Court Order Against German T-Mobile iPhone Sales

An anonymous reader writes "In a strange move, Vodafone applied for and was granted a restraining order against T-Mobile to prohibit the sale of iPhone in Germany. A regional court in Hamburg has issued a restraining order. According to CNNMoney.com: 'Specifically, Vodafone is questioning the iPhone's exclusive use in T-Mobile's network and the use of the device being limited to certain fees within T-Mobile's subscription offerings.' Vodaphone says they are not trying to halt iPhone sales completely; they seem to want a court to examine the questions of exclusivity and licensing."

Comments

Sigh

[atari2600]

From the article

Specifically, Vodafone is questioning the iPhone's exclusive use in T-Mobile's network and the use of the device being limited to certain fees within T- Mobile's subscription offerings.
That doesn't make sense (to me) - it's none of Vodaphone's business. The above would have made sense if they threw the words "consumer" and "choice". But, oh, that would be too much to ask. Who gives a heck about the consumer?

Vodafone isn't generally opposed to T-Mobile's exclusivity contract with Apple, but wants to have these new sales practices examined, the spokesman said. The restraining order doesn't aim at a total sales stop, he added. Yawn. Sue Apple for calling the shots here - not Tmobile and it's bloody fucking ironic how Apple decided only ATT would be its bitch in the US and went for Tmobile on the other side of the ocean.

Re:Sigh

[NMerriam]

The above would have made sense if they threw the words "consumer" and "choice". But, oh, that would be too much to ask. Who gives a heck about the consumer?

You're criticizing the word choice of the (ridiculously brief) article, not the lawsuit or the laws the suit is based on.

Re:Sigh

[JackMeyhoff]

Actually it is their business. Its called being anti competitive which is very illegal in Europe.

Re:Sigh

[PopeRatzo]

Its called being anti competitive which is very illegal in Europe.

What a backward place! Here in the U$A, we have our priorities straight and we know that we all work for the corporations. There's none of this sissy "consumer rights" stuff.

Re:Sigh

[jimicus]

Sue Apple for calling the shots here

No. Doesn't make any sense.

If Apple wanted to just sell the phone, they could sell it without a contract through their usual retail channels. (A number of the iPhone's features depend on the network supporting them, so it wouldn't have been such an easy sell, but that's Apple's problem). But instead they approached a number of telcos across the world and asked them to sell the phone with a contract attached to it. Every telco had the option of reading the contract and replying to the effect that what Apple wanted to do in a particular market was illegal, and thus they could not sign the contract.

But mobile telephone companies tend to be large organisations that consider themselves if not completely above the law, certainly in a position where it's fairly negotiable.

Re:Sigh

[Jesus_666]

it's bloody fucking ironic how Apple decided only ATT would be its bitch in the US and went for Tmobile on the other side of the ocean.

Who else? AT&T doesn't exist over here and T-Mobile owns the D1 network, which has the most subscribers. Competitors like Vodafone, O2 or E-Plus are big, but not quite as big as T-Mobile, which had a huge advantage as it evolved out of the earlier federal post's telephone service.

T-Mobile really was the obvious choice.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Competitors like Vodafone, O2 or E-Plus are big, but not quite as big as T-Mobile, which had a huge advantage as it evolved out of the earlier federal post's telephone service. Both T-Mobile and Vodafone started (under other names) in Germany in 1992. For the first 8 years, Vodafone was larger than T-Mobile. Now T-Mobile is slightly larger, but given that it took them 8 years to become market leader does not really support your claim that they had a "huge advantage" by being owned by the former state monopoly.

Re:Sigh

[put_the_cat_out]

Europe also has a different philosophy on anti-competitive practices. In the US, the purpose of antitrust laws is, at least theoretically, for the sole benefit of the consumer. In contrast, Europe doesn't have the "we do it to protect the consumer" lip service. Instead, Europe recognizes that one of the purposes of laws ensuring fair competition in the marketplace is to protect business competitors.

Re:Sigh

[Firethorn]

While the apple iPhone is indeed the 'hot' new device, and does offer a currently unique set of features, should anybody be pretending that this will sink any cell phone provider that doesn't get the iPhone?

As for the limited rate selection - why not? It's a PDA, data services are probably assumed.

Re:Sigh

[fangorious]

I think the OP was complaining that in the U.S.A Apple partnered with AT&T instead of T-Mobile.

Re:Sigh

[semenzato]

With some exceptions, most notably the cell phone industry, Europe has far less consumer protection than the US, and far more anticompetitive regulations. For instance, try to buy cold medicine at the Venice airport on a Sunday.

Re:Sigh

[houghi]

And in the UK it is O2 that they have a deal with.

Apple just looks at each country what will be the best deal they can get. Which one will give them the biggest patrt of their profit.

Luckily/unfortunatly selling locked phones in Belgium is against the law, so no Iphones here. OTOH, we have the best beers in the world, so who realy cares.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the essence of the issue is that US anti competition law is intended to protect consumers from companies where as EU anti competition law is intended to protect companies from each other.

Neither is especially right or wrong, but both tend to offend the moral sensibilities of someone with the opposing viewpoint.

Re:Sigh

[Kizeh]

What's ironic is that US T-Mobile subscribers can't get it. I wonder what would happen if a German T-Mobile iPhone subscriber were to come over to the US with their phone...

Re:Sigh

[Mattsson]

Regardless of if it would sink other network-operators not to be allowed to offer service to users of iPhones, the practice of not allowing certain operators to offer service to your hardware might be illegal.
It might also be illegal to require a certain subscription for a certain phone.
As I understand it, this is what is being tested.

If it is illegal, Apple will either have to stop selling their phones in the EU, or let their customers choose operator and subscription freely, like the other mobile-phone manufacturers do.

Also, I haven't seen any subscriptions the last six years or so where data service doesn't come as standard. Probably since MMS and many other mobile services are dependent on this.

Re:Sigh

[SillyNickName4me]

While the apple iPhone is indeed the 'hot' new device, and does offer a currently unique set of features, should anybody be pretending that this will sink any cell phone provider that doesn't get the iPhone?

Not as such no.

What is does is prevent one of the things that have caused the mobile market in the EU to function as well as it does, the seperation of hardware and services.

As for the limited rate selection - why not? It's a PDA, data services are probably assumed.

Because it limits choice for consumers.
Why shouldn't I be able to buy a phone seperately from my subscription?
Why shouldn't I be able to get a different subscription and keep using my phone?

Why should I? because it means more choice for me as a consumer, and it means providers have to stay competitive in their services instead of being able to 'buy' into fashionable items. It makes it easier for new providers to enter the market because they can directly compete on quality of service instead of exclusive fashion items.

Oh, but why not let the market figure it out?

The market could quite figure it out if most consumers were well informed. Its often kinda ignored, but informed customers are an essential part of a functioning free market, and if you don't have those, you'll have to compensate for that or you end up with effective monopolies.

Its one reason why if 2 products can be seperated easily (in this case a phone using the GSM standard, and the GSM network service) then in general, you can sell them as a bundle as long as you also allow people to buy the products seperately. Some parts of the EU have stronger laws in this then others, but the basic idea stays the same. This is the same kind of issue that Microsoft ran into with regards to tying things into Windows that are technically seperate products. Sure, they can do that as long as they also allow you to buy the unbundeled products.

Re:Sigh

[SillyNickName4me]

With some exceptions, most notably the cell phone industry, Europe has far less consumer protection than the US, and far more anticompetitive regulations. For instance, try to buy cold medicine at the Venice airport on a Sunday.

Sales of medicine is heavily regulated in the EU. How nice your example is in fact the exception and not the rule.

Re:Sigh

[nosferatu1001]

Huh? LESS consumer protection?

Are you smoking a crack pipe?

Lets see - UK Sales of Goods Act 1974. Any goods unfit for purpose can be returned, with no exception. Minimum 1 year warranty on all goods (about to be 2 years to bring in line with rest of Europe) as well - none of this 90 day rubbish

UK Distance Selling regs (applies to companies on Ebay as well :) ) - if the goods arrive and you dont like them you can return them within 7 days of reciept. NO RESTOCKING fee can be applied to this.

Trades Descriptions Acts - statutory penalties for mis selling goods, including jail time.

Shall I continue?

Re:Sigh

[semenzato]

This may be just Italy. My experience with the other countries is skimpy at best. But my experience as a consumer in Italy is vastly inferior to the USA---except, as I said, as far as mobile phones are concerned. Never mind trying to buy overpriced aspirin on a Sunday or a Wednesday afternoon. Most store owners' attitude is that they are doing you a favor by making their merchandise available to you. Forget about returning an item for refund, two hours after you buy it, and still in the unopened original package. You're lucky if you get store credit after invoking a lifetime of friendship between the store owner's aunt and your grandmother. Store policies like Costco's are a DREAM in Italy.

I won't claim things are perfect here. With cell phones, I am as annoyed as anybody else who understands what goes on. In fact, until recently my phone was an unlocked Nokia bought in Italy which I used in both countries, swapping the SIM. Yet, I now own an iPhone. It's a tradeoff that works for me. If it eventually gets unlocked, that's good. If not, I'll keep using the Nokia in Italy---no big deal.

I don't know what the consumer laws are in Italy, but local culture is also a factor. I don't know anybody who spends time in both Italy and USA and disagrees with my view. Italy is nice for a lot of things. This isn't one of them.

Re:Sigh

[Jesus_666]

That's true, of course. However, starting a mobile branch was the obvious way to go for the former sole telco, thus later-T-Mobile was one of the two companies that got hold of the market first. Looking at the market, T-Mobile and Vodafone are much bigger than O2 and E-Plus. The advantage might not be monopoly-sized, but it is noticable, nontheless.

Re:Sigh

[doktor-hladnjak]

The phone almost certainly would roam onto T-Mobile's US GSM network. Visual voicemail work or it might not. The subscriber would be paying exorbitant roaming rates and would of course still have a German phone number though. AT&T has roaming agreements in most countries that have a GSM network right now, which means you can take a US iPhone on AT&T to Germany and have it work on one or more of T-Mobile, O2 or Vodafone's network.

Re:Sigh

[Capsaicin]

In the US, the purpose of antitrust laws is, at least theoretically, for the sole benefit of the consumer.

Nonesense! As someone who has actually read excerpts from the congressional debate apropos the Sherman Act (the orginal anti-trust law) along with its provisions, allow me to disabuse you:

The purpose of US antitrust law, both theoretically and in the actual wording used is to protect "trade and commerce" from monopolists and cartells. The Clayton Act specifically grants standing to someone "injured in their business". I doubt that a consumer qua consumer, even today has any means of accessing anti-trust law.

As is clear from the speeches in Congress, the purpose of the drafters of the American law was to protect a particular (utopian?) vision of democracy, namely one comprised overwhelmingly of small business men and contractors, independent and in competition with one; and to avoid a society of large corporations with a population comprised mainly of employees.

I can't speak for European competion law, but I would imagine, that much like ours in Australia, it is substantially based on the ideas developed in turn-of-the-century (19->20th) USA.

Re:Sigh

[lpq]

"it's bloody fucking ironic how Apple decided only ATT would be its bitch in the US and went for Tmobile on the other side of the ocean" - It makes sense. Apple wouldn't want either eliminated -- competition, in this case, is good for Apple.

Re:Sigh

[cthulhu11]

It's not clear that a GSM phone and GSM service are as independent as you indicate. I've seen a GSM phone work in only a very small area of a country that has GSM everywhere.

