Big Country Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Apple invents the iphone. Do they not own the rights to their property? To their invention? Can they not sell it to whomever they wish? No, they can't. They can only sell it to AT&T customers. But, this is because Apple chose to license their phone to AT&T. They selectively decided to limit their market, in a sense building a symbiotoc relationship with AT&T. I am pretty sure AT&T is paying a lot of money to Apple so that they can say, "You want the Iphone, you need our service." For me, I will choose the service I want, and then pick out the device I wish to access that service, not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 What I'm saying is that the inventor of a certain phone should have full say over to whom that phone is sold. This is not collusion or price fixing, because Sprint, Verizon et al could have bought the iphone. Apple gets a better price, and AT&T gets a unique product to market. This isn't monopoly, for that reason. If this is a monopoly then It would be illegal for K-mart to have exclusive rights to Martha Stewart or Target to that guy they use (name escapes me). if the actions weren't deemed anti-competitive on some level, the companies wouldn't have much to worry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 They selectively decided to limit their market as evidenced by their massive sales and soaring stock price ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 But, this is because Apple chose to license their phone to AT&T. They selectively decided to limit their market, in a sense building a symbiotoc relationship with AT&T. I am pretty sure AT&T is paying a lot of money to Apple so that they can say, "You want the Iphone, you need our service." I'm pretty sure that given a market that doesn't demand exclusivity... they would not have had to "choose" AT&T... they would have "chosen" to sell their phone to as many people as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 AT&T is the only thing keeping me from buying an iPhone. Not sure if I need legislation to change that. If Apple doesn't want my business through a different provider, then good luck to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 AT&T is the only thing keeping me from buying an iPhone. Not sure if I need legislation to change that. If Apple doesn't want my business through a different provider, then good luck to them. Again... I'm pretty sure that this was not Apple's decision to sell exclusively. I think that that is what the service providers demand. And in Apple's case Verizon wanted to control the content of the phone too much, so they went with the silver medal, AT&T. But Verizon thinking they can push around Apple on content is another sign that they probably have too much market power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Again... I'm pretty sure that this was not Apple's decision to sell exclusively. I think that that is what the service providers demand. And in Apple's case Verizon wanted to control the content of the phone too much, so they went with the silver medal, AT&T. But Verizon thinking they can push around Apple on content is another sign that they probably have too much market power. That would seem to me to be ridiculous on its face. You're telling me that Apple couldn't have marketed their phone to the public, and basically forced the carriers hand? Not buying it. Apple could easily have gone around AT&T and marketed directly to the public, forcing all the carriers to deal with them on their terms. Their marketing and financial folks analyzed what it would take and deemed this to be their best option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 That would seem to me to be ridiculous on its face. You're telling me that Apple couldn't have marketed their phone to the public, and basically forced the carriers hand? Not buying it. Apple could easily have gone around AT&T and marketed directly to the public, forcing all the carriers to deal with them on their terms. Their marketing and financial folks analyzed what it would take and deemed this to be their best option. Unpack this for me. You think Apple should have sold the phone without the ability to connect to a phone network at first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Unpack this for me. You think Apple should have sold the phone without the ability to connect to a phone network at first? I'm saying the guts of that phone can be configured for any network. That's the way phones used to be, and they'd just have different model numbers. I'm saying Apple could have done their own marketing and had customers on every network DEMANDING that phone, and they would have won. I'm saying Apple's marketing and finance gurus decided that wasn't worth it, and the deal they made with AT&T was better in their eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 you analogy is wrong--a correct analogy would be that you bought a television set and it will only let you watch HBO but it won't let you change the channel to watch cinemax Better analogy would be you bought a TV, but you only could subscribe to Comcast. If you wanted to switch to DirectTV or FioS, you has to buy a new TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm saying the guts of that phone can be configured for any network. That's the way phones used to be, and they'd just have different model numbers. I'm saying Apple could have done their own marketing and had customers on every network DEMANDING that phone, and they would have won. I'm saying Apple's marketing and finance gurus decided that wasn't worth it, and the deal they made with AT&T was better in their eyes. I agree with you that Apple decided that it wasn't worth it to battle the monopolies and aren't able to sell their phone to as many people because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 AT&T is the only thing keeping me from buying an iPhone. Not sure if I need legislation to change that. If Apple doesn't want my business through a different provider, then good luck to them. Verizon expected to be rolling out the Apple iPhone early next year. iPhone likely coming to Verizon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Verizon expected to be rolling out the Apple iPhone early next year. iPhone likely coming to Verizon Most articles I've read have said that Apple will be in an exclusive arrangement with AT&T for the iPhone until 2012. Apple may be developing a different product for Verizon... like a different phone, a netbook, or some other device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 this and cable ala carte would be very very nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 this and cable ala carte would be very very nice Cable a la carte would massively diminish channel choice without reducing the monthly bill significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I'm pretty sure that given a market that doesn't demand exclusivity... they would not have had to "choose" AT&T... they would have "chosen" to sell their phone to as many people as possible. According to this article, the exclusivity deal was renewed through 2010, and as i suspected, AT&T is paying a pretty penny to Apple to have the exclusive offering of the iphone... they pay AT&T about $300 per iPhone sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 According to this article, the exclusivity deal was renewed through 2010, and as i suspected, AT&T is paying a pretty penny to Apple to have the exclusive offering of the iphone... they pay AT&T about $300 per iPhone sold. Don't stop atomic, he's on a roll... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) According to this article, the exclusivity deal was renewed through 2010, and as i suspected, AT&T is paying a pretty penny to Apple to have the exclusive offering of the iphone... they pay AT&T about $300 per iPhone sold. I imagine that's right about what they would sell it directly to consumers for if they could sell it that way... but they can't. If they could, they'd sell it at that price to more people than AT&T can provide. Edited September 25, 2009 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 According to this article, the exclusivity deal was renewed through 2010, and as i suspected, AT&T is paying a pretty penny to Apple to have the exclusive offering of the iphone... they pay AT&T about $300 per iPhone sold. I imagine that's right about what they would sell it directly to consumers for if they could sell it that way... but they can't. If they could, they'd sell it at that price to more people than AT&T can provide. Exactly, I'm pretty sure the 3Gs would cost about $500 if you didn't sign up for some inflated phone package so I can't see why they couldn't have gotten $300 from anyone else if they could. I'm not crying a river for Apple but it does seem like they're making the best of an unfortunate situation rather than gladly entering into this relationship with AT&T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Exactly, I'm pretty sure the 3Gs would cost about $500 if you didn't sign up for some inflated phone package so I can't see why they couldn't have gotten $300 from anyone else if they could. I'm not crying a river for Apple but it does seem like they're making the best of an unfortunate situation rather than gladly entering into this relationship with AT&T. I was comparing it to the new releases of the iPods which were generally at least $300. That doesn't sound like some kind of deal that Apple couldn't refuse, to sell a brand new hot product at $300 to a single carrier, unless selling to a single carrier was their only option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 So your idea of free enterprise is entirely business orientated? No consumer concerns at all? Edit: I think it's YOU that fails to understand free properly. It's really the consumer's responsibility to vote with their dollars. If people weren;t buying the products, then the companies would rethink what they are doing. Sony-Ericsson has a ton of cool phones that do a ton of stuff, but most people don't what that stuff....so sony ends up selling what should be a $700 phone (in their minds) for a dumbed down price with features locked out. The consumers drive that because they define the market with what they buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I was comparing it to the new releases of the iPods which were generally at least $300. That doesn't sound like some kind of deal that Apple couldn't refuse, to sell a brand new hot product at $300 to a single carrier, unless selling to a single carrier was their only option. I was agreeing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 I think apple got a lot out of the att deal as well...network support for a lot of the features they wanted to implement, a big subsidy per phone, etc. they were in a strong bargaining position, and got what they wanted. I mean, it was clearly in both parties' interest given the conditions of the marketplace at the time. it's not really about one company in an agreement having leverage over another, it's about these kinds of agreements between them leading to anti-competitive tactics to control the marketplace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) I think apple got a lot out of the att deal as well...network support for a lot of the features they wanted to implement, a big subsidy per phone, etc. they were in a strong bargaining position, and got what they wanted. I mean, it was clearly in both parties' interest given the conditions of the marketplace at the time. it's not really about one company in an agreement having leverage over another, it's about these kinds of agreements between them leading to anti-competitive tactics to control the marketplace. Let's put it this way. I didn't buy my iphone so I could use AT&T, I bought it despite the fact that I have to use AT&T. I don't pretend for an instant that Apple is getting hosed in this deal, but I'm pretty certain that AT&T is getting the better end of it, simply by the amount of business being driven their way. Hell, the one saving grace about going with AT&T is the fact that so many people I know have iphones, many of my calls will not count against my minutes used. Again, if the $300 per phone bit is true, that doesn't seem like a massive amount of money and I'd be surprised if Apple couldn't command that from any other carrier if they could. ETA: Hell, maybe $300 is more than other carriers were willing to offer up. But I bet not by much. And since Apple knew they could only pick one, they went with the highest bidder. Who can blame them. That doesn't mean they wouldn't rather be able to sell to any carrier, even if the price was a bit less per unit. Edited September 25, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) one little bit I found... Apple initially approached Verizon about a deal, but the carrier declined. “Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship with iPhone customers,” said Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president in a January 29, 2007 USA Today article. In summarizing a February 17 Wall Street Journal article, the Mac Rumors website confirms the information in the USA Today piece. Clearly, AT&T met Apple’s terms. The iPhone is only available through the Apple retails stores, including its online store, and AT&T company-owned retail and online stores. In addition, unlike any other mobile service, activation takes place online–through Apple’s iTunes. edit: another... The question for Apple, however, was simple but perplexing: Which cell phone provider to work with on this project? That is a difficult question. Needless to say, all of the cell phone companies were lined up and ready to align themselves with this hot new technological icon. Alltel, Verizon, Nextel, and all of the other powerhouses of the mobile communications industry wanted to get in on the ground level of this new enterprise. Why, then, did Apple choose AT&T, out of all of the different companies? Well, despite any corporate mumbo-jumbo or lip-service about how they just "fit" or, god help us, "synergy," the true answer is really quite simple. Apple picked AT&T to be the service provider for the iPhone because AT&T is the largest cell phone provider and therefore has the most potential clients to offer. This is, really, a very simple exercise in economics. Imagine that you were going to set up a lemonade stand, but you had to get permission from the city to do so. The city then tells you that you can set up your business on Street A, Street B, or Street C. Now, you realize that Street A has far more traffic than either of the other streets. So, logically, you put your lemonade stand on Street A, because you know that it will offer you the best number of potential sales. This is an exact analogy for why Apple chose AT&T to pair up with the iPhone. AT&T Wireless simply has, by far, the largest number of wireless customers. This translates into a larger pool of potential buyers for the iPhone and companies will always, without exception, seek to find the optimal market area for their product. Edited September 25, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.