Apple Can't Afford iPhone's Carrier Exclusivity 371
WirePosted writes with an ITWire article about the problems that Apple's AT&T exclusivity deal could pose in the coming years. Initially the company needed AT&T's commitment to the project, to ensure features like visual voicemail would work. With the iPhone a hit even at its current high price that no longer seems to be the case. Can Apple afford to stick to an exclusive carrier in the future? If for no other reason than consumer choice? "iPhones are being sold unlocked in the markets of Asia where you can't get them with a carrier plan, but they're also being bought and unlocked in the US and Europe. The message is that many and probably most iPhone buyers would like to be given a choice of carrier when they buy their iPhone. Some would be prepared to pay more as they do with other smartphones and buy their iPhone unattached to any subsidized carrier contract. The point is many consumers feel no loyalty to carriers and resent being forced to choose one."
There's more here than meets the eye (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also having structured, simple unlimited data plans, which is really what makes the iPhone shine.
It's about doing things like setting your voicemail greeting all through a GUI on the phone, without having to call into some number and follow prompts. (Simple? Sure. Not a big deal? Sure. But still, one little detail among many.)
It's being able to walk out of a retailer with the iPhone sealed in a box (which itself probably has more attention to design than most handsets do), and then the ability to seamlessly activate via iTunes, with a simple selection of choices, in the comfort of one's own home in a fashion fully supported by Apple and the carrier.
It's about expanding the iTunes/iPod/iPhone/iTunes Store ecosystem with a carefully planned strategy.
It's the user experience from end-to-end (peoples' own individual gripes with AT&T or any other carrier aside).
That's the issue, and all of those things take a lot of backend work and cooperation between Apple and the carrier. It's not just a handset; it's a complete end-user experience from purchase, to activation, to use.
And yes, some customers might not "care" about all of these things. The power users, the hackers, the cutting edge geeks. But normal customers are a much larger target, and those are the people reading reviews, and those are the people who will drive to Apple's goal of 10 million iPhones. With wildly varying user experience and differences from carrier to carrier, how will the iPhone be viewed in the eyes of the iPod-buying populace?
And remember, contrary to the article's assertion, since owning an iPhone isn't mandatory, and we presumably have free will, no one is "forced" to do anything.
What about this is so difficult to comprehend?
That, and the fact that AT&T may be giving Apple as much as $200 per activated iPhone, and then 3%/month for existing customers and a staggering 9%/month for new customers on top of it, so that the end-user cost when people buy one in a store is manageable? Yeah, the iPhone might not be "subsidized" in wireless industry parlance, but you bet your ass it's "subsidized".
There's more going on here than "evil Apple" wanting "lock in". Like all products with Apple, it's about more than just buying a commodity...it's getting a pleasant experience along with it, from end-to-end. (Yeah, yeah, insert a billion gripes about how the iPhone sucks for one reason or another here. Go tell that to Google's CEO, who says the iPhone is the first of an entire new generation of products. Yes, this platform really is that special, no matter how much you, personally, might hate Apple, the iPhone, or both.)
Apple has also shown it does these sorts of things -- and going into the mobile handset business is a HUGE foray -- in baby steps. Is it any surprise that the stage we're at now has carrier exclusivity for a variety of reasons, even beyond what I've already articulated above? Just because YOU don't like it or some IT rag pundit waxes philosophic about it doesn't mean it's not the right business decision for Apple at the present juncture. It doesn't matter how many people buy iPhones to unlock them. There is a vibrant unlocking and hacking community for just about any desirable phone, including ones not available in particular markets, etc.
It may be that someday, Apple really can't "afford" carrier exclusivity. And you know what? I'd imagine we'll see a change, then, won't we?
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I really hate it when people make things that don't suck. I mean, come on, companies of America. Bring me stuff that's unpleasant. I want the suck!
Why does the designer of the phone have any say at all as to who can service it?