Re:Sigh

[SillyNickName4me]

It's not clear that a GSM phone and GSM service are as independent as you indicate. I've seen a GSM phone work in only a very small area of a country that has GSM everywhere.

And why was that?
You should be able to get a card from a provider that does a better job at providing actual coverage, or a subscription that isn't limited to a specific area.

The independence between phone and service are exactly about being able to do that, not about what specific services one specific network offers at which location.

Re:Sigh

[cthulhu11]

So, when traveling to, say, New Zealand, you're saying that it's entirely reasonable to have to pre-purchase a SIM card from every provider, and rotate them through one's phone looking for one that works every time one wants to make a call? How is this an advantage over the US, where for the most part CDMA phones work almost everwhere?

Re:Sigh

[SillyNickName4me]

So, when traveling to, say, New Zealand, you're saying that it's entirely reasonable to have to pre-purchase a SIM card from every provider, and rotate them through one's phone looking for one that works every time one wants to make a call?

Last I checked, New Zealand is not exactly part of the EU or Europe even. That they adapted the GSM standard does not mean they adapted the EU regulations, and it so happens we were discussing those.

Also, a small difference might be that when you stay inside the USA, you stay within the same country?

I have to wonder, are you always this dense?

How is this an advantage over the US, where for the most part CDMA phones work almost everwhere?

When I am travelling to say Germany or New Zealand for that matter, I have a choice between 2 options:

1. Keep my (Dutch) card, and I can be called and call on about every GSM network outside the Netherlands (more precise, every network that my provider has a roaming contract with, which in practise is virtually every GSM network in any country), which works out exactly

2. Buy a local prepay card or subscription, which might work as well and be cheaper, depending on circumstances.

See, you have choice, whereas your CDMA phone wouldn't work outside your country at all.

I'm boggled by how you somehow manage to miss the later.

Re:Sigh

[cthulhu11]

I'm "boggled" by how rude you are, and how completely you're missing my points. I never claimed that NZ is part of the EU or Europe, and that has nothing to do with the discussion. GSM fanboys tout GSM as working everywhere, so country boundaries shouldn't matter. Perhaps your magic Dutch SIM card would work everywhere in NZ, but I've seen personally that a GSM phone from the US doesn't. Claiming that the phones work everywhere with GSM is sophistry, given that one apparently still has to rip them apart and pay for a collection of [fragile] SIM cards to get them to work across borders. And, actually, my CDMA phone did work in many parts of NZ.

Re:Sigh

[SillyNickName4me]

I'm "boggled" by how rude you are, and how completely you're missing my points. I never claimed that NZ is part of the EU or Europe, and that has nothing to do with the discussion.

It has a lot to do with the discussion seeing how it is about 'Court Order Against German T-Mobile iPhone Sales' and the purpose of the mobile phone related regulations in the EU.

Sure, you can bring in countries outside the EU and expand the discussion, but if you do so, maybe take a look at their local regulations and contrast them with those in the EU together with looking for which turns out better?

GSM fanboys tout GSM as working everywhere, so country boundaries shouldn't matter. Perhaps your magic Dutch SIM card would work everywhere in NZ, but I've seen personally that a GSM phone from the US doesn't.

And surely enough, both the USA and New Zealand have different regulations regarding mobile phone networks then the EU. It shows why the regulations for this in the EU work, but I doubt it was the point you were trying to make.

Your beef is with your provider and their crappy roaming contracts, find a better one.

Claiming that the phones work everywhere with GSM is sophistry, given that one apparently still has to rip them apart and pay for a collection of [fragile] SIM cards to get them to work across borders. And, actually, my CDMA phone did work in many parts of NZ.

My GSM phone has worked about everywhere where I went, thanks to my provider having roaming provisions with almost every other provider in the world, and at a very decent price.

This has everything to do with providers and their services, and absolutely nothing with GSM technology.

What has to do with GSM technology is that even when I can't get roaming somewhere (which never happened) or when it is economically interesting (because I stay somewhere for a longer time, and having local call fees is going to matter enough, which happens at times), there is alternative in the form of picking up a local sim.

Re:Sigh

[SwedishPenguin]

Perhaps your magic Dutch SIM card would work everywhere in NZ, but I've seen personally that a GSM phone from the US doesn't. That's because the US uses non-standard frequencies for their GSM network. If you want your phone to work in New Zealand, you'll have to buy a quad-band phone that can operate on both standard bands as well as both US bands. (The US is doing the same with UMTS and HSDPA, choosing non-standard frequencies)

People like to complain.

[djh101010]

I can't help but think that there would be about the same number of people bitching about this, regardless of if the contracted partner with Apple was AT&T, Cingular, T-mobile, Sprint, EIEIO, ROFL, or any other provider. For any product, it comes with (list) of (limitations), take it or leave it. All I can say, is that my $AT&T contract is $20 less per month than my Verizon contract for my Palm 600, so the iPhone pays for itself. If people want to be pissed off by this, (shrug) OK, go ahead, but, workflow and usability matter for something for me. Saving 20 bucks a month matters too. Between both, the iPhone makes sense for me regardless of who I have to contract with. People who complain about this, I'm guessing, just like to bitch about things without any particular reason for same other than having something to complain about. Eventually you grow out of that whole "indignation based on look dammit" thing and get on with life. Get on with life. Or not. Your choice. But fact remains, the device is well thought out, the workflow works, and only people who choose to not like it will not like it. It is waht it is, and what is is, is pretty damn well thought out. Get over it.

Re:People like to complain.

[Dunbal]

Apple was AT&T, Cingular, T-mobile, Sprint, EIEIO, ROFL, or any other provider.

      Damn, I tried signing up with EIEIO for a couple months. My calls would constantly be interrupted by weird animal noises, especially ducks. And I could only get a signal in two places - on my farm and, strangely, at any McDonald's restaurant. Obviously I told them they could shove it.

Re:People like to complain.

[BlueParrot]

I don't know what laws are like in your jurisdiction, but many European countries, and indeed the EU itself has very strict laws with regards to what restrictions you may and may not place on consumers. If a company follows these rules and a competitor is allowed to violate them without the authorities taking action, then I could very much understand that they feel pissed. It is not as much a matter about weather these laws are sensible or not, as it is a matter of them being equal for everyone. Basically, if the law requires Vodaphone to comply with A, B and C then they have all right to be pissed if their competitors can ignore A, B or C without consequences. That the consumers may or may not benefit from Vodaphone's legal action is just a side effect, and it can be debated if it is good or bad.

Re:People like to complain.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The US case for iPhone is different. I hear that the German plan is more expensive than most competing plans.

Re:People like to complain.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but think that there would be about the same number of people bitching about this
People who complain about this, I'm guessing, just like to bitch about things without any particular reason for same other than having something to complain about.

But yet you feel inclined to bitch about the people bitching? Doesn't that make you part of same group of people you are referring too? Funny indeed.

and only people who choose to not like it will not like it.
Really?

Re:People like to complain.

[BlueParrot]

Heh! If I had mod points I would give you +1 informative. I guess the spellchecker isn't quite self-aware yet, and English is not my first language. ; )

Re:People like to complain.

[PineGreen]

...so the iPhone pays for itself.

Dude, get 10 of them and leave job!

Re:People like to complain.

[masdog]

I had them for a while too. Mine kept singing old Nellie songs and sportin' band-aids on one side of the case. And the worst part was that it only worked in East St. Louis.

Re:People like to complain.

[slaingod]

The issue is not about the device. The issue is about the restictive service. I would go out and buy an iPhone tomorrow if Verizon carried it, as Verizon is the ONLY carrier in NYC that I get reception from in my apartment. All coverage/service is not created equal, and in my case there is literally only one provider I can use. Don't get me wrong, Verizon is a pos as well as far as their phone selection. I'm using an XV6700 that's 2 years old, and that is still the most recent model they carry in a full sized PDA phone. God forbid the HTC Touch or XV6800 be available. And of course you can't just go out and buy a compatible phone and bring it into the network.

Re:People like to complain.

[Chuqmystr]

I've got a few things I'd like to bitch about which I like to think are credible. Now mind you, I'm quite the Apple Whore and I HATE Verizon Wireless unto whom I'm tethered but will begrudgingly extol some benefits of.

iPhone is neat but for the TRUE mobile warrior/wackadoo like me it's cute and flashy but fairly useless. I've clocked far too many hours on trains, buses and other inconvenient places for connectivity tethered to some form of cellular data. Tmobile, VZW, Cingular-ATT-HUGE-monopilistic-turd. So far, VZW and ATT have the faster and more useable networks, at least here in the Southwestern parts of the US. VZW slightly wins out in price.

VZW does allow me to tether a laptop for my needs, pretty much unfettered. The few crappy smartphones they offer allow me to run mostly whatever apps I want, again, mostly unfettered. Let me qualify "unfettered". As long as I don't get stupid - big bit torrents, constant hosting, lots of streaming - that sort of stuff, they leave me alone. On my handsets I can sync to what I want, ssh into stuff, get any kind of email, many useful things a mobile sysadmin needs. It ain't sexy and is kludgy (and the windoze phones always suck) but it can always be made to work reliably (your fiddling milage may very from handset to handset) without fear of a pushed firmware upgrade creaming my work environment. No one with said needs can honestly claim that sort of thing from the iPhone. Laptop tethering isn't even an option. I'd buy one as-is if it were.

I do like the iPhone (except for that damned virtual KYB) but for my needs, and surprisingly I've found many more like me than I ever expected to, it simply doesn't fit my needs. The constant hackery a la PSP won't cut it when I need to reliably be able to simply shell into the mothership and slap down some alert or what have you. Ssh on a cellphone is both a painful and useful thing and the complete denial of a tether to a more suited computer is just deplorable.

I understand what Apple is trying to sell but man, they needed to release it with the SDK from the get-go and allow for a tethering option, even if it were at $ATT's gawd-awful prices. They should have done 3G too. IMHO, they should have let loose the iPod touch first and then the phone. But whatever, I'm not switching bloodsucking carriers for at least another two years. I got my crackberry 8830 which is an okay replacement for the Palm 700p, the palm that could have been but never was. *Shrugs* Well At least it's not a Windoze phone...

--Only SIX puppies were harmed in this posting. Not SEVEN! SIX PUPPIES! Don't you get it man? Why would anyone want to do SEVEN puppies when they can get it done with SIX?!?

Re:People like to complain.

[Paradise Pete]

Your English is better than 90% of slashdotters (and of course 100% of the editors). If it's not your first language that's impressive.

Re:People like to complain.

[petermgreen]

have you ever tried just dropping your sim into an unlocked phone?

Re:People like to complain.

[MrMickS]

You miss the point. Apple knows that they only have to cater to a particular segment of the market with the initial phone offering. It doesn't have to hit all of the spots for all users, just enough of them. Its had wow reviews everywhere in the mainstream press and does what it does very well. It does enough for most people in most of the target markets. That's enough for a version 1.0 device.

WRT to releasing an SDK. Apple didn't need the SDK to be available from the off. They can sell all of the phones they make without one. In order to support the long term viability of the iPhone an SDK will help, most people will probably just use what ships with the phone though.

Leaving off 3G and only having a paltry 8GB of storage gives a nice update path for Apple. They can double the storage, add 3G, and bring in iPhone 2 at the original high end price point. This will help sustain the iPhone buzz in 6-12 months time.

Re:People like to complain.

[Name Anonymous]

have you ever tried just dropping your sim into an unlocked phone?
In the USA, only AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM and Sim cards. (At least of the 4 large carriers.) So for Verizon Wireless users, there is no sim card to just drop in. Also Verizon and Sprint use different encoding methods and radio frequencies from the GSM based carriers - another barrier to phone choice.

