Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
Max.
"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.
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...
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
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.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You're criticizing the word choice of the (ridiculously brief) article, not the lawsuit or the laws the suit is based on.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Actually it is their business. Its called being anti competitive which is very illegal in Europe.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
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)
-- Watch me working: www.magerquark.de
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
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.
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
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.
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.