I don't know, perhaps the designer of the phone has features they want to include that aren't part of the standard feature set? Like being able to activate at home without having to wait for a sales droid. Or visual voicemail. Or perhaps they don't want customers of their phones to have to wade through a sea of bizarre contracts and options? But again, that's part of that pleasant experience that you think is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps my point is exactly that it doesnt matter what Apple thinks. They make phones, not offer cell service, and it's none of their business what co
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:4, Informative)
What did Steve Jobs do you to you, run your dog down? Jesus. I have my iPhone box right here. Did you know that it says you need a PC with Windows or a Mac and you need to have iTunes installed to use the product? It's not like Apple is dropping their evil proprietary software onto your machine when you plug your phone in without any warning.
Being able to activate myself is convenient. I liked that. I was an existing AT&T customer who had never had any problems with them - I've had some horrible piece of shit phone with them for five years or so before I switched to the iPhone. I've still never had any problems with them. Hell, I haven't -talked- to someone from AT&T about my service, ever. They send me a bill and I pay it. No bullshit involved.
I don't quite know why you're frothing at the mouth. Yes, there's some lock-in. That's advertised straight-up. You need iTunes; you need an AT&T contract. Don't like it? Then vote with your wallet and buy something else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that's exactly what people are suggesting. I mean, what were you thinking? No one is suggesting this should be illegal for Apple to do! But it is certainly fair game to criticise them, point out flaws in their product and suggest buying something else.
After all, Microsoft gets enough flak (including legal troubles, for them) for trying to coerce people into using its media software.
His "frothing at the mouth" is probably because we hear a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What'd you post that comment from, then? An iPhone or something? You need a computer to use an iPod, too. Is that really such a huge problem?
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, are you aware of how they have been running their computer business? I'm sure that you will *say* you are very aware, and then you might begin to spew a little information that will quickly turn into a rant about how evil the company is... but just stop and think (or god forbid actually do some research) before you reply to me.
Did you know that Apple had their tentacles wrapped around every little detail involved with the manufacture and sale of their new computers for the majority of the time that Apple has been selling computers? Do you understand that this is why they are as stable, versatile, and easy to use as they are? Do you think it is just coincidence that the industry standard in professional publishing software began as "Apple Only" software? (Hint: Adobe...) Do you know that Apples were the first computers to enter into professional recording studios? Again, would you just blow this off to coincidence?
For more than a decade, while IBM users were still fooling around with DOS, MAC users were connecting to the budding internet with Prodigy or AOL or Compuserve. While PC users were trying to figure out how to get their sound cards to work, MAC users were writing music in notation on their screens and getting their "cute" little machines to play it back. And these are only some of the advances. Sure, Apple kept an iron grip on manufacturing. This was to ENSURE a quality product. And you know what? IT WORKED!
Now, personally, I've never owned an Apple. I have nothing against them, but I've never been able to afford one. I can appreciate the quality of a Ferrari without owning one of those either. Just because they are expensive, I'm not about to go on a spree hating the company.
What happens when you buy an Unlocked IPhone, and you pick your carrier, and you find that half of those nifty features that you bought the IPhone for, don't work. Whose fault is that. Is it Apples? Nope. You are the kind of person who will blame Apple, but that doesn't make it their fault. They made the phone, they worked it out with AT&T so that all the features of their phone work with AT&T as a carrier. From your argument, you don't want Apple to be dictating how EVERY other company out there that could provide phone service has to alter how their service works, just to make it compatible with the Iphone... or are you a blind hypocrite who just can't see that this is exactly what would HAVE to happen, if the IPhone was able to work with every carrier? Oh sure, Apple could lose and alter some of their features, and make their phone just like a motorola... but what would be the point?
Apple raised the bar. Plain and simple. If you don't like the IPhone AT&T marriage, DON'T BUY ONE! How simple is that? I'm not the only person to realize this. Why can't you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But again, that's part of that pleasant experience that you think is wrong.
No, it's part of control. This isn't surprising, as there's no company on the face of the planet which is more of a control freak than Apple, but it's still about control, not a "pleasant experience". Apple wants you to use their products in exactly the way they see fit, when they see fit, if they see fit. And that, I submit, is what's wrong here.
No one has a problem with a pleasant experience, despite your idiotic interpretation to the contrary. What we have a problem with is the practices Apple is usin
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So that's why mac people only have one mouse button!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, let me just say that I don't play games. This is probably the one part of the mac experience
Again, wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
And not to rip on your research, but I consider usability research pure BS. It's frankly impossible to objectively determine rules for what people find easier, when personal preferences vary so widely.