However, there are companies that sell phones compatible with the various networks. You do not have to get a phone through Verizon. The third party phones tend to be a little more expensive as they aren't subsidized by the carriers.

In truth, I'd rtaher the phones be more expensive and the monthly fees be lower.

Re:People like to complain.

[dwater]

> If it's not your first language that's impressive. ...then it's your second language that's impressive?

At least finished the sentence! Tsk.

Re:People like to complain.

[tkrotchko]

Verizon won't activate a phone unless they provide it. Of course, finding a CDMA phone outside of Verizon is a challenge, but even if you get one from Sprint or Alltel I think you'll find Verizon will not activate it.

Verizon has a good network, but they are not consumer friendly when it comes to equipment choice.

Re:People like to complain.

[Firethorn]

Except that AT&T doesn't even want to talk to me where I live, there's huge gobs of the country where the IPhone won't even work. Not huge gobs of the population, but still, I'm going to get a cell phone that works where I live. I haven't seen a live iPhone yet because of this.

Irks me a bit, sure, but I just figure it's Apple's loss.

Re:People like to complain.

[Name Anonymous]

Actually, if you use the online account management stuff, you can do your own phone activation. Presuming you have a phone that is compatible with Verizon's network.

There are authorized Verizon Wireless shops that provide phones that work that Verizon never sold.

So there is more than one way around it being a Verizon sold phone.

Re:People like to complain.

[Paradise Pete]

f it's not your first language, that's impressive.

Re:People like to complain.

[Mister Whirly]

All of your grammars is belong to us.

Re:People like to complain.

[djh101010]

The issue is not about the device. The issue is about the restictive service. I would go out and buy an iPhone tomorrow if Verizon carried it, as Verizon is the ONLY carrier in NYC that I get reception from in my apartment. All coverage/service is not created equal, and in my case there is literally only one provider I can use.

(This is strange, the thread seems to be back from 10 days ago? So if I've made this point already feel free to disregard). If Verizon was the only carrier for the iPhone, I probably wouldn't be able to use it. My Treo was locked to Verizon and was mostly unusable at my house. Which really sucks when you're on call and drop calls constantly during Sev-1 issues. So in my case AT&T worked out well, where Verizon wouldn't have. Unless the problem was with the Treo rather than Verizon, that's possible too, not sure.

Re:People like to complain.

[djh101010]

I

iPhone is neat but for the TRUE mobile warrior/wackadoo like me it's cute and flashy but fairly useless.

Hmm, meets my needs pretty completely and combined 3 devices into 1 (Treo, ipod, and camera) with just the stock features.

VZW does allow me to tether a laptop for my needs, pretty much unfettered.

Tethering was one of the first things people got working with the iPhone actually. Google for "Nate True" for the details, I think he's the guy who did it first and has written it up the most completely.

On my handsets I can sync to what I want, ssh into stuff, get any kind of email, many useful things a mobile sysadmin needs.

ssh client and sshd have been out for months for the iPhone (and iPod touch of course). Email app native on the iPhone supports yahoo, gmail, .mac, AOL, IMAP, POP, and Exchange. My Outlook calendar at work synchs to it without problem. The system even renders .xls and .doc attachments properly unless they're doing something _very_ strange and exotic.

It ain't sexy and is kludgy (and the windoze phones always suck) but it can always be made to work reliably (your fiddling milage may very from handset to handset) without fear of a pushed firmware upgrade

Apple _never_ pushes updates. When you go into iTunes to sync (if you choose to use iTunes for syncing), it will let you know there's a new version available and asks if you want it - or if you want to stop being reminded.

No one with said needs can honestly claim that sort of thing from the iPhone. Laptop tethering isn't even an option. I'd buy one as-is if it were. Seriously, google Nate True's website, he had it working shortly after the iPhone came out. I used it for a presentation a few weeks ago when I found the place I was going to be presenting had no WIFI or network drops. iPhone using edge connection, running a proxy server. iPhone pulled a DHCP wifi address (ad-hoc) from my laptop, then I pointed the laptop to the iPhone's wifi IP address as the web proxy server.

I do like the iPhone (except for that damned virtual KYB) but for my needs, and surprisingly I've found many more like me than I ever expected to, it simply doesn't fit my needs. The keyboard took me about a week to get used to but, again coming from a Treo, I like this one much better. The buttons are larger, and you only have to be somewhat close-ish. The autocorrect and autocomplete features work very well. "OK, that' s not a word but here's something with the same number of letters that is most likely to be what you meant...or if it's a word, click it to add it to the dictionary" type thing. They even had the foresight to automatically add names in your contacts list to the dictionary so it doesn't autocorrect names of people you've entered there. That sort of workflow intelligence isn't something they can highlight in a 30 second commercial, obviously.

I understand what Apple is trying to sell but man, they needed to release it with the SDK from the get-go and allow for a tethering option, even if it were at $ATT's gawd-awful prices. A third party SDK has been out for months, and the official Apple one will be out in a couple months. And tethering, we've covered.

Re:People like to complain.

[techpawn]

My calls would constantly be interrupted by weird animal noises, especially ducks. And I could only get a signal in two places

I looked at EIEIO for service too but I could only get a quack, quack here and a quack, quack there...

Re:People like to complain.

[mrwolf007]

Well, you have no chance of guessing what reply i got when i called 555-ROFL to sign up....

Re:People like to complain.

[lems1]

now this is why i luv reading /.

ROFL

Interesting business in Germany?

[giminy]

So if I get this straight, in Germany if Company A offers me $X dollars for my product, and Company B offers me $X+5, and I decide to do business only with Company B because I don't like Company A's deal, Company A can then sue me for anti-competitive practices? Sounds like I don't want to do business there...

Reid

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[MyLongNickName]

Or maybe other countries are in favor of giving consumer choices? Or is that anti-capitalist?

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[timeOday]

But without *some* anti-trust enforcement, the consumers who would lose their freedom. Eventually there would just be one big company. Power leads to profits leads to more power.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the very fact that EU states would be willing to challenge such exclusivity agreements explains why their legal system in general seems better at protecting consumers rather than raping them, as seems to be the norm in the US. Since when has the US ever been as effective as the EU in protecting consumers?

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[NMerriam]

Sounds like I don't want to do business there

Let me get this straight, if I want to sell a product, I have to follow the law? You're right, that's horrible, no wonder Germany is such a third-world country known for hating modern technology.

Next thing you know, some litigious bastard will suggest that AT&T should have to let us choose which phones to use on our landlines! You knew the deal when you signed up for service, it's only whiners who want to stop competition who suggest that renting your princess phone is too expensive.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I get this straight

Unless you've studied the German/EU competition law in question as well as the pleadings I can guarantee that you haven't.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[empaler]

So if I get this straight, in Germany if Company A offers me $X dollars for my product, and Company B offers me $X+5, and I decide to do business only with Company B because I don't like Company A's deal, Company A can then sue me for anti-competitive practices? Sounds like I don't want to do business there... No, they're saying that they want to know whether Apple can say they don't want to trade with all comers who want to pay $X+5. What a smart competitor would usually do is buy the phones at $X+5 (more precisely, X+5) and then sell it with another price plan than T-Mobile. Maybe even (shock!) sell it without a price plan, like in France. They want to know whether it is legal to discriminate in that manner.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Anonymous Coward]

Antitrust laws exist in pretty much every industrialized country in one form or another.

Question is, what is the threshold? Do you cut down the huge tree, or cut down the sapling yearning to grow? German courts in this case appear willing to cut down each sapling. 1% marketshare isn't even CLOSE to a monopoly!!

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[UbuntuDupe]

Let me get this straight, if I want to sell a product, I have to follow the law? You're right, that's horrible, no wonder Germany is such a third-world country known for hating modern technology.

Yeah, I hear IBM followed German law pretty much to the letter since running operations there. I don't remember it slowing them down any.

(I know, I know, Godwin ... but when you reduce someone's complaint about the kafkaesqueness of law to a criticism of all law, in a discussion about Germany, I think I'm justified in saying that.)

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Thanshin]

So if I get this straight, in Germany if Company A offers me $X dollars for my product, and Company B offers me $X+5, and I decide to do business only with Company B because I don't like Company A's deal, Company A can then sue me for anti-competitive practices? Sounds like I don't want to do business there... Actually it's more like if Company A offers $X for your product and Company B offers $X-5 but tell you they'll do everything in their hands to destroy your business if you ever make a deal with Company A.

Then, Company A sues Company B for anticompetitive practices.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Fred_A]

Or maybe other countries are in favor of giving consumer choices? Or is that anti-capitalist? If that was the purpose it would have been a consumer org starting the court action, not a rival telco.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Beriaru]

Why not both?

The scene here is you as a company with a product that cost X, and other company ofers you X+5 for an EXCLUSIVE deal.

So, the other companies sue you because you and your exclusive contract are limiting the consumer choices.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[giorgiofr]

You knew the deal when you signed up for service, it's only whiners who want to stop competition who suggest that renting your princess phone is too expensive. Exactly. So don't rent one. Problem solved. It's not like you have some natural right to possess an iPhone. Apple (and whoever else is involved in this) does not owe you anything. Just like you don't owe them anything. Now if you want to enter a business transaction with them, by all means contact them, negotiate, buy passively, whatever. Why on Earth you should scream bloody murder and invoke some law is beyond me.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Slashidiot]

Nope, it's not exactly like that. The thing is that you should be able to buy the product from company B and then use it with the network of company A.

This concept is very clear right now in most of the things in EU policy. It's the same for most products, there should be a separation between manufacturer of a product and the service provider. Or at least have the option to choose service provider, no matter who you purchased the hardware from.

Another example, maybe a bit far fetched, but one I know well. In Europe, transport by train has two distict parts. One is the company who builds the tracks, and other is the company who runs the trains. And they cannot be the same company, and the company who builds the tracks must be open to ANY company running trains in their tracks, if they pay the stipulated track access charges.

The EU is pushing this idea in most areas of the economy. And I think it works.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Lained]

Not really... If they are sued for anti-competitive practices that means there are reasons to back that claim. Phones being exclusive to a carrier isn't nothing new. What's new is that I don't have the choice to pay a fee to unlock my phone (before or after the contract expires) and move to another operator. Even if I want to end the contract before its end date, pay the remaining monthly fees, I can't use _my_ phone in another carrier. No matter how much garbage Apple sticks in their EULA (or whatever is they have), it doesn't mean jack if it goes against the law in here (and in france it even goes against the law if they don't have an unlock version in the market), so yeah, it is _my_ phone and I'm free to do whatever I want. The only thing I cannot do is end the contract with the carrier (for the service plan, not the iPhone) thinking I won't have to pay the remaining time (I was the one who ended the contract).... that is, except if Vodafone wins the claim, and by that rendering the contract useless. If that starts to be the norm pretty much goes against everything that was legislated and that the regulator entities try to have. First iPhone, then Nokia, Motorola, Siemens and soon I'll have to buy a new phone every time I change carrier. Those fees are there for a reason, so I can change carriers (pretty much the same logic behind phone number portability: I want to change operator, then I can either pay the fee and move the number with me, or change number). Also for a new mobile carrier (or a virtual one operating on top of a existing one) they would have enormous difficulties getting terminals for their business (ence the competitive laws... they are not only to protect the customers, but also to encourage new, competitive, companies into the market, althou in the end it does give more options to the customer with in this last cenario).

