Apple Told to End iPhone Deal in France [Archive]

Dreadnaught

12-17-2008, 02:24 PM

If someone can help me figure this out...doesn't this make any kind of exclusive selling agreement anti-competitive?

DECEMBER 17, 2008, 12:46 P.M. ET

Apple Told to End iPhone Deal in France

By LEILA ABBOUD

PARIS -- Antrust authorities here ruled that Apple Inc.'s deal to sell the iPhone in France exclusively through France Telecom S.A. posed an unfair barrier to consumer choice, paving the way for other telecom operators to start selling the iPhone just before the holiday gift-giving season.

The decision from France's Competition Council came in response to a complaint filed in September by one of France Telecom's competitors, Bouygues Telecom, a unit of French diversified construction group Bouygues SA. The ruling suspends the contract that Apple and France Telecom signed last year, which gave the telecom operator the exclusive right to sell the iPhone bundled with a mobile phone contract.

France Telecom said it would appeal the decision. Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The decision is a blow to France Telecom, which has bet that the iPhone would help attract and retain high-tech savvy customers who tend to spend more on their monthly communication bills. It also complicates Apple's marketing plans in one of Europe's biggest markets.

But the decision isn't likely to have immediate repercussions for Apple outside France. European Union regulators have so far chosen to let individual countries decide how to handle competition issues arising from Apple's iPhone.

The result is a patchwork of different situations for consumers in Europe. In Belgium, for example, consumers can buy an iPhone and use it on any operator. In Germany, a similar legal challenge filed in 2007 by Vodafone Group Plc to derail Deutsche Telekom AG's exclusive contract with Apple to distribute the iPhone failed.

The Competition Council's decision makes France the harshest critic in Europe of Apple's iPhone business model built on signing exclusive contracts with telecom operators in exchange for revenue sharing.

But even before Wednesday's ruling, French consumers could buy an iPhone, have it unlocked for a €100 fee, and then use it on any operator. Such an approach had drawbacks though: the consumer has to pay a much steeper price for the phone itself and doesn't get full functionality and updates on iTunes, for example. Based on such usage, SFR -- France's mobile phone operator jointly owned by Vivendi SA and Vodafone Group PLC -- already had 45,000 subscribers on the iPhone despite France Telecom's "exclusive" contract.

A spokeswoman for Bouygues Telecom said the company would try to sign its own contract with Apple to sell the iPhone as quickly as possible. A spokesperson for SFR said the firm hopes to be able to start selling the iPhone "very soon."

The Competition Council said in a statement that France Telecom's five-year exclusive deal with Apple was "clearly excessive" and risked "serious and immediate damage to competition on the mobile market and to consumers." The Council said it would do an "in-depth examination" of the case and the appeal, which could take 12 to 18 months.

France Telecom said in a statement that the decision would have the unwanted effect of stifling innovative services for consumers, such as mobile video, by causing operators to think twice before investing in network upgrades. The operator said it had "heavily invested" to upgrade its network to handle and optimize the iPhone. It has sold 150,000 first generation iPhones in the past year, and 450,000 second generation ones.

—A.H. Mooradian contributed to this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122953505778314615.html?mod=article-outset-box

ss6veku

12-17-2008, 02:42 PM

a contract is a signed deal a government or some sort of authority should not be able to break a contract like that one anyway

Hazir

12-17-2008, 07:27 PM

With regards to your question Dread; yes. I am not in the least bit surprised by this ruling even though I didn't know about the case. I'm surprised any of that type of exclusive deal is able to survive at all in the EU. It all depends on whether or not there is a real local competitor (unlike Vodafone or T-mobile) is willing to go to court over this. In Belgium the state simply forbids the selling of phones in combination with a line/plan only. That sort of made it unnecessary to go to court overthere.

SS6veku, what if the contract is to have you killed?

Timbuk2

12-18-2008, 05:06 AM

This exclusivity of telecom provider is exactly what Apple has in the UK.

You can only buy an IPhone here with O2 as the provider.

Surprises me because I thought it would break some anti-monopoly type laws.

...

Pisses me off because I really want an IPhone, but the only provider that I can get reception with at work is with Vodafone.

Dreadnaught

12-18-2008, 09:12 AM

But what is the monopoly? It's certainly not for phones after all.

Timbuk2

12-18-2008, 09:24 AM

Monopoly on ... um ... IPhone network providers. :confused: :sour:

Perhaps anti-competition or unfair trading would be more apt terminology.

