NYTimes: Europe Weighs iPhone Sale Deals With Carriers for Antitrust Abuse

[krumme]

"In most cases, Apple sets a quota for how many iPhones the carrier needs to sell over a set period of time, usually three years. If it does not agree to the quotas, it does not receive the iPhone.

If quotas are not met, the carrier is obligated to pay Apple for unsold devices, according to one person who negotiated with Apple while at a European carrier.
"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/b...r-scrutiny-in-europe.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Changed to a less ambiguous title
-ViRGE

 

[Fingolfin269]

Do you have any opinion on this? I know it's not P&N but I'd like to understand what you're shooting for here.

 

[ImDonly1]

No surprise, look at how Sprint got the iPhone $$$$$.
Why doesn't t-mobile carry the iPhone $$$$.

And look at what happens when a provider does get the iPhone, increased fees everywhere.

VZW and ATT I believe also had internal memos making associates promote android and other phones over the iPhone because they don't make much profit off the iPhone and it is costly for them to offer.

 

[QueBert]

And look at what happens when a provider does get the iPhone, increased fees everywhere.

Lies, I had Verizon years before they had the iPhone and my plan with data was $110 a month, it's cheaper now.

 

[foghorn67]

Lies, I had Verizon years before they had the iPhone and my plan with data was $110 a month, it's cheaper now.

Anecdotal arguments won't help you here.

 

[MrX8503]

I don't understand your thread title.

Anywho, its well known that Apple requires carriers to buy a huge stock of iPhones. One of the main reasons why tmobile hasn't carried the iPhone.

 

[Mopetar]

They don't have to sell the iPhone if they don't want to. If they don't think the terms are fair, don't agree with them.

Otherwise, I find it absolutely hilarious that a cellular provider is complaining about expensive contracts and restrictive quotas. Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it Mr. Carrier?

 

[Fingolfin269]

They don't have to sell the iPhone if they don't want to. If they don't think the terms are fair, don't agree with them.

Otherwise, I find it absolutely hilarious that a cellular provider is complaining about expensive contracts and restrictive quotas. Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it Mr. Carrier?

Seriously, it's going to be nigh impossible to make me ever feel bad for a US carrier.

 

[dagamer34]

No surprise, look at how Sprint got the iPhone $$$$$.
Why doesn't t-mobile carry the iPhone $$$$.

And look at what happens when a provider does get the iPhone, increased fees everywhere.

VZW and ATT I believe also had internal memos making associates promote android and other phones over the iPhone because they don't make much profit off the iPhone and it is costly for them to offer.

T-Mobile will carry the iPhone, they just won't sell it subsidized. When you make it perfectly clear how much a phone costs, phone OEMs can't arbitrarily increase the price every year. That's why I think the subsidy system is broken because people actually think phones cost $200.

 

[bearxor]

have the OEM's been increasing the prices?

The last device I bought off contract was the PPC-6600, and it cost $600. Before that, the Toshiba 2032SP ran me $650. Prices seem kind of flat from where I'm at.

 

[QueBert]

Anecdotal arguments won't help you here.

I dunno, the fact 5 years ago I had a plan which costs more than their most expensive plan now tells me it's not just anecdotal

And looking at the rest of the plans, they're cheaper across the board.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I dunno, the fact 5 years ago I had a plan which costs more than their most expensive plan now tells me it's not just anecdotal

And looking at the rest of the plans, they're cheaper across the board.

Plus I didn't realize carrier pricing really had much of an anecdotal basis anyway. Sure your story is anecdotal. But it's not like the pricing structure is variable.

 

[Dari]

We all know what's going on here. It's another European Union shakedown of a successful American company. In order to justify their outrageous socialist system they always take successful American companies to court and demand that they pay billions in fines, penalties and court fees. They then pass the money to lazy Europeans who refuse to work. Their favorite victims used to be Intel and Microsoft. With the rise of mobile firms, it's now Apple and Google...

 

[lothar]

"In most cases, Apple sets a quota for how many iPhones the carrier needs to sell over a set period of time, usually three years. If it does not agree to the quotas, it does not receive the iPhone.

If quotas are not met, the carrier is obligated to pay Apple for unsold devices, according to one person who negotiated with Apple while at a European carrier."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/b...r-scrutiny-in-europe.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I fail to see a problem.

 

[gorcorps]

The title makes it sound like it involves employees, but it very much doesn't. Fail thread

 

[krumme]

have the OEM's been increasing the prices?

Yes they have (edit: as indicated in article). Its a consequence of the pratice. Nokia did it before apple. The problem is obviously it hinders competition and is bad for us consumers because it keeps (edit: prevents) new phones and brands to enter the market; its the purpose of it. In a year it will probably be samsung using the same practice. For sure its only the consumers that pay.

 

[Mopetar]

We all know what's going on here. It's another European Union shakedown of a successful American company. In order to justify their outrageous socialist system they always take successful American companies to court and demand that they pay billions in fines, penalties and court fees. They then pass the money to lazy Europeans who refuse to work. Their favorite victims used to be Intel and Microsoft. With the rise of mobile firms, it's now Apple and Google...

Or the laws in Europe are different than those in the U.S. and American companies need to comply with them of they wish to do business in Europe. No need to blow things out of proportion. That and it's unlikely that anything will come of this.

 

[Dari]

Or the laws in Europe are different than those in the U.S. and American companies need to comply with them of they wish to do business in Europe. No need to blow things out of proportion. That and it's unlikely that anything will come of this.

Knowing how Europe works and knowing that they know how deep Apple's pockets are, I am almost 100% sure that something will come of this. The continent is dying from its own laws, choking competition and smothering success and progress. The people there have an entitlement psyche. Sickening.

Ford to spend $750 Million just to close a plant.

 

[Phynaz]

But some of Apple’s competitors complain that the big purchases Apple requires from carriers strongly pressure them to devote most of their marketing budgets to the iPhone, leaving little money to promote competing devices, said an executive at one of Apple’s rivals, who declined to be named to avoid jeopardizing carrier relationships.

There's the answer.

I wonder who is complaining?

 

[MrX8503]

Carriers are juggernauts and Apple was the only one to force their way through. Competitors may have a hard time entering the market because of Apple, but remember that Apple started at 0% marketshare too.

If anything Apple paved the way for other phone manufacturers to discuss terms with carriers where in the past it was the carriers way or the highway.