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[rozz]

Or maybe other countries are in favor of giving consumer choices? Or is that anti-capitalist? If that was the purpose it would have been a consumer org starting the court action, not a rival telco.
or maybe, in germany the market itself works in the consumer's interest like it was supposed to ... and they dont even need consumer orgs because they have real competition ... i tell you, it is the horror !

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[rozz]

So if I get this straight, in Germany if Company A offers me $X dollars for my product, and Company B offers me $X+5, and I decide to do business only with Company B because I don't like Company A's deal, Company A can then sue me for anti-competitive practices? Sounds like I don't want to do business there...

Reid just got off the phone with the german embassy ... they dont NEED u there either.

they dont WANT u there, too ... and it is not because they are not nice and welcoming ppl ... actually they would very much like to have you, but they already have enough market-is-god lunatics to educate and just cant take more for this year ... please try next year.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Fred_A]

or maybe, in germany the market itself works in the consumer's interest like it was supposed to ... and they dont even need consumer orgs because they have real competition ... i tell you, it is the horror ! Nah, the US would have invaded again if something like that was happening. Can't have rogue nations right in the middle of Europe.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Upphew]

And it's not like Apple (or any company, but I'll use Apple or I'm going completely offtopic) have some natural right to their copyrigts and patents. We dont owe Apple anything and as long as we don't _steal_ anything, it's our natural right to copy things... why Apple should scream bloody murder, when they still have all their software, is beyond me (not).

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[mpe]

What's new is that I don't have the choice to pay a fee to unlock my phone (before or after the contract expires)

Or buy a phone which isn't locked in the first place.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[dave420]

Here's a better explanation: Company A is selling products under strict laws, and Company B is also selling similar products under the same laws. Company B stops honouring those laws while selling some products, while Company A doesn't. Company A gets Company B to stop selling those products which break the law. Yup - sounds horrible :)

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Slashidiot]

Nope, it's not exactly like that. The thing is that you should be able to buy the product from company B and then use it with the network of company A.

This concept is very clear right now in most of the things in EU policy. It's the same for most products, there should be a separation between manufacturer of a product and the service provider. Or at least have the option to choose service provider, no matter who you purchased the hardware from.

Another example, maybe a bit far fetched, but one I know well. In Europe, transport by train has two distict parts. One is the company who builds the tracks, and other is the company who runs the trains. And they cannot be the same company, and the company who builds the tracks must be open to ANY company running trains in their tracks, if they pay the stipulated track access charges.

The EU is pushing this idea in most areas of the economy. And I think it works.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Lained]

And that's a choice because?! Not to mention that you just pointed out that that's tying (and illegal or considered anti-competitive and so it's regulated). Since there's no unlocked version of iPhone I don't have that choice.

Also if I do buy an iPhone and want to change to another carrier I can't (not while being able to use _my_ phone), ence going against the rights given to me as EU customer. If not by further evidence, the fact that I have the right to change carrier and take the number with me (number portability) should be enough to prove that right. If not, then maybe the fact that carriers have, by law, to give you the unlock code (for a fee) in most countries that didn't legislate against locked phones.

Ofc, you'll still have to pay a compensation for ending the contract before time since they won't sell it without it (never more then the remaining monthly plan). But hey, it's an open market, so as soon as France has the unlocked versions I can always buy one (althou more expensive) and use it anywhere in EU.
The claim that the phone is being sold bellow market price because there's a plan attached will fall to earth then. If there's no hardware change, many of the iPhones unlocked right now will have legit firmware running, Apple will have to eat its hat for that. Still, buying an unlocked iPhone in France, no matter the price increase, beats the price charged for the iPhone+24 months plan.

(I wonder how the iPhone will be seen in countries like Belgium or Finland since they don't even allow locked phones in their market... except for 3G equipment in Finland).

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[Scrameustache]

You knew the deal when you signed up for service, it's only whiners who want to stop competition who suggest that renting your princess phone is too expensive. Exactly. So don't rent one. Problem solved. It's not like you have some natural right to possess an iPhone. Apple (and whoever else is involved in this) does not owe you anything. What was that sound, up above? Oh my, that was the point missing your head!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,267757,00.html

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[SillyNickName4me]

So if I get this straight, in Germany if Company A offers me $X dollars for my product, and Company B offers me $X+5, and I decide to do business only with Company B because I don't like Company A's deal, Company A can then sue me for anti-competitive practices? Sounds like I don't want to do business there...

You are not understanding the issue it seems.

You can sell it through an exclusive reseller without any trouble, but you are not allowed to tie it to one specific service provider forever.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[mcvos]

Next thing you know, some litigious bastard will suggest that AT&T should have to let us choose which phones to use on our landlines! You knew the deal when you signed up for service, it's only whiners who want to stop competition who suggest that renting your princess phone is too expensive.

Actually, this used to be the case in Netherland in the '70s. You could only use phones from the national phone company (the PTT). Later, you could use any phone, as long as it was approved by the PTT. Nowadays, everybody is free to choose whatever phone they like.

The issue here is: do you think monopolies and cartels are okay, or do you want completely free competition? And to what extend is this being enforced by law?

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[giminy]

Next thing you know, some litigious bastard will suggest that AT&T should have to let us choose which phones to use on our landlines! You knew the deal when you signed up for service, it's only whiners who want to stop competition who suggest that renting your princess phone is too expensive.

That's a horrible argument. When AT&T did that, they were the only provider of phones in the US. If a customer does not like the phones that O2 offers, they can go to Vodafone in Germany (and vice versa) -- people have a choice. The best choice will take the market, of course...

Reid

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[petermgreen]

Generally whatever the intent of a rule it is pretty natural to take action when you see your competitor violating it.

If rules are not enforced then those who break them will have a competitive advantage over those that follow them.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[mean pun]

Actually, this used to be the case in Netherland in the '70s. You could only use phones from the national phone company (the PTT). Later, you could use any phone, as long as it was approved by the PTT. Nowadays, everybody is free to choose whatever phone they like.

The same used to be true in the USA, with AT&T being the monopolist. That was the reason the original poster used those phones as a sarcastic example.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[maxwell demon]

nother example, maybe a bit far fetched, but one I know well. In Europe, transport by train has two distict parts. One is the company who builds the tracks, and other is the company who runs the trains. And they cannot be the same company,

Well, since we are speaking about Germany here ... the Deutsche Bahn owns and operates both the tracks and (most of) the trains on those tracks.

and the company who builds the tracks must be open to ANY company running trains in their tracks, if they pay the stipulated track access charges.

Well, at least that part is definitively true.

Re:Interesting business in Germany?

[giminy]

I actually like your explanation, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter (both a good explanation, and I think you're the only one who didn't use the word 'idiot' to refer to me somewhere in the course of it). Ever take the Carnegie Course?

I suppose the more verbose explanation would be: the airwaves are owned by the public. In order for private companies to gain (semi-exclusive) access to this public space, they have to agree to play by a few rules. One of those rules is that the goods and services that the cell carriers provide cannot be exclusive -- all players in the airspace must be able to provide the same stuff.

This exclusivity has me intrigued and curious about other aspects of DE's intellectual property law -- suppose that Vodafone does come up with some nifty new service/feature that uses the GSM portion of the spectrum, and they are able to provide a new service to their customers because of it. Would Vodafone be required to give competitors free use to patents for the new service? Or would such a service simply not be patentable in DE?

Cheers, and thanks,
Reid

Whats Wrong?

[usul294]

My question here is what is wrong with the exclusivity of the iPhone? I don't know German/EU monopoly laws, but I don't think TMobile has enough market share to qualify as a monopoly anywhere. If not, I don't see what is really wrong here, I mean does Apple computer hardware in Germany have to be able to compatible with Windows? It looks like Vodafone wants a piece of the iPhone pie, and are using every legal action to limit the impact TMobile gets from it.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[postbigbang]

T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom were the PTT in Germany for years. Only recently has the EU cracked down on the mind-boggling roaming and int'l pricing-- hitting T-Mobile especially hard. No one's accusing anyone of anything right now, but getting a hearing when it looks like there might be some problems is perhaps healthier than going into post-agreement activation litigation.

T-Mobile has stupefying marketshare in Germany. Not total, but stupefying. And it's not just in mobiles (called a 'handy' in Germany) but in WiFi, hotel systems, hotspots, xDSL, and pay-by-packet schemes.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[jamar0303]

I wish they were this way in America. There needs to be another DSL player in the US market...

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There needs to be another DSL player in the US market...

There are plenty of DSL players in the US, it's just that the US market is set up such that you often only get one because the incumbent player isn't required to lease out the lines, despite being allowed to use public land to run those lines, and being given the monopoly for running those lines.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Gideon Fubar]

indeedy.. a local monopoly is still a monopoly.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think TMobile has enough market share to qualify as a monopoly anywhere.

Come again?!

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for a start they claim it is a GSM phone, then they don't comply with one of the basic GSM standards which is the ability to change providers by the user easily changing the SIM.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[matt4077]

They do have a large marketshare in landline (about 80% I'd guess), but in mobile, they're just one of many competing players. Vodaphone, O2 and others have equal access to the market T-mobile has maybe a 40% market share at most. The telco market is actually working quite well. Rates for everything - international calling, local calls, internet access, mobile have dropped 90% or more since the 90ies.

It's quite different in the energy market (electricity and natural gas) where we just have a bunch of mini-Enrons.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Jesus_666]

True. The German moble telco market is fiercely competitive, with companies constantly one-upping each other. The current trend is going towards making rates as simple as possible while retaining competitive pricing. An example would be E-Plus' "Zehnsation" ("Tensation") where you pay 10 cents per minute for calls in every network at any time and have a minimum charge of ten Euros. Another would be the E-Plus spinoff brand Simyo, which is offering a prepaid/contract hybrid without minimum charges or monthly fees where you either pay 9.9 ct/min* to all networks at any time or 15 ct/min to all mobile networks and nothing talking to landlines and other Simyo customers.

Of course those kinds of contract charge a lot for unusual usage (Simyo wants 39 cents per MMS and up to 2.49 EUR/min for calls to foreign countries), but if you only use your mobile for calls to other mobiles they are quite pleasant.


Disclaimer: I don't work for E-Plus, but E-Plus is currently shoving "Zehnsation" ads down everyone's throats and I switched to Simyo a couple months ago because it fits my mobile phone habits best. Other provider have similar offerings, including particular ones like vybemobile, which include ten music downloads per month.

Drek, I just noticed that vybemobile is YET ANOTHER E-Plus offering (with the music provided by Universal). Apparently E-Plus is making its pricing structure simpler by creating a spinoff brand for every new rate they offer...


* That price is for a rate they're phasing in next year; the current rate is pretty much equivalent to the other one I mentioned.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile has stupefying marketshare in Germany. Not total, but stupefying. Hmm. In the middle of this year, T-Mobile had a market share of 38.3% in Germany. Followed closely by Vodafone with 35.3%. The rest is shared more-less equally between the two smaller networks. I admit that I had to look up 'stupefying' in a dictionary, but either my dictionary is wrong or it does not mean what you think it does... :)

BTW, T-Mobile does not have its market share lead due to the fact that it was the former state monopoly. In the 1990s, Vodafone/D2 was the largest provider in Germany, T-Mobile/D1 only became larger around the year 2000.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[postbigbang]

T-Mobile still has a commanding share of the market in DE. They have a huge share in tip-and-ring and ISDN. They dominate-- barely-- handies. So is it ok for Vodophone to pre-emptively take them to task for what's seen as a consumer problem in the US? I think so.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[postbigbang]

Stupefying=stunning, as in so strong as to render the understanding as making one stupid with disbelief.

