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.
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.
People want the brand. It's like those Beats headphones: crazy expensive, subpar sound, "all my friends have those so I gotta have 'em too".
Circumcision is child abuse.
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 a computer nerd who owns an iPhone 5 and a Galaxy S3, I can tell you that no matter what I do with my Galaxy, my iPhone is still easier to use, more simple to navigate, and is always more stable. It does everything I need it to. The Galaxy. That's my fiddle phone. I can do anything I want with that phone, and it rarely complains. I can install different operating systems, I'm pretty sure I could dual boot if I wanted to. But so far every single thing I've done on my Galaxy that I couldn't do on my iPhone has been things only a nerd or geek would want to do. (Apart from use a proper Google Reader app, but that's no longer a problem with what's happening to it.) So in the end of my 6 month review of the two phones, I've come to the conclusion (I came to it ages ago actually) that while the Galaxy is the superior phone in nearly every way, the iPhone is the phone that's going to let the average customer do everything they need to do with hardly any worries. (It also feels stronger.) The average non-tech person who gets a smartphone doesn't want to dual boot it, they just want to use it. That's why Apple is so successful. (And when some damn saleperson talked my grandmother into getting a cheap android phone, I felt like taking it to the shop and stuffing it up ....... never mind. That was made worse by most of her children using iPhones and iPads.)
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?
I don't know. I can see plenty of non-nerds wanting to able to add extra storage without having to buy a new device, have the ability to block unwanted calls, mark texts from certain numbers as spam or use Swype to name but 4.
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?
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.
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