Slashdot Mirror
European Carriers Complain To EU About Anti-Competitive Contracts With Apple
whoever57 writes "Several European phone carriers have complained to the EU about the contracts that Apple imposes on them if they want to sell the iPhone. Because the contracts stipulate a minimum purchase, and the Carrier must compensate Apple if they fail to sell through that minimum, it has the effect of forcing the carrier to promote iPhones ahead of alternative phones. The European Commission is monitoring the situation. Apple claims that its 'contracts fully comply with local laws wherever we do business, including the EU.'"
The EU is sooo going to stomp on Apple's ass.
So...carriers...you signed a contract. It's something you can't get out of because it's something you NEED to have to succeed. But...the prices are exorbitant, you're being bent over and pounded from behind, and you feel you have no recourse, no matter how much you bitch and whine? Congratulations! Now you know how every single one of your customers feels on a daily basis. You're not going to get one iota of sympathy from me.
...of cellular carriers, the most despised, bullying, and customer-hating organisations - monopolies, often - on the face of the earth, are crying because someone bigger than them is calling the shots for a change. the shock alone must be causing them to palpitate. even better - its because of *unfair and one-sided contract terms*! I laughed so hard I swear my spleen burst.
You know what the easiest way is to solve this problem? Completely separate the business of providing cell/wireless service from the business of providing the actual phones. If you want an iPhone, you buy it from Apple at whatever they are actually charging (none of this "subsidized" multi-year contract BS). Then you buy a service package for whatever carrier you want. Either month-to-month or long-term.
Bundling the phone and service together has been horrible for consumers (we get locked-down devices loaded with crapware and stuck with terrible contracts) and now even the carriers don't like it? Enough.
There is no way Apple can check how many phones a carrier has sold.
Why not make the carriers buy a minimum amount of phones?
All phones are unlocked, and you can switch providers and keep the number. You can get subsidized phones, but then again you can just buy a phone from anyone on credit anyway and buy a service from any of the telcos.
But really who needs Apple? There just isn't a killer app for iPhone now that isn't available on Android, and usually better on Android.
So why not just skip the iPhones altogether at this point, if a user wants it, they can buy it unlocked mail order from one of the countries that sells them unlocked. There's just no need to waste time with Apple now.
Because if carriers stopped buying and selling apple products they would eventually fix their contract problem. Sign a contract with other carriers stating that for a year there would be no selling of i-products. Simple as that.
As I remember that, HTC bought Beats audio for some silly money (like $300 million or something), made a huge loss, sold it back to Beats founders (Dr Dre et al). at a huge loss and the HTC exec whose deal it was got fired.
I think if they want the Apple brand, good for them, they can buy it unlocked from Belgium. And if they're not willing to buy it unlocked, then they don't really want the brand that much.
I think the telcos can safely walk away from Apple at this point.
Here in the US we don't have a "non-barrel" option, though there is some flexibility in the "backside frequency" rate. But in our defense, our government does this to us all the time by bending over backwards to help big business do this to customers. I believe we even pay extra taxes to help buy the barrels.
I bought used phones and now our bill is a fraction of what it was...
Is $50 better = yes. Could and should it be cheaper = yes.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
my iPhone has been things only a nerd or geek would want to do
Its kind of sad your trying to troll Android vs Apple based on subjective comments [and personal attacks]...you hit all the check boxes, but you ignore the fact that this article is about Carriers standing up to Apple, something they are doing 6 years after launch because, well their dependence on Apple is not once it once was, simply because other companies are providing smartphones that outsell Apples several times, because customers are choosing them over Apple.
this is how intel got done in with their contract bulk discounts
Its always a little embarrassing to show how little are know about other parts of the world...here is a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union from the article "The economy of the European Union generates a GDP of over €12.894 trillion (US$16.566 trillion in 2012)[1] according to Eurostat, making it the largest economy in the world."...just in case you missed it "*LARGEST* economy in the world."
So that you are saying is that Apple should be sued by the EU? Gotcha.
I mean after all, Apple actively prevents you from installing another main OS on its iProducts, does it not? Or, are you saying that this only applies to Windows and it is OK because it is Apple?
Carriers aren't forced to offer Apple. In fact, in Europe you aren't really obliged to do anything about Apple - you can succeed (as mobile provider) other ways. Of course, it is much harded than hoping all kool-aid drinking Apple fanboi masses come to you and you only (if serously, Apple is playing with fire here - my pick huge number of their sales in Europe comes from carriers, because no hipster or "cool kid" can afford retail price of Apple).