They still dominate in DE. Handys aren't as strong as in situ landlines and services, but they're still #1. I have a Vodaphone, T-Mobile, and O2 SIM for my phone when I'm in DE. The O2 SIM use is least expensive, although their method of recharging them (go to the store, pay in cash for Americans) stinks. Deutsche Telekom, the parent, is dominant, too... and so Vodaphone has nexus to litigate the matter, it would seem.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupefying=stunning, as in so strong as to render the understanding as making one stupid with disbelief. That's what my dictionary said, but having 39% market share in a market with basically 4 players does not make me stupid with disbelief.

It's true that Deutsche Telekom is more dominant in the landline business. Here they really have the advantage of being the former monopoly (they have the network). Nevertheless, also here the have fierce competition, and especially in the major (and lucrative) cities DT's market share is often below 50%. Of course, often the competitors have to rent the last mile from DT, on the other hand those prices are fixed by a regulation authority.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[dave420]

What's wrong? It's illegal, in Germany, to tie a handset to a carrier and provide no way of switching carriers it will work with. It's not about anti-monopoly, but pro-consumer. You paid for the phone, you should be able to use it on any network you want to, with any SIM card you want, on any tariff you want.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple hardware is already compatible with Windows, it's the other way around that is not, due to a small lock-out chip to keep OSX from running on cheaper hardware.

Re:Whats Wrong?

[maxwell demon]

Another would be the E-Plus spinoff brand Simyo, which is offering a prepaid/contract hybrid without minimum charges or monthly fees where you either pay 9.9 ct/min* to all networks at any time or 15 ct/min to all mobile networks and nothing talking to landlines and other Simyo customers.

So if you are only calling landlines, it's completely free? Somehow I cannot really believe that ... and indeed, a quick check on their page shows that there's a monthly fee of 15 for that option. Otherwise I would have switched immediately! :-)

Re:Whats Wrong?

[Jesus_666]

Yeah, that sentence was the victim of heavy editing. One of their plans has no fees and the other one has free landline calling. (However, when I signed up the free Simyo calls were universal).

good!

[dwater]

It's about time someone challenged this tie-in with phones and carriers.

I should be able to buy a cell phone and use it with any carrier I choose, technical limitations notwithstanding.

Re:good!

[Gideon Fubar]

Agreed. This should be reason enough for the lawsuit to succeed. Hopefully the telecommunications infrastructure in Germany isn't as monopolized as it is in the US.

Re:good!

[thegrassyknowl]

I should be able to buy a cell phone and use it with any carrier I choose, technical limitations notwithstanding.

That was the original point of the GSM standard. You were supposed to be able to buy a single phone and take it anywhere in the world that supported GSM. Sure, you may or may not have to pop in another SIM card if your provider didn't have roaming in the place where you were at. The whole locking the phones thing breaks that compatibility, as do the different band allocations around the place now.

If you want to unlock your (common) mobile phone Google can help. The Nokias can be unlocked by entering some code on the keypad that's derived from the IEMI number in the phone. There are several sites that will take an IEMI and give you the code. The same thing exists for all other major brands.

As for iPhone being locked to T-mobile. It sucks because I want one (not that I can get one here) but I don't want to be forced to use a particular carrier (of Apple's choice) just to use what is essentially a standard mobile phone with a few nice extra features.

Re:good!

[kamapuaa]

I should be able to buy a cell phone and use it with any carrier I choose, technical limitations notwithstanding.

You're perfectly free to buy that kind of phone, and the iPhone isn't one of them. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone.

I should be able to buy a cell phone for $50. And actually, I can - just the iPhone isn't one of them.

It doesn't seem right that in a market with a lot of choices for cell phones, the government should dictate a niche player's business model.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time someone challenged this tie-in with phones and carriers.

I should be able to buy a cell phone and use it with any carrier I choose, technical limitations notwithstanding. .........

I'd like that for printers and cartridges too.

Re:good!

[vux984]

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

The practice of bundling two products or services together like this and forcing the consumer into 'take none or both' decisions has a dubious history at best, and while its often legal, its often not. Most people agree the laws preventing tying are justifiable, and for the good of the market, even if it is impossible to define precisely exactly where the line should be drawn between legal bundling, and illegal tying.

Re:good!

[tlhIngan]

As for iPhone being locked to T-mobile. It sucks because I want one (not that I can get one here) but I don't want to be forced to use a particular carrier (of Apple's choice) just to use what is essentially a standard mobile phone with a few nice extra features.

Well, you can either not buy an iPhone, or unlock it yourself. Now, granted iPhone software 1.1.2 hasn't been unlocked yet, but it eventually will. Remember Apple quoting that around a quarter-million iPhones are unlocked?

In fact, even though the iPhone is technically tied to a contract, you buy it without signing any contract. In effect, it's a contract-bound phone where you don't sign any contract to purchase it.

Example - my iPhone works in Canada. I was in the US. I walked into an AT&T store. I said "I want an iPhone". I hand over my (Canadian) credit card, and they bill $399 to it (no sales tax in OR). No muss, no fuss, they wanted my cellphone number, and asked if I was with AT&T, to which I said no. Not even an address.

So I handed over $399, and a phone number. And I have my iPhone. No promise to sign up on an AT&T contract. No SSN. Nothing.

Come home, follow the instructions to activate and unlock the phone, and boom, it works with my Canadian SIM card. No contract, either. No visual voicemail, but no biggie. I don't even have voicemail on my account.

It's interesting, buying a locked, contract bound phone, without actually agreeing to do that. I saw nothing on any screen that said I had to keep my phone activated with AT&T for 2 years, nor clicked any such agreements.

Re:good!

[timmarhy]

"business model" is too much of a broad term to describe it. Tying,bundling or lockin is what it is, which is illegal in germany.

If Steve Jobs sold plastic turds coated in lead paint i swear you people would still buy it for your kids to chew on, i swear.

Re:good!

[Fnkmaster]

Acually 1.1.2 was unlocked within two or three days of making a public showing on the upgrade servers. It's only phones with the new baseband bootloader, i.e. those that come shipped with 1.1.2 out of the box, that can't yet be unlocked.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Steve Jobs sold plastic turds coated in lead paint i swear you people would still buy it for your kids to chew on, i swear.

So would you, apparently, but only if the government ordered you to. Goddamn sheep.

Re:good!

[wolverine1999]

I think it can.. and should.. especially where these kind of restrictions are being forced on consumers!

Re:good!

[freedom_india]

Is it true? How come my friend's never worked? He moved to vancouver and before he left US he bought an iPhone like you said from Apple Store in CT (damn, the taxes are killing there) and just tried installing a Telus SIM card and it refused to work....

Re:good!

[comm2k]

Thats not how it works in Germany - many people would be happy if it was that way. In Germany you can only buy it in T-Mobile shops. You can only buy the phone if you sign up for a 2 year contract in that shop - only after signing the agreement do you get the iPhone. You can't buy it from an Apple Store like in the USA.

Re:good!

[timmarhy]

really. what store and where.

because i don't believe you.

"No SSN. Nothing."

yeah right you really have to give out your SSN for a phone.. what hero's they are.

"Well, you can either not buy an iPhone, or unlock it yourself."

you have that first part the wrong way, apple won't be allowed to sell them, they don't get the choice if they don't meet with the law in that country. their loss no one elses. the 2nd part is just you hoping you can unlock it and hoping they won't try void your warranty down the track.

Re:good!

[Eivind]

Sure. And that tends to be the best deal anyway. In Norway, lots of phones are sold at a discount, with the catch being, they're locked-up so they only work with a single provider, and you have to contractually agree to use that provider for atleast a year.

The thing is though, the plan they offer you is so much worse than other plans available, even other plans from the same provider, that the "free phone" is anything but. It's not a good deal to get a "free phone" pay $20/month and $0.10/minute rather than buying a similar phone yourself for $300, pay $0/month and $0/minute for the first 150 minutes, $0.07/minute thereafter. To take a random (but real) example.

If you use 200 minutes/month (fairly average here) the first plan would, including phone, cost you $480/year.

The second plan would cost you $142/year if you switch phones every 3 years. Even if you switch phones every single year, that'll still be $342/year, so aprox $150/year cheaper than the "free" phone.

Once you include SMS, the picture is even more bleak for the "free" phone.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it true? How come my friend's never worked?

Maybe he's unemployable.

Re:good!

[zazzel]

The iPhone is the first GSM phone brought to the German market which is a) bound to a single network provider and b) available only with a contract. Vodafone itself sometimes has special phones for sale with *their* contracts, but they were just derived models (SonyEricsson V800), or given a head start. I don't know which category the Samsung "QBowl" (F700V) falls into, but I assume it works on any German network (no netlock, no simlock). Maybe except for the visual voicemail feature, but I guess you can't hang them for adding features to their network.

Re:good!

[ajs318]

Well, that's pretty much what European law says: if you buy a phone, you can choose your own carrier; and if you sell phones, they have to accept any SIM, not just your favourite carrier's. (European law also forbids region-locking of DVD players -- every DVD player sold on the Continent is multi-region -- and sooner or later will forbid lockout chips in games consoles, requiring them to accept third-party games and accessories. Recall that third-party games were what rescued the Atari 2600 from oblivion; Atari's own offerings had become dire before the likes of Imagic and Activision brothe new life into the console with games that didn't suck donkey bollocks.)

Note that the UK has a history of opting-out of the most working-person-friendly parts of EU law, and probably will be expelled in disgrace from the EU within 10 to 15 years' time. In the UK, DVD players are still sold locked to Region 2 (though all except Sony can be unlocked simply by typing a not-very-secret code on the remote) and it's legal to bundle a phone with a service contract -- as long as the phone can be made to work with another carrier's SIM after the contract is up.

Re:good!

[tokul]

In fact, even though the iPhone is technically tied to a contract, you buy it without signing any contract. In effect, it's a contract-bound phone where you don't sign any contract to purchase it.

How good is a phone if you can't make a phone call.

If you have to apply some third party hack in order to unlock the phone, you lose all warranties and can end up with 400 USD brick, if you accidentally upgrade to unsupported firmware.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

President: Jump.
Citizens: How high?
President: To Iraq.
Citizens: Dunno where it is, but if you get us inside one of our US Army airplane we'll go.

meeeeeeh

(oh, and don't say some EU countries went as well... some of us did, but unlike you, we made the politicians who choose it pay... they weren't reelected like your president was... talk about sheeps.... meeeeeeeeeeh).

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I should be able to buy a cell phone and use it with any carrier I choose, technical limitations notwithstanding. Here in Finland, it used to be illegal bind a cell phone and a carrier. So carriers couldn't give away almost free phones and force customers a long and expansive contracts. Currently binding is allowed with 3G phones, but not 2G (which iPhone is). As a customer, it made calls much cheaper.

Re:good!

[AVee]

Well, you can either not buy an iPhone, or unlock it yourself. Or, at least for people living in actual an democracy and/or a country that gives a shit about an actually free market, you could have a law which makes these kinds of coupled selling illegal. That's not to be whining about stuff like that, it is a necessity to maintain a proper competing free market. When companies are allowed to make deals where you can have A but only if you also by B from him they create artificial monopolies and raise the barrier of entry for other players on the market. When this goes unchallenged it will create a market where you have to roll out a whole mobile network before you can release a smartphone, simply because the others won't let you join there club. That may seem pretty 'normal' when the USA is your reference, but it is not what a free market should be.

Re:good!