Again, you're wrong.
I think you don't quite understand how usability research works. This isn't some kind of voodoo where somebody simply determines that something works better than something else. These are valid studies, and there are rules that can be derived from doing these studies which apply to most people. GP mentioned the buttons in dialog boxes: On Windows, the default dialog box is a YesNo box. There's some text, then there are "Yes" or "No" buttons. On the Mac, the buttons contain verbs. For
You're wrong (Score:3, Informative)
whoever insisted on the "Hey guys, let's have only one menu bar for every window, ever!" idea should never get to design a GUI again.
Fitt's law. [wikipedia.org] You're wrong, Apple's UI team is right. Not an opinion, either. UI design is science, not opinion.
Also, Ubuntu has a very nice UI, but Windows? I remember installing a wifi card in a Windows laptop. At one point, the installation instructions told me to open the context menu on a entry in a subment of the Start menu to get to the card's properties. Really? That's less confusing than Mac OS? You're probably used to Windows and thus find Mac OS X confusing. Fair enough. For somebody who uses b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vodaphone and T-Mobile are two operators that remove features from phones and hack about with the firmware purely because the phones have a feature that would save the end user some money.
It's about time a phone maker stood up to these phone operators, they are overcharging people and they've held back development of easier to use phones and convenient features.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It may be different elsewhere, but in the US, T-Mobile is a pretty good carrier.
Notion of phone activation, not GSM-like (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole notion of phone activation is very CDMA like and is not part of the usual GSM experience. The only thing that should take activating is the phone account, and then you are free to move your SIM card from phone to phone. I have never need to activate any GSM phone I have got, so why should I need to do this with the iPhone.
The iPhone has got many things right, but this does not make it a perfect phone. There are still missing features, that some people take for granted in GSM phones, like being able to transmit files and contacts via Bluetooth and MMS messaging, amongst others. Hopefully Apple will correct this or the competition will offer something that is even better, for us to lust over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to activate the specific device with GSM, but you do normally need to activate the SIM/your account, which for 99.9% of consumers amounts to exactly the same thing.
WTF?!?
Dude, most people already have accounts and SIMS you drop your old SIM in your new phone and away you go. That's all I had to do with my iPhone...well apart from evading the retarded *totally unnecessary* "activation" crap.
Seriously, quit spouting ridiculous BS to defend a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, you activate it.
Do try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about anyone else but I want hardware/software not an "experience" from Apple.
Then you don't want Apple, period. Apple's whole raison d'etre is to create a simple and elegant user experience out of complicated computer-related tasks. Apple is not interested in making the fastest or cheapest commodity computer product for other people to customize. Apple creates value to people who want their technology to "just work" by covering the whole product lifecycle with a system that - surprise - as
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously I don't fit into Apple's target market (though for some reason, I still have to hear about them all the time) and my phone obviously lacks the magical "experience" of Apple - but please don't try to mislead people into suggesting that every other phone doesn't work.
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
To be absolutely clear--the whole REASON why there's such demand for Apple products is because, unlike many tech companies, they DO care about the entire user experience. It makes using the product simple, easy, convenient. Would people buy Apple products if they WEREN'T easy to use, if that end-to-end experience WASN'T designed? It frustrates me to no end to hear people gripe about "user choice and freedom" but at the same time they covet the simplicity and elegance of Apple's design approach, not realizing that their interfaces and hardware are what they are precisely because it doesn't allow you to customize the crap out of it and ultimately break it in a million ways.
I've owned products by many different companies--Motorola, Samsung, Sony (and those are just mobile phones). And not a single one of them has been anywhere near as successful at designing a mobile phone interface as Apple has. It is called attention to detail. As a former loyal T-Mobile customer, do you think I was happy about having to switch to AT&T for an iPhone? I weighed my decision carefully, and like a mature adult, I made an informed choice. I am not sitting around with my old crappy UNLOCKED Motorola V3x with an indecipherable interface, whining about how the choices presented to me are not the choices I want. Would you be any happier if Apple simply decided not to develop the iPhone at all?