So, unless Apple has near 90% monopoly in smartphone market (hint: it doesn't, especially in Europe), those carriers will have to taste their own medicine - after all, Apple imposes similar tactics as mobile providers/ISP themselves imposes to us - with huge fees for early termination, etc.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
... don't sell any iPhone
No need to tie oneself to a contract with an impossible number of iPhone when there are plenty of other kinds of smartphone out there
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The situation isn't identical, but it sounds awfully similar to, the situation faced by OEMs in the 1990s. In those days, OEMs needed to preload Windows on a certain percentage of machines so Microsoft took advantage of that to edge out the competition. In these days, carriers need to offer iPhones to a certain percentage of customers so Apple is taking advantage of that to edge out the competition. The magnitude of the problem is somewhat different because the marketplace is still very competitive, but it appears as though there is a great deal of coercion in both cases.
By becoming a cartel, it would be illegal. However, if one large provider would publicly announce it would stop doing business with apple and all the others would follow, there isn't much apple could do. If this was staged by the EU telcos and kept secret, apple would have the burden of proof. I think that a lot of EU telephone market movements are done this way, but I have no way of proving it, so it's just an expression of my opinion.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Are you serious?
We use My Simple Mobile...
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Are you sure? What kind of phone and what kind of unimited data?
It's called business ... business operates on contracts... just because you're lousy at negotiating contracts doesn't mean one of your suppliers is anti-competitive unless the contract stipulates you can't sell other manufacturer's phones. Man-up and learn how to do business and stop relying on your "bought-and-paid-for" regulatory agencies to boost your bottom line.
Well Euro zone is profitable, it sells far more goods and services than it buys in from abroad, and Cyprus is a tiny part of that zone.
On the other hand, USA runs a huge trade deficit, and California is one of the biggest economic parts of the USA and is essentially bankrupt without its Federal bailout.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/06/27/the-silent-bailout-of-the-states-the-greatest-threat-to-our-economic-freedom/
So Apple shouldn't pay up, rather they should not break EU law, and pay their taxes back into the USA which needs them. As for Microsoft, they are not victims here, they knew what they were doing and did it anyway.
T-mobile has 4G and its unlimited data plans are usually 2GB cap, after which you get throttled down to 2G speeds until the next billing cycle.
The "compensate Apple" referred to in the summary appears to simply be that they need to pay for the devices they ordered even if they can't re-sell them to consumers. I know that the EU has strong protections for consumers being able to send goods back, so I would imagine they've got a case to be heard here.
However I have to wonder what the motivation is behind this. It's not like iPhones are sitting on shelves unsold and I don't see how a minimum order quantity is in any way unfair. The carrier knows that they don't have to push the iPhone on consumers and they'll sell their stock regardless. Is this a bargaining chip for other things, or do these factors have an effect on something in the pipeline?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I modded you informative and posting AC to comment. I looked through their web site and for the first time in a while got interested in upgrading. I've been on t-mobile for a long time and I've found it amazing that they don't really give a carp about loyal customers. Oh, new guys get all the bells, but to upgrade as an existing is a most unpleasant experience. I bought my phone 4+ years ago and really don't want to go on contract, but was willing if they gave me a deal. No deal, just pay more.
I'd loathed to buy a used phone from e-bay (if I can even find a SIII, what I want), but for their plan pricing, I see paying even full price a savings over the year. Thanks for the info. I am curious if Verizon or Sprint networks have similar piggy-back companies.
When you sign up to your internet service, the ToS has to be agreeable to both sides. If the contract is "take it or leave it", then there isn't much of a meeting of minds and unfair terms can be struck because of this.
This is the carriers asking for the same protections as the populace gets.
"innovative", but not absolutely wrong.
they followed EU warranty laws?
Most of you people commenting are from the USA and have no clue how Europe carriers operate. I am in Austria. I have both an iPhone 5 and a Galaxy S3. I pay 7.50 Euro a month for 1000/1000/1000 and of course in network is free. I pay 7.50 with the second largest carrier in the country and they are throughout all of Europe (Orange). I bought my phones but if I wanted them for free or 1 Euro then I would pay between 20 and 30 Euro per month for the same plan. Carriers here are not bad at all. Apple should not force a minimum sale, this turns the carriers into a sales force for Apple which it should not be.
Oh and sorry for all you suckers in the US that pay in excess of 100 bucks a month for a mobile plan. Especially those on Verizon who cant use data and voice at the same time.