[mpe]

That was the original point of the GSM standard. You were supposed to be able to buy a single phone and take it anywhere in the world that supported GSM. Sure, you may or may not have to pop in another SIM card if your provider didn't have roaming in the place where you were at. The whole locking the phones thing breaks that compatibility, as do the different band allocations around the place now.

The latter is addressed by having phones with multiband capability.
The more features a phone has the more likely being able to change SIMs is something the user will want to do.

Re:good!

[Weedlekin]

"Well, that's pretty much what European law says: if you buy a phone, you can choose your own carrier; and if you sell phones, they have to accept any SIM, not just your favourite carrier's."

That's not what it says at all. European competition laws allow phones to be sold "locked down" to a particular carrier or service, but _an opinion_ by the Commission (opinions are guidelines that should, but don't have to be followed by member states) says that the service provider should supply a means of unlocking after six months has elapsed.

"European law also forbids region-locking of DVD players"

Again, wrong. European law requires all players sold in the EC to be Region-2 enabled so that they can play media sold in Europe (the entirety of which is region 2). The EC is only concerned about open borders within the EC itself, not the world in general, and Region 2 provides that.

Re:good!

[mpe]

In Germany you can only buy it in T-Mobile shops.

This is about the only way what T-Mobile and Apple are doing would be remotely legal in Germany (or anywhere else in the EU).

You can only buy the phone if you sign up for a 2 year contract in that shop - only after signing the agreement do you get the iPhone.

This is the point at which things become legally questionable. It would be as if a supermarket refused to sell you a glass unless you signed a contract to buy at least 4 litres of milk, per week from them.

You can't buy it from an Apple Store like in the USA.

If Apple tried to sell it at an "Apple Store" in Germany they'd probably have their shops shut down.

Re:good!

[mpe]

(European law also forbids region-locking of DVD players -- every DVD player sold on the Continent is multi-region

This at least because some EU countries are in R2 and some are in R5.

Re:good!

[Khuffie]

I think Telus is CDMA, not GSM. The iPhone is a GSM phone.

Re:good!

[Tom]

In fact, even though the iPhone is technically tied to a contract, you buy it without signing any contract. In effect, it's a contract-bound phone where you don't sign any contract to purchase it. Wrong, in this context.

In Germany, the iPhone is only sold by T-Mobile, and only in T-Mobile shops, and only in connection with the contract. You can't buy an iPhone at an Apple store, and you can't buy one without signing the contract.

Re:good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy it from eBay (or other online shops) then?

Re:good!

[Lars T.]

(European law also forbids region-locking of DVD players -- every DVD player sold on the Continent is multi-region

This at least because some EU countries are in R2 and some are in R5. And which ones would be in R5?

Re:good!

[Phroggy]

Did he skip the step where you have to unlock the phone first, to make it work with non-AT&T SIMs? (Note that by doing so, you risk Apple's next software update turning your phone into a brick.)

Re:good!

[vidarh]

The UK only "opts out" of a few of those parts of directives that explicitly allow an opt-out - the UK can't legally opt out of implementing EU directives as it pleases, as when the UK joined the EU, it did so by adopting a law that by it's wording became part of the UK's constitutional framework.

The only legal way for the UK to not adopt a directive where they haven't explicitly negotiationed an opt out clause would be for Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and by doing so seceding from the EU.

There's been a lot of debate in legal circles whether even that would be legal - one one hand the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in theory allows Parliament to pass laws overriding any law they see fit (while the UK does have a constitution it exists in the form of ordinary laws and court precedent, and so there are in theory nothing preventing Parliament from changing it the same way a normal law is passed), on the other hand the wording of the act has made some legal scholars claim that the act in effect repealed parliamentary sovereignty with respect to the European Union, because it was passed after the Parliament Act, and did effectively give EU law precedence over UK law wherever there's a conflict.

Re:good!

[Bert64]

Well, surely selling a computer program that stores data in a proprietary format is also lock-in, and should also be illegal in Germany...

I like how the icon..

[mongoose(!no)]

...is a old school brick cell phone.

Re:I like how the icon..

[Kreigaffe]

we call them "Zach Morris phones" 'round these parts.

I think that says more about these parts than about those old phones, though.

in other words, "can we do this too?"

[r00t]

"wants to have these new sales practices examined"

Right. The evils of cell phone service in the USA are coming to Germany. Vodaphone just wants the court to verify that this is legit, so that they too can be evil.

Re:in other words, "can we do this too?"

[arivanov]

They are already evil enough.

For example, they charge you for every kilobit starting from the first on the unlimited flat rate 3G/3GB Cellular broadband contract. So much for "flat rate unlimited". They void your phone insurance for every single fake reason you can think of.

So what they like to know if they can be even more evil and directly tell the customer to bend over (without the "or else") the way Apple does it. They would love to.

Anyway, overall, this is good for the consumer. If the court confirms that the customer has to bend over EU will tighten the regs on mobile operators in a jiffie. If the court confirms that the customer has rights, T-mob and Apple will have to bend over in a jiffie. Vodafone will promptly follow. They are simply not realising it because they are being blinded by their greed.

Re:in other words, "can we do this too?"

[dave420]

No, it means they want T-Mobile to operate under the same requirements as everyone else. Believe me - Europe doesn't want the cellfuck that is the US mobile industry. That's why these laws exist.

American viewpoint

[Amigori]

Perhaps its just my viewpoint as an American, but this seems like Vodafone is complaining because they are not the exclusive carrier (and can't charge for every little thing) and the iPhone falls under a different style plan, like here in the States. Remember, Vodafone is Verizon Wireless's largest shareholder and if Vodafone is anything like their American counterpart, they'll use every dirty trick in the book, to screw both their customer and their competition. I bet that Apple has enough lawyers on staff/contract to ensure that this type of sales agreement is compliant with Germany law.

The phone seems to be programmed (according to the article anyways...anyone have specific details?) to only use the T-Mobile network while in Germany. That should mean that while in Germany, it won't roam on Vodafone's, or anyone else's, network, thus allowing Vodafone to bill DT for the roaming agreement/charges, regardless of whether or not the customer has roaming included in their plan. Although I could be completely off, its really just a guess. I have used VZW phones in the past where it will have 0-10% of signal instead of switching to a competing (roaming) CDMA tower in sight. No, I can't hear you now.

As for "the use of the device being limited to certain fees within T-Mobile's subscription offerings." Perhaps they've setup a plan similar to AT&T/Cingular here where a number of charges that are typically a "per X" fee are instead a "flat rate" fee. They don't expand on it and I don't understand German (just English, French, and Spanish) to read the T-Mobile website for futher contract details; just a rate comparison box that's similar enough to the AT&Ts plans to understand. Vodafone doesn't want to compete against a non-standard, consumer friendly plan. VZW here wants you to pay for everything you can do with your phone. I'm surprised you don't get commercials while dialing from or to VZW handsets...oh...right...crappy pop ringers...

Re:American viewpoint

[nolife]

VZW here wants you to pay for everything you can do with your phone. I'm surprised you don't get commercials while dialing from or to VZW handsets...oh...right...crappy pop ringers...

What if Apple signed their US exclusive agreement with Verizon? Would you have the same opinion? What if you were given a choice with the iPhone to use AT&T or Verizon. Who would you go with and why? Don't you think Verizon and AT&T would then compete and provide you better service and prices for your business and YOU would benefit from that?
I don't care who or if Apple singed an exclusive agreement with myself but I would see the benefits as an end user to have choice. Obviously some countries have different opinions on what is allowed and not allowed or look at these things a little more then others do. I know that had the US government not made some specific laws, we would all be buying tires and gas from the same car company that we bought are cars from.
For the same reasons I do not have to buy an iPhone if I do not like the arrangements, Apple does not have to sell the iPhone if it does not like the arrangements either. Does the consumer benefit overall from either of those decisions? It depends. I've found that these agreements usually lead to similar agreements across all of the competitors selling the same services or products. Think DirecTV with the NFL compared to Dish with MLB. Sirius with NFL compared to XM with MLB. Comcast bundling the NFL network with other sports packages and not offering it separately. Comcast and Verizon with their own versions of the triple play. Not all of these are directly related to the iPhone but the concept is the same and everyone has an opinion on whether they are getting a deal or it is unfair.

Re:American viewpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally there is no roaming within Germany*, as all carriers have (almost) 100% coverage using their own infrastructure.

BTW, the Telecom-ihones-plans are the most expensive plans since years in Germany. Perhaps because 30% of the revenue made with the plans(not only the profit!) goes directly to apple.
I do not know exactly the plans of vodafon, but all the plans are usually almost the same and usually quite customer friendly, if you obey the fine print. (BTW, do you Americans still pay for incoming calls?)

> they'll use every dirty trick in the book, to screw both their customer and their competition
Thats true for every telecommunication company. And banks, insurances....

(* except O2, which roams in the Telecom network only if no O2 net is available.)

Re:American viewpoint

[Amigori]

If Apple would have gone with VZW, there would be x(iPhones sold) more VZW customers. My opinion of VZW would remain the same: Poor service, locked down handsets, and high fees for things that are simple on other carriers. If I had to use an iPhone and choose between AT&T and VZW, I would choose ATT; see previous sentence for why (although whoever has better coverage depends completely on where you live). Those two companies already compete with similar products and services in the same market. I have not seen prices come down and service quality go up, just more "latest & greatest" handsets with worse battery life. The best Motorola, MotoFone, in years won't even come out here because all it is a phone. Every national carrier has exclusive phones, yet only the GSM-based handsets can be taken to a competitors network (excluding the iPhone). I'm not hearing anyone complain about the Samsung Juke being locked to VZW or the LG Fuzic being locked to Sprint. There's nothing, except govt services, that doesn't have a competitor or a comparable choice. I'd be hard pressed to find anything where I don't have a choice. Doctors, yes. Pet Food, yes. Autos, yes. Rx, 98% yes. Clothes, yes. Electronics, yes. Concrete, yes. Lumber, yes. Fuel, yes. Groceries, yes. Books, yes. Banking, yes. Govt services, no. (That last one makes for an interesting debate for some other forum.)

This isn't the 1920s when there was still limited choices and you could choose any color paint, as long as it was black, to paraphrase Henry Ford. And even then, he still had suppliers, including Goodyear and Standard Oil. And those Anti-Trust laws you are referring to have worked extremely well to prevent any one company from dominating the tech industry. Nothing like getting your Office Suite from a different company as your Operating System. **cough, cough** [sidebar] Personally, OSX or *BSD, OpenOffice; I know /. will mix in Linux and the various other OS & Office packages, just saying, mainstream users. You know, the ones who's password you have to unlock every week because they can't remember their Pet's name plus 01. [/sidebar]

Personal choice will always be yours, whether you want an iPhone or not, Organic groceries or not, an SUV or a Mini, etc. etc. Consumers have more choice and quality today than ever in the history of man. Though I do like your argument about content delivery companies bundling certain packages only with specific services. That I see as collusion and anti-competitive, but a different argument from the cell industry. Mainly because of laws granting a local monopoly to the last mile provider combined with asinine HOA rules prohibiting dishes. About the only way to "get back at" your cable comapny is to turn off your service, and few are willing to do that. Satellite radio is an interesting market and I had XM for a while. But I didn't need it and I can still listen to my team on AM/FM. Most of the shows I listened to, I can grab the podcast or the stream, my choice.

RE: AC... I figured Germany would have near 100% GSM coverage by each carrier, I just didn't know where to look on the .de sites to find a coverage map. And yes, most American plans still pull incoming calls from your minutes. My plan from Nextel allows free Incoming calls, but I do pay more for that "feature."

