Alltel does indeed use the CDMA network, all of their phones are exact clones of Verizon phones (or vice versa, not sure if it's the chicken or the egg that comes first).
Thing is, free markets (truly free ones) have oligopolies and monopolies because of just these entry costs (not to mention the network externalities created by the things like "free IN calling" or the like). I think that you are thinking of "perfect competition" which I never said was the case, because in the real world "perfect competition" does not exist. In a perfectly competitive market, there would be no entry costs (or low entry costs, at least) and price would be set where supply is equal to demand. That never happens in the real world (well, almost never, especially if not forced by regulatory agencies).
I don't think you'd like it if the phone market were perfectly competitive, because the definition of that market includes no product differentiation, meaning either no one would have a fancy phone, or everyone would (sorry, everyone would have to have the same thing). Plus, all services would have to be equal, both call quality/coverage and customer service, which is clearly not the case.
Yes, Windows was incompatible with Mac OS, but was this really Microsoft's doing, or more Apple's? Either way, my point was about hardware being stuck with certain vendors' services, which it certainly was (Apple computer meant you couldn't run Windows). And in reference to those Dells running OS X, I was unaware that retail copies would work on Windows PCs (prior to OS X 10.4, which I know has been hacked, but those people would have the same right to complain about an update to OS X killing their installs as an iPhone owner who's phone got bricked by an update).
Where was my market analysis incorrect? I admit I over-generalized but I figured that a discussion of why the phone market is an oligopoly (sticky prices and all) created by high entry costs was beyond the point of my post. Is it not true that if allowed by law a company will try to create a profit maximizing bundle of goods and services to sell? Is this not what Apple is doing? Certainly, I would like to know where my years studying economics are failing me.
Finally, I do not consider posting on \. to be civil disobedience. If you were organizing active boycotts of Apple or writing petitions to get laws changed, perhaps. But how far has our country come from it's laissez faire roots that we would want government regulation to have cheap cell phones? And to add to my earlier ending, if you (or anyone else) were to create such a wonder device as Apple apparently has (or many would so lead us to believe) would you want to give it away for next to nothing? Or open it up so that anyone can add on to it and profit from your innovation? Or would you want to lock it down, so that you can only create wonderous new uses for it, and then make all the money you can off of them? And even if you think you do all of this, could you convince a group of people equal to half plus one of Apple's shareholders that it was a good idea to give up money for the good of technology?
Thing is, most anytime you buy a cell phone, you're buying both the hardware and the network, not one or the other. It's just like the verizon commercials where the "network" (crowd of people) follows around those who just bought their phones, you don't get one without the other. While this may seem to be "unfair" or "unethical", remember that in a free market economy, any time someone sees a market they can go into and make a profit, they will. In this case, the major manufacturers of phones and major carriers have seen a market that they can make a profit on in a certain way and are doing so.
Another thing, this really isn't so different from what most hardware manufacturers do. If you buy most video cards or processors/mobos (certain high end/hardcore gamer models excepted, of course), the licensing and warrantees say that if you attempt to modify the hardware or use it beyond its specs (i.e. overclocking either in hardware or with hacked drivers), the warrantee is void. And in further comparison, are not certain pieces of hardware locked to certain OSs or manufacturers? (I'm thinking the reversed PCI cards and mobos on Gateway PCs of a few years back, or the fact that most Compaq and HP pcs of the past have had entirely proprietary hardware that cannot be replaced with standard components.) Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs (and they still do not allow their OS to run on IBM-compatible PCs, anything not made by Apple won't run it). How is this that different from the iPhone?
Nothing I've seen in the PC or cell phone markets should lead me to believe that what Apple is doing with the iPhone is any different that what every other company does with their products (including the price cut). What a shock, Apple is a company just like everyone else! So maybe the iPhone has some amzaing capabilities and we'd like it to be unlocked so we can exploit these as we'd like, but Apple makes the device, and can sell it as they see fit. If you don't like that, maybe it's time for you to either run for Congress and change the laws, or go and create a device that's as good (or better) on your own. Either way you'll be contributing more to society than sitting on/. and repeatedly posting about how bad this is. And lest you call me a hypocrit, I'm in law school taking copyright classes and the like, so that perhaps I might be able to make a difference when finished.
I was able to work full-time and get my MA in 2 semesters (4 classes a semester plus a thesis spread out over the two) while maintaining a relationship, friends, etc. It sucks, yes, and you have to manage your time wisely (ie you will end up sleeping 3 hours a night for weeks on end) but it is entirely possible and well worth it in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Alltel does indeed use the CDMA network, all of their phones are exact clones of Verizon phones (or vice versa, not sure if it's the chicken or the egg that comes first).