Some people just want to find any reason to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
To be absolutely clear--the whole REASON why there's such demand for Apple products is because, unlike many tech companies, they DO care about the entire user experience. It makes using the product simple, easy, convenient. Would people buy Apple products if they WEREN'T easy to use, if that end-to-end experience WASN'T designed? It frustrates me to no end to hear people gripe about "user choice and freedom" but at the same time they covet the simplicity and elegance of Apple's design approach, not realizing that their interfaces and hardware are what they are precisely because it doesn't allow you to customize the crap out of it and ultimately break it in a million ways.
I actually think that the reason that Apple gets such a demand isn't that they are so easy to use necessarily its because they are one of the few tech companies that seems to have innovated and has the money to market them. For example, look back a year or two and see if there were any major phones with a touch-screen interface similar to the iPhone and I bet you there w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The way a Mac enthusiast uses the phrase "getting it" strikes me as somewhat cultish.
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
new iPhone features (Score:2)
Of course, there will probably be a flood of new features soon, now that Apple is opening the phone up to 3rd party applications.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I bet you're the kind of person that gets spyware. The simple matter is that you don't have problems unless you're stupid. Yes, I'm not going to try to be more polite- that's the simple fact. Unless you are stupid, you will have no problems whatsoever. Don't install smiley toolbars, you will not get spyware. I've never known a single Windows user who actually knew what he was doing to have any problems with his machine. Apple does do a very good job at designing computers that are hard for idiots to break (ironic since Windows brought PCs to the masses) but if you don't go swinging a sledgehammer around the OS, you. will. not. have. problems.
I think the "stupid" label more accurately applies to a guy who can't appreciate that 98% of the PC-using world has the same gripes and issues with Windows. I've never gotten spyware on a Windows machine either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't ruin the computing experience for everyone; worrying about what kinds of sites you can or can't go to, loading antivirus software and keeping it updated, not using the Outlook preview pane, and so on.
"Stupid" describes a guy who doesn't understand why Apple doesn't
Who cares? (Score:2)
From a business standpoint, exclusive access to the iPhone has value, and enables Apple to get better terms. AT&T's customer base and profits increased significantly based on the iPhone. It wouldn't s
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Because if you want any kind of feature in your phone you have to sign a contract.
Because in the USA the cell phone played out differently than elsewhere.
sure it sucks, but in the end two year contracts aren't all that bad. They can't randomly raise your rates either. Apple is playing ball with the cell phone companies or else the iPhone would never have gotten to market, just like all the really cool phones from japan take 3-4 years befo
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it illegal for americans to import their own unlocked cellphone from abroad? That's certainly what I would do.
You can't be serious. Two years is longer than the projected lifespan of the phone, even if you treat it nicely. And most people who rushed to buy their iPhone want a new phone within two years, regardless of whether it lasts that long, or not. Besides, the contract sucks horseshit regardless of how long it is, making the horseshit last two years isn't going to make it any better.
Also, I'm not interested in whether AT&T is going to raise the rates. The rates they already have are already astronomical! What I want is a free market, and that means that I'm not locked to two year contracts, and can change provider any time I feel like it. A cell-phone carrier is not something that should need your first-born son just to be able to sell you their service.
Finally, I see no reason why an over-hyped but somewhat fashionable touch-screen phone should need to play a different ball-game than all the other phones on the market. Especially when the rules of the new ball-game is to get screwed, over and over again, by bending over and letting corporate shitheads put their contracts so deep into your anus you start to blead. If they should change the rules, they should instead have tried to make it a fair game, but I guess that's asking a bit too much.
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
My choices are not:
* Buy iPhone from AT&T in the USA
OR
* Move to Europe and get some other cell phone there.
My choices ARE:
* Buy iPhone from AT&T in the USA
OR
* Buy much crappier smartphone, also with 2 year contract with some carrier I may or may not like
OR
* Buy utilitarian phone, also with a 2 year contract so that the phone is subsidized.
I bought an iPhone for $399 (you know; what they *actually* cost, not $600). I don't see the big deal. My previous phone cost $150 for a "dumb" phone thru Verizon with 2 year contract, and Verizon is the devil.