Re:American viewpoint

[TheJasper]

I think the difference is that in general in the states the attitude is that companies can do what they want and consumers can choose not to buy. In Europe the attitude is more like companies have mucho power and when consumers don't have choice things should be regulated. Given that until recently many european countries still had state phone monopolies this means that there is mucho regulation (another favorite european pasttime).

Re:American viewpoint

[squiggleslash]

Verizon Wireless is more like its Verizon parent, not Vodafone parent. Vodafone, for all of its faults, has always been (at least in the UK) a fairly open mobile operator. They were one of the last to resist locking their contract GSM phones back when Orange and one2one started the trend there.

I've always thought Vodafone shouldn't have any ties to Verizon Wireless, it never made any sense. They apparently only stay in because it makes a lot of money, but Verizon Wireless's management has always let Verizon call the shots, they've never made any use of their links to Vodafone (just offering R-UIMs would be a vast improvement and would make it easier to provide international roaming), and their entire strategy is counter to what Vodafone has generally stood for. The entire "partnership" started off on entirely the wrong foot, with Verizon (then Bell Atlantic) throwing a hissy fit because Vodafone bought an operator, AirTouch, that Verizon wanted to buy. At the time Verizon and AirTouch had a joint venture in PrimeCo, one of Verizon Wireless's predecessors. Verizon promptly dissolved PrimeCo as apparent retaliation for Vodafone's/AirTouch's slight of them.

Investors have noticed, and every few years motions come up to get Vodafone out of Verizon Wireless, but Vodafone's management have so far resisted on the basis that the division generates much more in profits than they would expect to get if they tried to go it alone.

Re:American viewpoint

[dave420]

You've got it wrong. Vodafone don't want T-Mobile to be able to dodge the same laws Vodafone is supposed to operate under. T-Mobile are offering a cellphone only on specific tariffs, that is also bound to their network (as opposed to being able to use the iPhone on any tariff you want, or even on any sim card you want). The laws in the EU regarding cellphone operators and sales practices are vastly different to the US.

Re:American viewpoint

[Lars T.]

RE: AC... I figured Germany would have near 100% GSM coverage by each carrier, I just didn't know where to look on the .de sites to find a coverage map. Coverage pages from the 4 major mobile providers in Germany (all others are just resellers AFAIK):

http://www.t-mobile.de/funkversorgung/inland

http://www.vodafone.de/hilfe-support/netz-uebertragung-netzabdeckung/108099.html

http://shop2.o2online.de/nw/produkte/beratung/abdeckung/popup/pageframe.html

http://eis03sn1.eplus-online.de/evportal/portal/umts

news flash: iphone lock in sucks

[timmarhy]

1. the phone is not subsidised by the plan - you pay for the whole thing up front

2. carrier lock in is the worst of the worst, you don't get to make excuses for it just because it's apple.

3. many EU countries have laws against crapy lock in products like this, it's good for the consumer.

Re:news flash: iphone lock in sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you forget what carrier lock in has given Apple the ability to provide. Verizon et al would have jumped at the chance to charge you incrementally for data, emailing photos, ringtones (yes, still free), etc. The list is quite long. Wake up.

Re:news flash: iphone lock in sucks

[timmarhy]

yeah right because i couldn't possibly get data, email and ringtones on another provider.

wake up to your self.

Re:news flash: iphone lock in sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

the phone is not subsidised by the plan - you pay for the whole thing up front

Yeah right. Why the hell do you think Apple would do a stupid thing like limit themselves to one carrier if major subsidies weren't involved? Using your brain is allowed...

Re:news flash: iphone lock in sucks

[squiggleslash]

If Apple had sold the phone directly, T-Mobile and AT&T users, to name but two GSM networks with unlimited data plans, would have both had accessed to unlimited data, photo (and anything else) emailing, etc, etc, without any negotiation on Apple's part. Ringtones are not free on the iPhone.

The reality is that Apple has fucked up from a customer viewpoint. They don't care because people are buying the phone anyway, but the reality is that the only thing "they got" out of carrier exclusivity was visual voicemail, and the ability to hide about $100 of the cost of a $500 (initially ~$700) phone ($100 seems to be about the average kick-back.)

That seems a pretty poor deal to me, especially considering the sacrifices they had to make. The thing can only be activated anew, you can't simply swap your SIM from your existing account into a new iPhone, which means it's only "easy" to switch to for people who aren't already on a GSM carrier. So much for "just works". People trying to roam internationally with it are being hit by outrageous roaming fees. Locations poorly served by the chosen carrier (and trust me, AT&T sucks around where I live; T-Mobile in this area is by far the best carrier, both in terms of operators running real mobile phone standards and amongst all the operators claiming to be mobile phone operators) are areas the iPhone cannot be reasonably sold in. And Apple themselves have signed up to a program of constant updates designed to break uncrippled iPhones in the most dramatic ways, which aside from the maintenance cost, is doing Apple's PR over-all no good whatsoever. If the iPod was the product that would make the Mac respectable, the iPhone seems to be the product that will lead people to steer clear of them for fear of a manufacturer that engages in sonying.

And for what? Is there any evidence at all that the iPhone wouldn't be selling so well if it had come out at $700, was selling today at $500, and didn't support visual voicemail? Especially given all the potential customers who for one reason or another prefer a non-AT&T GSM carrier and aren't buying the iPhone as a result?

Apple will not care because they're making a profit in the short term, and because of the usual gaggle of moronic "analysts" that are willing to write articles on how Apple is somehow sticking it to the carriers by giving the carriers exactly what they want and not forcing the carriers to pay huge amounts of money in subsidies. If they understood the consequences of what they're doing, they'd realize they could have made a great deal more money, and avoided sullying their reputation, by losing the control freak attitude, and not being terrified of the carriers as they obviously were. They never even needed carrier approval, and there's not a GSM carrier in the US that wouldn't have given their approval anyway; that's the saddest part.

Re:news flash: iphone lock in sucks

[Richthofen80]

many EU countries have laws against crapy lock in products like this, it's good for the consumer.

Why are there laws? won't the consumer, by virture of his or her dollars (or euros), decide what is good for him/herself? Or do you believe that consumers are too stupid to buy something that makes sense for them?

The reason that carrier lock took off in the U.S. is that it allowed a bunch of people who didn't want to invest in a mobile phone the ability, by promising to be a customer of X provider for x years, to get a free phone.

Despite the consolidation of the mobile phone market, there is still a lot of choice in the U.S. for a consumer. There's pay-as-you-go, there's contracts with Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Alltel, Cricket, Qwest etc. There's a lot of sneering at carrier lock now, but rewind to 1999 and realize that mobile phones then were a rarer bunch, and carrier lock helped spur the buildout and high adoption rates. Many people enjoyed the benefits now and its hardly fair to tell the cellphone companies that tough shit, just because they bore the cost of the phones before, that they have to stop earning their money back.

Re:news flash: iphone lock in sucks

[wikinerd]

laws against crapy lock in products like this, it's good for the consumer.

It's good for companies as well, because they get to compete on healthy grounds with their customer care, policies, plans, services, etc, which have real value that cannot be imitated, instead of competing with artificial market manipulations such as locks. When a company chooses to lock devices it learns to compete in the wrong way with what it perceives to be easier in the short-term, but this has long-term disadvantages as it leads the company to forget how to compete in the right way with their services, etc. So, a business which relies on device locks will surely file for bankruptcy when a better competitor enters the marketplace supplying lock-free devices and superior services, customer support, etc.

Just kinda closed-source vs open-source... closed-source software companies learn to compete by making people rely on proprietary file formats etc, but when an open-source competitor enters the market everyone who is able to adapt migrates to it at first opportunity.

So, pro-consumer laws help companies as well by making them focus on long-term success indicators and adopting a more enlightened way of doing business.

We college kids have a word for that...

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's called "cockblocking" :)

Court in Hamburg

[magerquark.de]

The court in Hamburg is well known for its strange decisions. A guy is even logging lots of trials from that single judge that is resonsible: http://www.buskeismus.de/ (German only, sorry)

Re:Court in Hamburg

[BeeRockxs]

That's a different court in Hamburg, one where cases regarding media law are heard.

interesting

[rastoboy29]

It's interesting to see the different winners and losers in other countries.

See pre-paid phones for precedent

[Saint Fnordius]

I think that is what Vodafone wants, namely that the iPhone be treated like a pre-paid phone, where a nominal fee removes the SIM lock. In other words, they don't care if people buy the phone from T-Mobile or even if they are locked into a T-Mobile contract, as long as they can slip a Vodafone SIM into the phone.

If Vodafone wins and gets a solution similar to France, then I could see them advertising themselves as the better provider, or sending a mail on their current customers that they can now take their contacts and other info with them. Let the T-Mobile shops sell the phone, they probably think, as long as the customers stay in our net.

Although the iPhone does not meet my needs, I wish them luck. I understand and accept the subsidising of a phone purchase by the telecoms, but I also feel the customer should have the right to use his device with whatever network he desires. The same goes for my desire to see certain parts like the battery user-replaceable in the future, as a proposed EU directive demands.

Dear German Apple fanboys

[SleepyHappyDoc]

You can't have your iPhone yet. Send thanks to Vodaphone.

Looks like a great PR move to me. I'm sure customers will flock to them for having saved them from getting the iPhones they wanted.

Re:Dear German Apple fanboys

[fforw]

The iPhone was not that much of a sales wonder anyway.. no comparison to the USA.. most people here seem to be highly critical of paying 1600 EUR for two years without any kind of flatrate (that's $2300 now).

Summary is misleading

[SubliminalLove]

The summary is incorrect -- I don't blame the submitter, because the CNN article is not very clear about what's going on either. If you happen to read German, here is a reasonably good article on the issue. To summarize: In Germany, this sort of exclusive contract does not exist -- you can get certain deals that are bound to your keeping a phone with a particular carrier (eg, a 200 phone for 15 if you keep a particular plan for two years, if you terminate the contract before then you have to pay the rebate back), but there's no such thing here as a phone that won't work on a competitor's network. Vodafone is asking a judge in Hamburg to rule on the legality of the exclusive service contract, but they are not preventing the sale of the device itself.

Re:Summary is misleading

[oPless]

I find it quite ... disturbing

If I understand Voda(.de) are suing to rule on the legality of locked phones?

As a matter of course Voda (uk) and Tmob (uk) (3, orange and O2) all lock their phones here in the uk. Voda however unlock them for free after the contract you bought them under expires.

I find the manner that voda (and the rest) completely screw up their phones with "branding", and give away 300GBP+ phones to NEW customers, rather than look after their current user base.

Let's face it, when it costs more to call another mobile than it is to call the other side of the world - somethings badly wrong.

Text messages 10p ? again very lol it's cheaper to have msn running on your phone with a decent dataplan!

There's lots that is so wrong with telecoms at the moment, what can a lone geek do apart vote with their wallet?

Re:Summary is misleading

[BeeRockxs]

> If I understand Voda(.de) are suing to rule on the legality of locked phones? On the legality of locked phones that you can't unlock after the contract is over, and neither by paying the unlock-fee.

That is not how business works

[SmallFurryCreature]

First off, in normal business you SELL your product for a price, it ain't a bloody auction. The entire idea is that the process has to be fair. If you want to sell something in europe you have to play by the rules. If Apple can't play by the rules, they are welcome to take their stuff home and shove it up the US consumers ass who are used to assuming the position.

You might be suprised to know this, but in europe all these exclusive deals and crippled phones are NOT legal and don't happen. When you got to buy a phone you can easily do that from a third party shop that simply displays the phones with a list of providers next to it.

