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.'"
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.
Why, the carriers have choices, they have not been forced to carry the iPhone, they could have said NO THANKS, however they chose to sign a contract for a product they wanted to sell on their network.
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.
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.
Indeed, anticompetitive should not mean "as a carrier I cannot afford to keep this contract and sell other stuff without bias". It should mean "I am actively prevented to sell alternatives". Else whatever contract between supplier and vendor is anticompetitive by creating an unjust advantage (or, technically, even disadvantage) for the products in the contract.
If you want a textbook example of anticompetitive behavior look at Secure Boot instead. Not how it's defined but how it is implemented, as in "laptops shipping with no whatsoever instruction, not even on the vendor website, on how to get to a BIOS screen".
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
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.
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!
And apparently Android phones make the majority of sales world wide, so Apple certainly does not have a monopoly.
The could also sell Window phones, lets face it they make them in the EU, or Blackberrys too as well as the Androids
so competition is not an issue.
I think the issue is they are complaining that someone is behaving like a carrier and treating them like how they treat their customers
which is unfair.
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.
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
There is a competition between them, if one does not offer an iphone, what do you think it will happen to them?
HTC bought a 50.1% share (controlling interest in the company) for 309 million dollars, then sold back 25% for 150 million dollars. HTC only lost ~4.5 million dollars plus the cost of the acquisition. Not a great business move, but they could have done far worse. However, they still have some control of Beats Electronics because of it (the 25% in stock).
http://www.businessinsider.com/htc-just-sold-back-half-of-its-holdings-in-beats-electronics-2012-7
what are you talking about? In Europe Apple has about 20% of the market, usually less except around a release of a new iPhone. It's nowhere near 50%.
I think Apple is being the innovative one here, innovatively anticompetitive ... and I agree with Apple, they are abiding by the letter of the law.
The question is do we want all major manufacturers with some decent pull (ie. Samsung) to start doing this as well ... I think we don't, allowing market incumbents to throw up extra barriers of entry through contracts only benefits the market incumbents. So lets update the laws to make what Apple is doing illegal going forward.
they followed EU warranty laws?
Agreed.
If I own a telco, and I have - say 100,000 customers, and I'm sure that I can sell 50,000 phones within a twelve month period - then I should decide how many of them I want. I want 20,000 Apple devices, and I want 20,000 Android devices, and I want a few hundreds of each of several other brands.
For Apple or Android, or anyone else to tell me that I MUST purchase X amount over what I have decided is WRONG!!!
Screw Apple and their minimum purchase. I just won't sell any. I'm going to push Android, and all the other competitors, and squash Apple within my own market.
Apple will probably come back with an offer more to my liking when they see me selling all those Androids.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I disagree. The supplier telling me how many phones I must buy is anti-competitive. "You can't have 40,000 phones, Pal. You'll take 70,000, or nothing. Take it or leave it!" That is complete and utter bullshit. And, it's ANTI-competitive.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You have absolutely no experience what so ever in the retail world do you?
This is pretty much standard business practice for high profile retail targets, Apple didn't invent the practice they just joined in. Just because you're unaware of the fact that everyone does it, doesn't make it new. The cute part is that you think Samsung doesn't do the same with their Android phones.
Congratulations, you're a tool of propaganda rather than a human capable of thinking for themselves.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Are you arguing that "This is business as usual." or are you arguing that "This is the RIGHT WAY to do business."??
I'm saying it's wrong, and I'm not going to play the game. In fact, the telcos seem to be doing something about it. They are talking to the EU, informing the regulators that Apple is trying to bend them over a barrel, and isn't even using any vaseline. I'm all for the telcos, in this case.
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM TO ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS THAT APPLE WANTS TO IMPOSE.
Maybe it's "legal" in the states for Apple to rape the telcos. And, maybe it's not so legal in the EU.
How long have you been in the retail world? Hang around - you may get a lesson or two in the near future.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'm saying it's wrong, and I'm not going to play the game.
That's your choice but unusually given modern business practices I actually don't see a lot wrong with this one. Apple are selling a popular phone and frankly the reason it is popular has more to do with fashion than functionality. So to keep it popular it needs to be in adverts for the carriers which have it. Assuming the minimum numbers are not punitive all this contract does is ensure that a carrier is making a major commitment to sell the phone. They don't want iPhones sitting on some carrier's shelf and getting sold almost by accident - they need to have it pushed to keep its fashionable appeal.
Then you should not sign the contract with Apple. Period. The end. No one forces carriers to sell the iPhone.
WTF Are you talking. Apple says if you want to sell our phone, you need to sell this many. If you can't sell this many, we will stick to other carriers. How is that "rape", how is it even wrong?
I thought that I already said that. I'm not signing a contract that basically makes me a junior partner in an advertising and sales scheme. I'm willing to sell 20,000 of their phones, because I think I can do it. I'm not willing to sign a contract that makes me liable if I fail to sell 50,000.
It's Apple's loss, of a sale of 20,000 phones.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br