenerous limits. Hey, if you want "free market", then don't rely on IP protection so that you can have a little monopoly for a while. If you're so ingenious and innovative, then there is no need at all for government or laws to prevent vultures from stealing your ideas or copying your inventions. Why are anticompetitive exclusive deals ("trusts", in 19th century lingo) acceptable?


Did you know that just before General Motors' CEO Rick Wagoner "resigned" at the "request" of the Obama administration, he visited a congressional committee and held up a list of the top 14 vehicles, including the Toyota Camry, that are *gasp* locked down in "exclusives" with other car dealerships?
- No, but let's not gloss over the details. What specific exlusives were Toyota dealers allowed to offer that GM was not?

The big problem with that [limited-term exclusive deals], of course, is what happens say a year or so before the law stipulates that deal must end? Do the subsidies dry up? In other words: Does the iPhone 3G S start at $699 for everyone when it arrives in the last year of legal exclusivity?
- Doubtful that federal law would ever legislate pricing. All a deal time limitation would do to the iPhone is allow other wireless carriers to make deals with Apple -- and likely they would have to pay Apple more or offer some other sweetener than the first carrier in order to compete for the business. This is how a free market is supposed to operate, no?

This is a complicated issue and any legislation is bound to complicate matters further - along with introducing unintended and/or unforeseen consequences. If we let the market decide, then the market has already decided: The exclusive AT&T;and Apple iPhone deal is a raging success. At some point, market forces might require Apple to end their exclusive agreement with AT&T;without government intervention (imagine that).
- raging success for keeping a crappy company like AT&T;in the green

Could iPhone be more of a success with government intervention?
- Yes. Other carriers would have to ante up to get Apple's business. It's not like any other "exclusive" handheld device is keeping the other carriers competitive.

continued answers to silly MDN questions:

An end to exclusivity would likely more market share for iPhone, but not necessarily more profits for carriers and/or Apple. Would carriers' incentive to improve their services be impacted? Would competing handset makers even be able to compete without the advantage of being on networks that don't offer the iPhone? Imagine if iPhone was available on Verizon right now: How long would the pretend iPhone makers last? And, who would pay their employees' unemployment checks? iPhone users, that's who.
- must we go off into mindless speculation of the worst possible outcome? Fact is, the iPhone rocks. Nothing else is going to compete with it for a few years. However, other carriers DO want to pay Apple a premium to support it, and they can't, because Apple sold its soul to AT&T;. It was necessary at first to get the iPhone in the hands of the most people in the shortest period of time, but now the time has come to expand beyond AT&T;'s corral. Funny, but laws against exclusive partnerships in Europe work great, and no company suffers -- while the consumers benefit immensely.


Would the U.S. government force Apple to make device compatible with other wireless standards so it can work on, for example, Verizon's iPhone-incompatible CDMA network?
- No. That's a misunderstanding of Antitrust law.

How many different devices would Apple be legally bound to produce?
- zero.

How much would that cost Apple?
- zero.

Should the government subsidize Apple with our tax dollars for having to produce compatible iPhones under new laws?
- going off topic again, MDN, aren't we? Wireless carriers need no subsidation because, with the exception of inept Sprint, they can practically print money.

Would congress require carriers to allow all of iPhone's features or would they get to alter/exclude those that impact their own services?
- no requirements, no guarantees except that wireless carriers would finally have the chance to deal with Apple rather than being locked out.

What if, even with an iPhone, Sprint keeps hemorrhaging customers?
- then Sprint will lose income. let's not act too stupid, MDN!

Would Apple have to keep supplying iPhones to carriers with bad service, thereby damaging Apple's brand?
- of course not. Apple wouldn't be REQUIRED to do business with any wireless carrier, they would simply not be bound by AT&T;.

Does the government compensate Apple for requiring them to damage their brand by providing iPhones to carriers that can't offer quality service? Do all devices have to have an exclusivity limit or just successful devices? After all, it wouldn't be cost effective to require multiple versions of unsuccessful devices for all qualifying carriers. And what constitutes a qualifying carrier anyway? What would the law define as a successful enough device to trigger exclusivity limits?
- honestly, MDN, you're losing it. May i suggest that you read and understand anti-exclusivity laws that exist in other nations before speculating on how evil they are. In France, for example: Apple has an exlusivity contract with Orange, which of course allows Orange to offer a "subsidized" iPhone that costs little up front. However, French law requires Apple to make available to the public unlocked iPhones (which, being unsubsidized, are a very expensive single purchase). Law also requires that wireless providers that are compatible with the iPhone support the iPhone, even if they didn't sell it -- they make their money by selling time on their networks. Everyone wins, nobody loses. More freedom than the archaic USA, if I do say so myself.