Reminds me of the successful court cases brought against Microsoft when they were accused of anti-competitive practices in bundling IE with Windows, giving them, supposedly, an unfair advantage over other providers of browser software.

Similarly, Apple selling its IPhone with O2 as the only possible provider unfairly discriminates against other network providers.

Except in the Microsoft case, users can download and use other browser software with Windows, with the IPhone you cannot use any other provider.

Ergo, I think the Frenchies are doing the right thing.

Hazir

12-18-2008, 10:19 AM

It's not really about monopoly's; it's about rules in general against this kind of tie-in deals. The problem is that the rules aren't exactly clear and that national governments have created no clarity.

In general you can say that any deal that says 'in order to buy A you have to buy B' is illegal under EU law. Apple knew this, especially for France where they were already forced to change the way they offer music on iTunes because that was in violation of rules too (too restrictive in on which players you could play the music).

Dreadnaught

12-18-2008, 09:40 PM

So...if I make a car, I could get slammed as anti-competitive because I make those cars only run with parts that I also make?

Ominous Gamer

12-18-2008, 09:48 PM

So...if I make a car, I could get slammed as anti-competitive because I make those cars only run with parts that I also make?

you're oversimplifying it.

Apple made a deal that allowed someone to lock the product to only their service. Thats bad, and in the reverse form, why unlocking phones was made legal, under the DMCA.

Your example would be better if you made a car that had only took tires that you (or a partner) supplied, even though there was no reason to be that way; and you attempted to sue anyone who made said tires.

Dreadnaught

12-18-2008, 09:56 PM

Ominous Gamer

12-18-2008, 10:01 PM

I thought about that at first, but it actually seemed like an oversimplification as well. While there are many standard-sized tires, there are also lots of tire sizes/configurations that aren't standard.

thats why I added that "sue" part at the end. There are a lot of nonstandard sizes, you got me there. So you could very well be the only one to make a certain product that works with a certain other product at first. Which is what Apple and "Orange" (media name) did here.

Now if you went around and threatened legal action on anyone who made the same size nonstandard tires, that would be on the same grounds, since that is what Apple likes to do, they shutdown unlock dealers, and France isn't the first country to force Apple to offer unlocked Iphones. All Hong Kong sold Iphones are unlocked.

Its why the DMCA allows unlocks, and why the auto industry has such a large and legal 3rd party performance / cheapo part subindustry.

Dreadnaught

12-18-2008, 10:14 PM

Ominous Gamer

12-18-2008, 10:20 PM

Mmmm...as far as a comparison goes, you got me.

Except that we're not talking about the entire mobile phone market or even the entire smartphone market. This is one type of phone with a particular tie-in. How is this an "unfair barrier to consumer choice"?

guess thats why the lawyers are for.
I've always hated locked phones, and considering every phone under the sun tries to claim they do something unique, tying that unique ability to some ****ty carrier that cuts Apple the best deal seems like a rather large barrier to consumer choice.

You could go into "free market" would fix it, like Lewk loves to do. But this is the iphone, I consider France stepping in as a public service to blindtards who think the iphone is the only option. Jobs could be an world class cult leader (if you don't think he isn't already), just watch the company's stock when rumors hit about his health.

Dreadnaught

12-18-2008, 10:41 PM

It doesn't pass a common-sense test though. I hate lock-ins as well, but we still have basically the same products in the US as they do in Europe. They are just more portable over there in general (plus we use CDMA).

Also, as I recall the main reason Apple signed an exclusive agreement with AT&T was so that they could get any carrier to get behind the iPhone.

Hazir

12-18-2008, 10:43 PM

So...if I make a car, I could get slammed as anti-competitive because I make those cars only run with parts that I also make?I don't know if you know the phenomenon this kind of legislation was caused by the practise of workers being forced to buy stuff at shops that belonged to the employer they worked for.

In general what is prohibited is to have a contract for buying or selling one good or service on the condition that another good or service is bought. To offer the combination is still allowed, it's just so that the buyer should have the alternative of buying the two separately from two different suppliers.

It goes a bit deeper than being merely against monopolies.

Belgium goes even further than France in this. From the day the iPhone hit the Belgian markets, iPhone was obliged to offer it without a lock or contract. I think it's even illegal overthere to offer the package of a phone and contract at all. The 16GB version of the iPhone sells for over €600 in Belgium.