The EU unlike the US puts the customer first and if you don't want to do business that way, then don't. Nobody put a gun to Apples head and forced them to start selling here. Oh but wait, I see you are busy, Steve Jobs has woken up and has a woody, bent over and prepare to squeel little piggy.

Re:That is not how business works

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how few seems to have actually dealt with any of these telecos in Europe. Other than buying handsets and services from them that is. Take Vodafone for instance, they are outright bastards (as Roy from The IT Crowd would say) all the way through. Vodafone is simply pissed because they couldn't control Apple like the control every other handset manufacturer there is that actually sells in volumes. Pure and simple. They just don't want to show it too much.

Re:That is not how business works

[mpe]

You might be suprised to know this, but in europe all these exclusive deals and crippled phones are NOT legal and don't happen. When you got to buy a phone you can easily do that from a third party shop that simply displays the phones with a list of providers next to it.

The only way you generally can buy a locked phone, in the EU, is through the provider concerned. You can even buy such phones at third party shops, but they typically come clearly labled with the service provider's logo.
The service provider will have paid full price to the manufacturer (it might even be a bit more that an unlocked phone due to firmware changes and/or branding). The price they choose to sell them to customers and retailers is entirely up to them.

Re:That is not how business works

[Weedlekin]

"You might be suprised to know this, but in europe all these exclusive deals and crippled phones are NOT legal and don't happen."

As a European, I'm surprised by your assertion that it's illegal, because several operators in a variety of European countries offer crippled phones under exclusive deals, so it does in fact happen. This is because there is no EC directive that makes such tying illegal unless there is a monopoly involved (an EC-wide monopoly, not a monopoly in one or two countries).

Clue stick: there are many laws in various European countries that are specific to those countries. In this case, it is a matter of German law, hence the fact that a German district court was used rather than the European courts. Given the fact that both operators are competitors in several European countries besides Germany, it's highly likely that the European courts would have been used as a "one stop" solution if, as you claim, such activities were actually illegal in Europe itself.

The only actual Europe-wide law that would be of any consequence to exclusive deals between an operator and a phone maker are the ones governing open trade borders. Under these, consumers in a European country where exclusive deals and locked-down products are allowed can freely buy from other European countries where such practices are prohibited (e.g. Belgium or France), and any warranties must be honoured in the country where the consumer lives (unless of course the manufacturer has no authorised service centres in that country). In the case of the iPhone, this means that while Apple can freely enter into tying agreements in countries that permit them, they can't take any action that prevents residents of those countries from buying unlocked versions from EC member states which prohibit it, although they can of course simply refuse to sell iPhones in any country that doesn't allow such exclusive deals.

Re:That is not how business works

[tinus]

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in the Netherlands the provider is obliged to give you the unlock code for a nominal fee after one year, so you can switch to a different provider if you want (or get the cheap 'sim-only' contract). You can just calculate what is the best deal.

You're not going to use a phone without a provider anyway.

Re:That is not how business works

[Weedlekin]

That's more or less in line with the European Commission's opinion (i.e. a non-binding guideline that member states should, but don't have to follow). They reckoned that not providing the facility to unlock phones after a period that allows the provider to get a reasonable return on their equipment subsidy was contrary to EC competition laws, so all member states should enact some form of legislation to require it. The example period they gave was six months, but most states that followed the guidelines (many haven't done so yet) seem to reckon that this was a minimum period rather than a maximum one, so the year required by Dutch law seems to be fairly common, although as others have observed, some countries went further, and prohibited any form of locking whatsoever.

Re:That is not how business works

[Mister Whirly]

"You might be suprised(sic) to know this, but in europe all these exclusive deals and crippled phones are NOT legal and don't happen. When you got to buy a phone you can easily do that from a third party shop that simply displays the phones with a list of providers next to it."

You may be surprised to know this, but in the US all of those exclusive deals and locked phones are because you are BUYING THE PHONE AT A SIGNIFICANT DISCOUNT. You can still go buy a phone from a third-party and use it with any network here - you are just paying full retail price for the phone. The last phone I got from T-Mobile was a $250 phone I received for zero dollars. How did I get such a deal? By signing a contract with them. If I had wanted to, I could have purchased the phone from anywhere and used whichever network I wished. But I wouldn't have got the phone free, and would have ended up paying more for services without a contract. So actually here, the consumer has MORE choices, not less.

Not a monopoly?

[SmallFurryCreature]

You might say the same for KPN or O2, never heard of them? They are the former goverment monopolies in the netherlands and great britain respectivly. (KPN uses both its normal name and Hi as a mobilephone brand, O2 was the mobile phone brand of BT till it split off) Now I give you one guess as to the name of the german mobile phone company that was the former goverment monopoly.

Feeling a bit stupid now? You should. Next time you start claiming you know anything about a company, try to find out where it came from.

What next, you claim the BBC is a tiny unimportant station because it is somewhere on station 199 in the US of A? McDonalds is just a tiny chain because they got only one shop in russia? (might be more now offcourse)

Geez, oh and it is not about being a monopoly, it is about unfair trade practices. It is a EU thing. A US citizen wouldn't be able to understand. Basically the Apple/AT&T deal is not legal in the EU or for that matter most of the world. Different cultures I guess. You like being buggered up the ass by giant companies, we prefer the state to do it, at least we can vote them out if they don't use enough lube.

Re:Not a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at the market shares on the German mobile phone market:

T-Mobile: 39%
Vodafone: 35%
Eplus + O2 : the rest

Does this look like a monopoly? Sure, after all T-Mobile belongs to the former state telecom, so they must be by definition, right?

Feeling a bit stupid now? You should.

Re:Not a monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

"McDonalds is just a tiny chain because they got only one shop in russia?"

Russia? Dude, that is soooo 20th century.

Re:Not a monopoly?

[maxwell demon]

Next time you start claiming you know anything about a company, try to find out where it came from.

But also inform yourself about the specifics of the market. It's like saying that Microsoft has a monopoly on gaming consoles, because Microsoft both is a monopolist, and makes gaming consoles.

When Germany was introducing digital mobile phones, the market was decidedly split; there was the D1 network from the Bundespost (then the state monopolist of telecommunication, which later became Deutsche Telekom; D1 became T-Online when it was split off the main company) and the D2 network (by Mannesmann, which was later unfriendly taken over by Vodaphone). So the digital mobile market was split between those companies from the very beginning.

The iPhone is locked forever!

[egghat]

Even after your contract expires in two years.

You can unlock every phone after your contract expires here in Germany. I don't think there's a way Apple and T-Mobile can change this.

It will be very interesting to see how much Orange will charge for an unlocked iPhone that it has to sell in accordance to frech laws.

And I'm astonished that Apple doesn't do this in all countries. Why not simply sell an iPhone for 400 Euros with T-Mobile contract and 800 Euro without a contract (like everybody else). Apple should make (a lot of) money in both cases.

Bye egghat

From a European Viewpoint

[Nursie]

You guys get SCREWED by your corporations. Even when they get found guilty of monopolistic behaviour not much happens.

We in the EU don't like that so much. We don't worship money as much as the US does, nor do we believe in the invisible hand of the market as much as you guys do. The fatal flaw in the theory being that the participants are supposed to be well informed and able to make comparative choices, which we all know is the opposite of what marketing does.

Well anyway. There's good and bad in both approaches, but this is more than sour grapes from Vodafone. This is "We're playing by the rules here, we don't think these guys are, check them out". And, IMHO, Apple are skating close to the edge with all the locks and tie-ins.

Not that it really matters, apparently UK sales were a flop the other week. Could be something to do with the extortionate up front cost AND expensive contract. We're used to one or the other, but not both...

Right!

[7ex]

It's good that Vodafone is questioning this contract since the iPhone should be freely available!

quite to the contrary

[m2943]

If that was the purpose it would have been a consumer org starting the court action, not a rival telco.

It is, in fact, a goal of good business laws to set things up such that competing businesses have an interest to enforce consumer rights against each other.

In the US, trademark law works that way. In Europe, many other laws work that way, too.

Leaving things up to consumer orgs would not be very effective.

Don't forget that Vodafone wanted the iPhone too

[teslar]

Basically, if the law requires Vodaphone to comply with A, B and C then they have all right to be pissed if their competitors can ignore A, B or C without consequences.

Yeah, but let's not forget that Vodafone wanted the IPhone too (In German). They didn't get it because they didn't want to give Apple a share of the profits. Do you think they would have sued themselves if they had gotten an exclusive contract though? I'd say this is more of a case of "if we can't have the exclusive deal, then nobody shall".

Apple's unintentional changing of law

[Midnight Thunder]

It's about time someone challenged this tie-in with phones and carriers.

The biggest irony in all this is that Apple might have just made this happen, due to their exclusivity contract. Europe and the USA are different when it comes to the notion of competition and citizen rights. The fact that a major cell-phone can't be used on any network, the customer chooses, or doesn't have a version that can be used on any network is an issue.

There are few to no exclusivity contracts in European countries when it comes to cell phones, so generally the issue never came up, but now it has you can be sure that law maker will want to change things. The fact this cellphone is considered an object of desire by some, makes this issue stand out even more.

It should be noted that in Belgium you can only buy cellphones contract free. The contract you sign is independant to the cell phone. In France you have to be given the choice of buying your cell phone with or without contract. Note, that there is no law in France preventing the phone you buy with contract being priced less than the out of contract phone. I am not aware of laws in other European countries.

that's what you want, not what vodaphone wants

[r00t]

The regular people of Europe may not want that cellfuck, but vodaphone wouldn't mind it. Vodaphone is wondering if the law might not cover as much as they thought it did. They're wondering what they can get away with.

Re:that's what you want, not what vodaphone wants

[dave420]

If they were wondering what they could get away with, they'd be doing it, not pointing out that T-Mobile is doing it. The only thing they can hope to gain for themselves by drawing attention to T-Mobile's actions is a level playing field, by making T-Mobile play by the rules. No judge is going to say "oh fuck it then - anyone can sell whatever they want, with whatever strings attached they want, to whoever they want" :)

Re:that's what you want, not what vodaphone wants

[r00t]

Nope. T-Mobile is taking quite a risk if they're at the edge of the law. Vodaphone might not want to make a big investment that just turns into a pile of legal trouble. Vodaphone is taking the low-risk route.

Re:that's what you want, not what vodaphone wants

[dave420]

Vodafone is just doing what retailers do all over the world - they're calling out a competitor who's flaunting the law. And as we saw, the Judge agreed with them, and shot down T-Mobile's actions. So Vodafone, by doing what they did, stopped the illegal action, and can now not do the same thing. The only way they could do the same is if the judge said there's no problem with it, which would never happen, as T-Mobile is not special.

"In a strange move"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the strange move? Apple and T-Mobile violate the law and Vodafone sues them for doing so. Seems reasonable.

Absolutely ridiculous

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Choosing hardware and service providers is NOT an inalienable right. Exclusive partnerships are necessary for the economy.

take a day trip to Paris

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting as AC because I'm too close to this one, but it's worth noting that it is already illegal to sell an operator locked phone in France, so if you live in Western Europe and want a legelly unlocked iPhone, all you need to do is take that day trip

iPhone sold unlocked in Germany - for up to 999

[macheath]

According to a press release by T-Mobile, the iPhone is sold without SIM-lock as of now. German speakers follow this link: http://www.t-mobile.de/unternehmen/presse/pressemitteilungen/1,12219,19688-_,00.html You get one for 399 with a two year contract of for 999 without a contract.

A sign of things to come?