Unlike most Americans, though, I'm not used to contracts because in the past I bought unlocked GSM phones from eBay and used them sans contract on Cingular (so I was actually happy to have the iPhone excuse to ditch Verizon and their crappy call quality and dropped calls at busy times). Back when the Ericsson T39 was hot, I bought it new on eBay from the UK, I think i paid $299. My next phone (4 years later) was a Samsung D50 slider that was just a little under $400. So $400 for the iPhone was no issue. I don't particularly like being stuck with a contract, but I've used AT&T before and am more than happy to stay with them for 2 years. Frankly, compared to the rest of the market, what I get for $400 is so much more than I've gotten in the past. Both my previous expensive phones were very nice and everything, but they weren't above and beyond different from the competition like the iPhone. And I've used Windows Mobile, for 2 weeks, before I got rid of the phone out of utter frustration.
The iPhone is mediocre? Seriously? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
* Visual voicemail. New functionality on this order demands special implementation.
* Unlimited data. Regardless of 3G or EDGE, data on *any* cell phone that's not specifically a 3G modem tends towards ridiculous fees. If Apple had released an unlocked iPhone and asked for unlimited data plans, the carriers would laugh and ask if they also wanted a pony.
* To gain a foothold in the total clusterfuck that is the US mobi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this specific instance, I happen to agree that there should be unlimited data plans, and there aren't that many that aren't also focused on "unlimited anything" (flat rate), at ridiculous prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Service should be prepaid, or at least a reasonable flat rate for whatever you do use and a $0 bill in a month that you don't use their network.
On that subject, if you need a no-frills cellphone plan and talk an average of 300 minutes a month (or less on a cellphone) T-Mobile Prepaid service is the best value I've found. You can buy 1000 minutes for $100 with _no_ hidden costs. That's what annoyed me off about the nextel/sprint plan I had. Officially the plan was 29.99 but realistically it was more like 37 with the stupid fees.
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
No, most of those are the advantages Apple can give their customers with carrier exclusivity.
What Apple gets from carrier exclusivity is the ability to get a portion of the monthly charges from the carrier. Based on reports, Apple gets a significant portion of the customer's monthly payment to AT&T (and O2 in the UK, and T-Mobile in France, and ...); they would not be able to do that without the exclusivity.
Even $10/month from the customer means that Apple would be getting an additional $240 over the course of the 2-year contract; that's a pretty significant reason to continue to push for exclusivity for a while.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, this platform really is that special, no matter how much you, personally, might hate Apple, the iPhone, or both.)
Really? From here in the UK, I still just don't "get" the iPhone. Anecdotally I don't know anyone who has one or is planning on getting one (locked or unlocked) Even the salesman in the Apple store couldn't explain how the damn thing was better than my cheap ass* £30 Nokia, apart from using vague terms like the "iphone experience" whatever that means. In the end I got him to admit that the only thing it had over my phone was the GUI, and that my phone could replicate anything else it did with a bit o
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't know what visual voicemail is. It's not a video of someone talking to you, it's a method of displaying the voicemails in your box graphically without having to sit through each one to see who it's from and how long it is.
I don't even own an iPhone and I know that.
I do know that; you can send audio clips via MMS as well as video (yes, I can record just audio clips on my phone), and they sit in your message inbox similar to an SMS so you can open whichever one you want whenever you want. The Apple salesman agreed that this wasn't hugely different to visual voicemail, though he didn't know you could send audio via MMS*. If he was wrong, than someone correct him (and by implication, me) please.
*I possibly got a particularly dumb salesman when I asked straight out "w
College/University requirements for phone sales? (Score:2)
Point in case - I was looking at one of the new TX luxury watch line, 770 series (actually made by
Re:College/University requirements for phone sales (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally I don't think that selling cell phones requires a college/university degree.
I agree, but they should at least know their own products inside out. Otherwise how do you sell it? When someone says "can it do X" the answer shouldn't be "it's not about X, it's about the experience", the answer should be either "not only can it do X, but it can do a, b, and c as well" or it should be, Sorry it can't do X, but it can do a, b, c and d which, along with y and z make it better than something that can do X".
Just to play devils advocate - I'm a surgeon/geek/former scientist, and so how I choose to buy things is probably very, very different than my musician and actor friends. Neither way of buying/comparing things is the "right" way.