Dreadnaught

12-18-2008, 11:01 PM

So...wait, I don't see the connection. Forcing someone to buy something or risk losing their job is different than a bundled phone and contract. :confused:

Hazir

12-19-2008, 04:17 PM

So...wait, I don't see the connection. Forcing someone to buy something or risk losing their job is different than a bundled phone and contract. :confused:No it is not. It's the same kind of abuse and it's the same kind of business practise. And thus the law doesn't allow either.

I've been saying Apple is breaking the law for years now, the main reason why they got away with it is that they have a minimal market share in Europe consisting mostly of fanboys and girls. The irony of the relative success of their newest toy is that they draw in people who aren't infatuated with Apple as a way of life but simply like a phone they designed. Unlike Apple fanpeople who appearantly don't mind about selling their souls to Steve Jobs. And that winds them up in court cases, that they all loose. Because their business model is against the law, not just in France.

Dreadnaught

12-19-2008, 08:52 PM

Hazir

12-19-2008, 10:09 PM

How is it different? Saying, "you work for me, you have to buy at my store" is different than saying, "if you want this phone — which is being sold next to other phones that you can choose — you have to get this particular service contract".In both cases, two separate choices that should not be made dependent on eachother because the stronger market party decides to make them dependent upon eachother.

Making them dependent upon eachother is in violation of the law, and that makes the deal void. Apples marketing people willingly have developed a business model which will in the long run be thrown out by the courts in Europe.

So far Apple has lost every single case that was brought before a court. Just like happens to companies that try to copy their deals.

Agamemnus

12-19-2008, 11:36 PM

Apple made a deal that allowed someone to lock the product to only their service. Thats bad, and in the reverse form, why unlocking phones was made legal, under the DMCA.

So, why again is unlocking an Xbox 360 then going to void your right to use the Microsoft network? How is that different from unlocking phones, and .. it's time to sue Microsoft again. :mad::up:

*heads for a lawyer, hits head on pole* :(

Widows Peak Oz

12-20-2008, 08:52 AM

Network providers arrange contracts with phone manufacturers for exclusive rights to market their handsets, some providers are more successful than others by simply researching and negotiating on certain models. The iPhone was/is a hot commodity and expectations decreed a buttload of potential penetration contracts and sign-on revenue for Apple from the most powerful providers in any mainstream nation.

It is quite ridiculous to entertain a sole license agreement for an entire country, profit and client pool are paramount to providers, and securing any model with as much awareness and marketing as the iPhone was bound to be contested. Here in Aus, there are 3 providers of the iPhone, personally I think the device is overglorified, overpriced and perhaps even unnecessary, with the baseline model only available on customer plans and with a starting cost of at least $650 AUD.

There's also the elemental factor of network coverage, some providers can/have secured more extensive and accessible broadcasting range, meaning more consumers have the opportunity to obtain any given handset.

Khendraja'aro

12-20-2008, 09:23 AM

So, why again is unlocking an Xbox 360 then going to void your right to use the Microsoft network? How is that different from unlocking phones, and .. it's time to sue Microsoft again. :mad::up:

*heads for a lawyer, hits head on pole* :(

Completely different scenario here. You don't have to use the network to use your XBox. And the XBox is working as advertised in its factory defaults.

It's the same reasoning why warranties won't work after you have modified a device.

Agamemnus

12-20-2008, 03:57 PM

Completely different scenario here. You don't have to use the network to use your XBox. And the XBox is working as advertised in its factory defaults.

It's the same reasoning why warranties won't work after you have modified a device.

It's not a warranty, though. It's an artificial check that won't let you use the Microsoft gaming service if you modify the programming of the base in any way. Buying an Xbox means you buy the gaming service for the life of the service, unless (according to Microsoft) you add to the preinstalled software. It seems to me like a forced tie-in of the service and the software -- if you change the software, you no longer have the rights to the service, whether or not the service works fine with different software. . . like modded IPhones.'

Edit:
It is not necessarily like a traditional tie-in where Microsoft forces a sale of the service, but still a tie in because Microsoft unfairly hindreds competition by bundling the hardware and the service without letting others compete for either one. What makes this practice meaningfully anti-competitive is that they now have a very large new console market share in the US with respect to XBox 360 sales.

Khendraja'aro

12-20-2008, 04:30 PM

Dreadnaught

12-20-2008, 06:42 PM

In both cases, two separate choices that should not be made dependent on eachother because the stronger market party decides to make them dependent upon eachother.

Making them dependent upon eachother is in violation of the law, and that makes the deal void. Apples marketing people willingly have developed a business model which will in the long run be thrown out by the courts in Europe.

