European Carriers Complain To EU About Anti-Competitive Contracts With Apple 146
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.'"
Now you know how your customers feel, carriers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy way to fix this problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Belgium does that (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:stomping (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Ironically (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
So, you agree then. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Now you know how your customers feel, carriers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you read the part that said EU?
We have fierce competition on the mobile market in most of EU; if you are bound by a contract it's because you are paying off your phone bought on credit, one month cancellation term is the norm else.
In fact, the competition is so fierce in Denmark now, you get unlimited voice, SMS, MMS in almost all subscriptions, only thing varying these days are the data plans.
Re:Your American :) (Score:2, Insightful)
The US has more members though doesn't it?
Re:Now you know how your customers feel, carriers! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right... 96% share, with your closest competitor having 3% share is *really* similar to 20% share, with one competitor having 35% share.