Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
Does anyone else find it rather odd that if Microsoft did something like this (or, indeed, half the stuff Apple do), they would be accused of anti competitive practices (see the recent case between Google and Microsoft over the Vista search for evidence) and possibly taken to court, yet Apple, because they seem to be percieved as a nice company, get away with it?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavin
Apple are like Virgin in many ways. They are the anti-company. They are multi-billion dollar corporations masquarding as small independent companies with charasmatic, young CEOs who are constantly fighting the evil, more conservative, perceived-larger companies. As such they do get away with blue murder.
Like with Virgin. They colluded with BA to fleece customers over fuel supplements. Although they did blow the whistle on it, they still still fleeced thousands of customers over it with no conscience/recompense. Yet BA still look evil and Virgin Atlantic look like heroes.
It constantly amazes me just how anti-consumer Apple can be yet they are still revered. Only since the iPhone have people within the Apple community really been starting to realise.
|
Didn't they say in the matrix
Perception is Reality
The Virgin fuel surcharge debacle is an interesting one. Had BA got to the competition commission first (probably hampered by a bigger burocracy) then VS would have been the bad guys and got the $$$$ fine!
This is why Branson and Jobs protect the market image, the apple logo etc so vigourously.
---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by brundles
Everyone seems to be focussing on Apple as the culprits when, as highlighted in the contract (and I quoted above) the real sting is the 2 year contract with AT&T. To be fair, AT&T need to do this to cover the costs that Apple have imposed on them.
|
18m-2y contracts are far more common over here. I don't think many here consider the length of contract to be unusual of excessive.
---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
The main problem for me is that they virtually halved the price about 60 days after release. The speed suggests they could have made the phone cheaper in the first place. The other problem is they limited the refund to those who had bought the phone within the 14 days prior to the announced price drop.
|
14 day prior purchases could return their phone and they buy it again at the lower price, those outside the 14 days got the refund voucher / credit or whatever it was. Everyone with an iPhone got some money back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
Apple weren't forced to go with AT&T, and bearing in mind the facilities of the iPhone (hardware wise), combined with the fact that AFAIK, US mobile carriers don't subsidise phones heavily, I doubt AT&T have actually subsidised the phone at all. So, I doubt AT&T have massive costs to cover.
|
US Phone carriers don't subsidies as heavily which is why they can offer $20 unlimited data, they are not trying to recover $300 of handset subsidy over 12 months (at $25 a month) which is how the model works in the UK.
In the final analysis Apple really had little choice of carrier if they were to choose a sole carrier across the US.
Compare
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/
to
http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/
These are really the only two nationwide GSM networks. Then if you want to look further into this and the fact the iPhone is a data device as much as a phone EDGE covereage on ATT/Cingular is also far greater.
Verizon and Sprint/Nextel are not GSM TDMA but CDMA so incompatible with the iPhone handset / GSM infrastructure.
Apple wisely chose to build a GSM phone so it could be rolled out globally.
ATT IMHO had this in the bag (compared to say the UK when all 4 network operators have such similar coverage and network technology there was true competition). If they did not realise this and overpaid they are as dumb as the woman suing Apple over the price of her phone.