I do the same as you, but with all the hype, actual facts about the iPhone are hard
iTunes shouldn't be involved. (Score:3, Interesting)
"and then the ability to seamlessly activate via iTunes"
"Seamlessly"? You have to have a computer connected to the Internet just to activate your phone? That is so lame. There's a huge population of people, especially outside the US, who have mobile phones but not computers. I wonder what percentage of those un-activated iPhones were bought by people who didn't realize they had to mess with a PC just to turn the phone on.
And you still can't download music over the air link, can you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:iTunes shouldn't be involved. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The iPhone requires iTunes for activation and OS updates (which sometimes will bring significant new features, unlike nearly all other handsets
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rounded off to two significant figures, I'd guess 0.0%. You spend $400 on a product and then keep it when you find out you can't use it; you take it back to the store and get your money back. Even people who don't have a personal computer probably know somebody who has one to activate the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple joins the ranks of the telecommunications companies, of the music industry, of Microsoft, in employing that thinking.
Rationalize it all you want, but it is obvious there is demand in the market that Apple is refusing to meet. And while the brand-submissives whine about people "copying" the iPhone, others are more than willing to fill that gap.
"it's about more than just buying a commodity...it
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this platform really is that special, no matter how much you, personally, might hate Apple, the iPhone, or both.
No it isn't. Apple fanboys have been proclaiming this since before the iPhone was released, and it wasn't true then, and it hasn't become one iota more true in the meantime. It's just a phone. That's it. It's a well-made phone, I must admit (even though I normally hate Apple design, they did a good job on this one), but nothing more. It is no more than a logical extension of the concepts which were already there, not anything revolutionary.
Re: iPhone and AT&T (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There's more here than meets the eye (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than contrary, isn't that exactly the article's assertion? That no one is "forced" to buy an iPhone, and thus many who might buy it unlocked/unsubsidized don't because it isn't?
From TFA:
So that represents a lost opportunity cost. Maybe Apple ran those numbers, paid their money and made their choice, deciding the the gain from exclusivity was worth the unlocked instrument sales. If your $200 AT&T subsidy number is right, I supposed that approximates the premium that Apple expects a consumer would pay.
Unless AT&T really didn't do their homework before signing the iPhone deal, I would guess that they only pay Apple the subsidy on activated instruments.
And BTW . .
Your smart-aleckness makes Baby Jesus cry.
Carriers (Score:4, Interesting)
nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)
T-Mobile has had those for half a dozen years for the Danger Hiptop.
It's about expanding the iTunes/iPod/iPhone/iTunes Store ecosystem with a carefully planned strategy.
Yes, that is what it is about: vendor lock-in. And that's why Apple is evil.
It may be that someday, Apple really can't "afford" carrier exclusivity. And you know what? I'd imagine we'll see a change, then, won't we?
You don't seriously belie
Loyalty!? (Score:5, Informative)
My current carrier doesn't provide many services you can get in other areas, such as video transfer and texting outside the local area. I'm not talking about extra-cost, they simply don't offer it.
On top of all this, cell service is expensive. With these things in mind, I can't imagine how "loyalty" is supposed to even come into the equation. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just looking at which side of the ship to jump off of, knowing that the next ship over isn't likely to be any better anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"My current carrier doesn't provide many services you can get in other areas, such as video transfer and texting outside the local area. I'm not talking about extra-cost, they simply don't offer it."
So switch to Verizon -- they have good coverage in 59230.
You need to move to Mali, Kenya or Rwanda (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been with Hutch3 (in Australia) for a number of years now, and I do feel a degree of brand loyalty for a few reasons:
If customers don't feel loyal to their carrier, it means the carrier is doing nothing to inspire loyalty, and should re-think what they're doing. Low customer loya
my understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple designed a phone that is very good, and found a carrier that was desperate to play ball and risk a new world order. Apple exclusivity, therefore, serves that new world order. When Apple does not have to cripple a phone in order to insure that the carrier will make enough money. The phone is as Apple wants it for it's customers that are willing to pay for good hardware, not for the carrier customers who largely want believe they are getting a good deal by paying for 'services' throughout a long contract.