@ TanZing: good job

@ David: mmmm, mmmmm. Tasty crow. Eat up, arrogant boy.

Aug 19, 09 - 04:17 pm Comment from: Big Als MBP

TanZing,

If you were bright enough to be a member of MENSA, you would see that your example shows how controlling Socialist France is over large businesses.

Squeezing company profits lowers taxes. Lowered taxes reduce social benefits. Reduced social benefits causes more protest riots. It's a vicious circle in France.

The more you give the rabble, the more the rabble wants.

Tell me how this puts socialist France in a good light.

@ DGUS;

Your lack of comprehension as to what MDN is, is mind boggling (are you a brain dead Liberal Democrat by any chance?).

Never mind, I answered my own question.

Aug 19, 09 - 05:36 pm Comment from: TanZing

@Big Als MBP,

Please explain how a country that overwhelmingly elected a centre-right government is a socialist country?

Please site examples of where company profits have been squeezed and precisely what taxes have been lowered leading to a reduction in social benefits.I think you will find that French big business is doing very well thank you.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/countries/France.html

If you do your research, you will find that the rioting that has occured in France have more to do with reaction to police action and friction between different echelons of society rather reduction of social benefits. http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/Roy/

Aug 19, 09 - 06:38 pm Comment from: m159

The baseline principle of the original broadcast (all frequencies) legal code was this: the airways belong to the people. Frequencies could only be leased. The FCC was be the watchdog agency and all licenses had to be renewed through public hearings to guard against monopolistic accretion, price gauging, over commercialization, and incitement to violence. All this went out the window during Reagan and Bush administrations. ATT should be in fear of losing their frequencies, but they are not.

Tower, I must disagree with you. the comparison would be if I went into the Verizon store and demanded a contract with ATT or Sprint. But, a phone is a phone and they can and do work on multiple networks in places like Europe.

I can easily get a no contract prepay phone for $50 a month or less that gives me more talk time, more 'free' text message and enough data megabytes to cover my needs. All this at a price that is less than what I pay under the contract. The only thing the contract buys me is a 'free' or reduced price phone. The prepay phone might cost me an additional $100. I make this up in 5 to 6 months due to the lower monthly chargesof the prepay plan.

As I said, if Verizon ever decides to do away with my plan, I am going to a prepay.

Apple has the right to sign an exclusive contract with ATT or wish to. I have the right to not buy an iPhone if I cant get it with the provider I want at the price I want. It's that simple.

Aug 19, 09 - 11:35 pm Comment from: Macrelated

@Mike
@TanZing

Bravo! Well done! Good job to both of you!

I've had the experience of buying service in France and Japan, and I must say that US carriers are much better. Our prices our pretty low, especially given the coverage areas. Japan and France are tiny compared to the US. Yet they charge about the same as we do. In fact, email or texting with a cell phone is usually how communication is done b/c of the exorbitant cost of voice calls there.

People who state that AT&T;should be forced out of exclusivity with Apple should remember that it's the exclusivity deal that brought the iPhone deal in the first place. If contracts like this can be torn up, what is the likelihood that they would be created in the future?

Also, please note that AT&T;has over 9 billion dollars invested in bettering its network this year. http://sprintconnection.kansascity.com/?q=node/995

Aug 20, 09 - 06:44 am Comment from: TanZing

@E,

Whilst I wouldn't say that US carriers are better than the European ones, I would agree that they are certainly cheaper. I'm always amazed at everyone in the US complaining about how expensive AT&T;iPhone plans are. I think you'll find that just about everything is much cheaper in the US than in Europe. I've had friends that would regularly take a flight to NYC from Europe to spend the day (or a couple of days) shopping then fly back as it would still work out cheaper than buying the same things in Europe.

As to email/texting versus voice calls, what you say is certainly the case for the under 25s, but you generally find that working people don't really text much. It is just a fact of life that the cost of calls are what they are. You should do a comparison for the price of gas (petrol) between the US and Europe. Most Americans are totally shocked when they find out that Europeans are paying a hell of a lot more than they are.

I'm not sure if you are really making the argument that iPhone came into being because of the exclusive with AT&T;. I think that's a bit of a stretch. Apple would have produced the iPhone with or without the exclusive deal. The deal only meant they had to deal with just one "orifice" initially rather than several and it gave them more say in how the service was delivered, such as iTunes activation.