Thing is, free markets (truly free ones) have oligopolies and monopolies because of just these entry costs (not to mention the network externalities created by the things like "free IN calling" or the like). I think that you are thinking of "perfect competition" which I never said was the case, because in the real world "perfect competition" does not exist. In a perfectly competitive market, there would be no entry costs (or low entry costs, at least) and price would be set where supply is equal to demand. That never happens in the real world (well, almost never, especially if not forced by regulatory agencies). I don't think you'd like it if the phone market were perfectly competitive, because the definition of that market includes no product differentiation, meaning either no one would have a fancy phone, or everyone would (sorry, everyone would have to have the same thing). Plus, all services would have to be equal, both call quality/coverage and customer service, which is clearly not the case.
Hmm, let me see.
Yes, Windows was incompatible with Mac OS, but was this really Microsoft's doing, or more Apple's? Either way, my point was about hardware being stuck with certain vendors' services, which it certainly was (Apple computer meant you couldn't run Windows). And in reference to those Dells running OS X, I was unaware that retail copies would work on Windows PCs (prior to OS X 10.4, which I know has been hacked, but those people would have the same right to complain about an update to OS X killing their installs as an iPhone owner who's phone got bricked by an update).
Where was my market analysis incorrect? I admit I over-generalized but I figured that a discussion of why the phone market is an oligopoly (sticky prices and all) created by high entry costs was beyond the point of my post. Is it not true that if allowed by law a company will try to create a profit maximizing bundle of goods and services to sell? Is this not what Apple is doing? Certainly, I would like to know where my years studying economics are failing me.
Finally, I do not consider posting on \. to be civil disobedience. If you were organizing active boycotts of Apple or writing petitions to get laws changed, perhaps. But how far has our country come from it's laissez faire roots that we would want government regulation to have cheap cell phones? And to add to my earlier ending, if you (or anyone else) were to create such a wonder device as Apple apparently has (or many would so lead us to believe) would you want to give it away for next to nothing? Or open it up so that anyone can add on to it and profit from your innovation? Or would you want to lock it down, so that you can only create wonderous new uses for it, and then make all the money you can off of them? And even if you think you do all of this, could you convince a group of people equal to half plus one of Apple's shareholders that it was a good idea to give up money for the good of technology?
Thing is, most anytime you buy a cell phone, you're buying both the hardware and the network, not one or the other. It's just like the verizon commercials where the "network" (crowd of people) follows around those who just bought their phones, you don't get one without the other. While this may seem to be "unfair" or "unethical", remember that in a free market economy, any time someone sees a market they can go into and make a profit, they will. In this case, the major manufacturers of phones and major carriers have seen a market that they can make a profit on in a certain way and are doing so.
/. and repeatedly posting about how bad this is. And lest you call me a hypocrit, I'm in law school taking copyright classes and the like, so that perhaps I might be able to make a difference when finished.
Another thing, this really isn't so different from what most hardware manufacturers do. If you buy most video cards or processors/mobos (certain high end/hardcore gamer models excepted, of course), the licensing and warrantees say that if you attempt to modify the hardware or use it beyond its specs (i.e. overclocking either in hardware or with hacked drivers), the warrantee is void. And in further comparison, are not certain pieces of hardware locked to certain OSs or manufacturers? (I'm thinking the reversed PCI cards and mobos on Gateway PCs of a few years back, or the fact that most Compaq and HP pcs of the past have had entirely proprietary hardware that cannot be replaced with standard components.) Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs (and they still do not allow their OS to run on IBM-compatible PCs, anything not made by Apple won't run it). How is this that different from the iPhone?
Nothing I've seen in the PC or cell phone markets should lead me to believe that what Apple is doing with the iPhone is any different that what every other company does with their products (including the price cut). What a shock, Apple is a company just like everyone else! So maybe the iPhone has some amzaing capabilities and we'd like it to be unlocked so we can exploit these as we'd like, but Apple makes the device, and can sell it as they see fit. If you don't like that, maybe it's time for you to either run for Congress and change the laws, or go and create a device that's as good (or better) on your own. Either way you'll be contributing more to society than sitting on
I was able to work full-time and get my MA in 2 semesters (4 classes a semester plus a thesis spread out over the two) while maintaining a relationship, friends, etc. It sucks, yes, and you have to manage your time wisely (ie you will end up sleeping 3 hours a night for weeks on end) but it is entirely possible and well worth it in my opinion.