And this is where Apple may have blundered, at least in the US. The two year contract. We don't want it, we don't need it. Apple could charge half of what it made with the two year extension, $60, and still likely come out ahead in the long run.
your understanding is wrong (Score:2)
Every new AT&T activation is a two-year contract. It's not apple's fault. Sorry, please play again.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you dense? Apple wasn't forced to partner with AT&T.
All phones and all data services (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All phones and all data services (Score:5, Informative)
I still don't get why the iphone is considered so revolutionary, except it's the only one that's permanently locked to a single carrier and has a ludicrously long minimum contract.
Why the iPhone is revolutionary... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've looked at smartphones in the past, and play with them whenever I'm paynig my wireless bill at the store instead of the mail.
Other smartphones don't have web browsers that just works, they don't have email that just works, they don't connect to the computer in a way that just works they don't have a user interface so simple my mom can use it but so powerful I'd love to use it.
I don't have one yet, because I don't NEED a smartphone. But if I wanted a smartphone, rather than just a cellphone, the "It Just Works" factor make it the iPhone or nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Other smartphones don't have web browsers that just works, they don't have email that just works
I don't own a phone that really qualifies as a smartphone - it's an early 3G model with a small screen. I do own a 770, and when it's near my phone or near a WiFi point, web browsing (Opera) just works and so does email. I have friends who bought phones a year or so after me and they have web browsers that just work and which are easy to type URLs into with a pop-out keyboard. I've played with an iPhone, and it is nicer, but like OS X on the desktop it has a few UI issues that make it frustrating (altho
as I like to say.. (Score:2, Insightful)
You won't find anywhere on your iPhone to configure the applications because you shouldn't need to.. but if you do, call tech support cause there aint no way to fix it self and the same goes for everything else made by Apple. It's proprietary technology and that's nothing but a disgrace in this day and age.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My dads old POS cadillac just "worked." It started every time. No one would call that car revolutionary.
My treo "just works." I can make phone calls and surf the web.
I'm not sure why people keep using this tired old canard, but lots of things "just work."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of them 'just work.'
For some value of 'just work.'
Apple's browser has real limitations too, but a fanboy on your level wouldnt be able to admit to them.
Yes it does. You'll note I never said mobilesafari is the pinnacle of design or perfection of the mobile browser concept. No, apparently when someone suggests anything positive about anything apple, that to you is evidence of irrati
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the market had really got to the stage where just working was "revolutionary", don't you think there would have been more of an uproar about the state of other phones? But no, everyone else carries on with their phones working just
Re: (Score:2)
I use a phone i got off ebay on the tmobile network.
works great.
i too wonder why phones are not sold outside of carrier
agreements in general. the FIC FreeRunner phone will
be sold that way, and it runs on open source software.
Re: (Score:2)
Another "analysis" missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
Apple is trying to upset the traditional business model for handset makers in that they wish to get a cut of recurring subscriber revenues, not just a one-time equipment sale. Apple is able to get this revenue (which in the long term means more than the phone sale!) precisely because it has granted exclusivity to a single carrier. If AT&T was no longer guaranteed to capture the vast majority of iPhone subscribers, it would neither have (a) implemented the needed Voicemail and EGDE network upgrades and the billing system+iTunes interface, or (b) agreed to give a cut of subscriber MRC to Apple.
The simple calculus here is that carriers will do special things that Apple asks for (changing the way they bill and provision customers, plus handing over a cut of service revenue) in return for Apple doing something the carriers ask for (exclusivity). I don't think anyone would sensibly argue that carrier exclusivity is in the best interest of all customers, but that doesn't mean you're really tied to it. Those with the means and technical knowledge will continue to purchase and unlock phones to their hearts' content - that's the beauty of a GSM ecosystem (well at least for 2 of the 4 main US carriers). Apple and all the carriers internationally that it deals with - plus all the cellphone users who just want all of their cool Apple features to work with a minimum of hassle - will continue to pursue the exclusivity model for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regarding EDGE Apple could have targeted EDGE enabled telcos. The provisioning in France was a joke - I spent 45 minutes in an Orange Shop, and still cannot change levels of iPhone plans online. Orange still has the normal provisioning system in place. So it seems Jobs only cares about the full experience for American
Steve's insistence on not having subsidies is dumb (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't understand is why, when Apple dropped the price, they didn't just make the price drop a subsidy for AT&T customers instead. They could have offered $200 off AT&T service after the first month that wasn't applicible to cancellation fees, and could have extended it to early adopters so they wouldn't have felt burned. Would have allowed Apple to drop the price to AT&T users(well, it would take a few months to see all the savings I suppose), and would have given Apple 50% more revenue from unlockers. But I think Steve was just so set against "subsidies" that he decided to take the "I'll do anything to prevent you from getting an unlocked iPhone" route instead. I think that costed Apple not only customers and revenue, but a LOT of goodwill too.....
Exclusivity is the point (Score:2, Insightful)
This idea of Apple being "forced to exclusivity" is ludicrous; they've worked ve
No choice... (Score:2)
However, the mobile phone industry is one where to all intents and purposes the choices are "rock" and "hard place". Which makes me wonder if it really matters in this case.
Phone companies are not your friends. They are not out to give you a good, nor fair, deal. Not one of them. Every transaction with them is one of compromise. Regardless of whatever your contract says you'll be paying the same amount of money either way, with any pr
Re:No choice... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Some vendors give you good deals, give you good service, and a fair price for them. Unfortunately, lots of customers consider a fair price only to be equal to the lowest price in the market, ignoring the long-term cost of the rates (e.g. lower up-front costs in exchange for higher monthly fees), quality of service provided, etc. Those vendors that give customers
So Apple is supposed to violate its contract? (Score:3, Informative)
Can Apple leave its five year exclusive contract with AT&T? If for no other reason that to heed the cautionary woes of a Computerworld writer with tenuous grasp of business and markets?
The problem with wags is that they talk about Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, etc as if they were characters in a play they were writing, apparently unaware of the real world constrains of money, technology, personnel, opportunity cost, and other resources. They write like they're genus for printing ignorant wishful thinking that sounds good only if you don't know what else is involved.
Video Game Consoles 2007: Wii, PS3 and the Death of Microsoft's Xbox 360 [roughlydrafted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, but at what cost? This will depend on the terms of the contract. I am just curious whether AT&T needs Apple more or whether Apple needs AT&T more. This is an important point, because this will define who owes what if the contract is broken, and who is most likely to opt for pulling out of the contract fi
Re: (Score:2)
As a consumer (Score:2)
This said - I'm still not willing to pay an outrageous sum of money to get good service, but a sensible. If a certain phone has what it takes to satisfy my needs/requirements then I select that phone and uses it with the carrier of my choice. But if the phone is locked to an operator I'm not willing to switch carrier just because I want that phone. In that case it's either an unlocked version or skipping th
Contradictory conclusions (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to be pedantic, but isn't this statement fundamentally contradictory? If they have no carrier loyalty, then why should it be a problem to switch networks if they really want to use an iPhone? If the desire to use an iPhone is greater than the desire to stick with your network then it could be argued that you lack (sufficient great) carrier loyalty. If the desire to stay with your current carrier is greate
What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's besides the point.
The article is about going global. No one is saying that Apple really plans to go exclusive around the world for the long term. They'll sign some agreements to get traction with the big carriers, and when 3G arrives, they'll adjust. They'll probably go for less than 5 years exclusive.
Technology changes so fast that this is really a moot point. I'm not even sure why people are getting excited or worried.
I'd like a choice of technology that doesn't suck (Score:2)
Carrier exclusivity?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it sucks that the iPhone only has EDGE, but if Steve is to be believed, and the battery life would've been seriously compromised with HSDPA, then I actually prefer it this way. There are engineering limitations that are yet to be overcome.
I don't get this argument that the browser has limited Web 2.0 capabilities. This is in comparison to your Blackberry, which has NO Web 2.0 capabilities? Or any other common phone browser that ALSO has zero Web 2.0 capabilities? None of your phones can run Google A
iPhone SIM lockdown (Score:4, Interesting)
Another example why lockdown is just plain stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The call center drone could have transferred you to the Chinese embassy for all he cared. He couldn't answer your question, so he got you out of his hair. In likely record time. Problem Solved. Bet you won't call them for tech support in the near future - a bonus! (from AT&T's point of view anyway).
Sheesh, you'd think you would have figured out this tech support stuff by now. You may ret