So far Apple has lost every single case that was brought before a court. Just like happens to companies that try to copy their deals.

You're going circular logic here. How is coupling a phone with a contract similar to forcing employees to buy at a certain store?

Hazir

12-21-2008, 07:07 AM

You're going circular logic here. How is coupling a phone with a contract similar to forcing employees to buy at a certain store?
Why are you being so obtuse? It's got nothing to do with circular logic. The basic rule is that no party can make the purchase of one good or service dependent on the purchase of another good or service. And that's the simple rule. It goes for forcing your workers to buy at your stores and it goes for forcing buyers of a phone to subscribe to a service. Any business model that unduly reduces choice for the consumer is forbidden.

Apple is behaving like a criminal organisation and is only getting away with it because nobody has been bothered so far to drag them into court. The main reason why they aren't fined to the tune that Microsoft is getting fined is that they are largely irrelevant as a market party in Europe. And of course that there are holes in their marketing structure so big by now that you could fly a plane through it. People rather order their totally free of all ties iPhone from Belgium if they really want one than go to court in order not to have to subscribe to a service Apple tries to force on them.

It will be fun to see them losing the case about them only selling their OS combined with their hardware, because that one is up next. :D

Agamemnus

12-21-2008, 08:22 PM

Uh, no. It's a fairly standard practice to ban anyone with a non-developer-approved modification. Every online community which prohibits cheating does that. Actually, you can't have a meaningful online gaming community without such measures. Sad, but true.

But, please, try to apply your faulty logic.

Uh, try again. Modifying or adding to the XBox programming is not cheating. Cheating is modifying the XBox programming to take advantage of a poor design decision by the game company to allow the gamer to modify his own score/weapon/stats/etc client side. Granted, there are some things that are very difficult to make server-side instead of client side, but that's beside the point. There are programs like EA's Punkbuster that will solve the problem of modified exe's for you.

Again-- an XBox is a computer, and Microsoft is saying "don't put others' programs here, or we won't let you use our service". Tie-in sale.

It will be fun to see them losing the case about them only selling their OS combined with their hardware, because that one is up next. :D

Link please. If no one can see parallels with this and Microsoft's XBox shenanigans, I will stab them.

Khendraja'aro

12-21-2008, 09:10 PM

Uh, try again. Modifying or adding to the XBox programming is not cheating. Cheating is modifying the XBox programming to take advantage of a poor design decision by the game company to allow the gamer to modify his own score/weapon/stats/etc client side. Granted, there are some things that are very difficult to make server-side instead of client side, but that's beside the point. There are programs like EA's Punkbuster that will solve the problem of modified exe's for you.

Again-- an XBox is a computer, and Microsoft is saying "don't put others' programs here, or we won't let you use our service". Tie-in sale.

Because the main purpose of this service is for online gaming, you moron. If the client can't be trusted because he's running modifications which have unknown implications upon the software, then the client has to be barred from taking part in the online gaming community.

That's what Blizzard does. That's what Punkbuster does. That's what Microsoft does. EVERYONE with an interest in keeping their online games cheat-free does that.

And "poor design decisions"? You obviously haven't got the faintest clue that design hasn't got anything to do with creating hacks.

Dreadnaught

12-21-2008, 11:13 PM

Why are you being so obtuse? It's got nothing to do with circular logic. The basic rule is that no party can make the purchase of one good or service dependent on the purchase of another good or service. And that's the simple rule. It goes for forcing your workers to buy at your stores and it goes for forcing buyers of a phone to subscribe to a service. Any business model that unduly reduces choice for the consumer is forbidden.

Making your workers buy at only one place (and firing them if they buy anything anywhere else) is totally different than a phone option with a bundled contract.

Can someone else chime in here? Am I crazy?

Tontoe

12-22-2008, 01:38 AM

Making your workers buy at only one place (and firing them if they buy anything anywhere else) is totally different than a phone option with a bundled contract.

Can someone else chime in here? Am I crazy?

Nope. I've having trouble making the link myself. Apple's bundling has absolutly nothing to do with creating a closed loop economy for workers with the intention of boosting profits and fostering debt. Especially since no one is forced to buy Apple products nor must they buy Apple to purchase a specific type of product. There is no linkage.

Hazir

12-22-2008, 05:54 AM

Well, it's really too bad you Americans, including the marketing people at Apple are not able to understand that this is the law in Europe and that if they still try to force people into secundary deals, they can expect the courts to cancel those deals.

It is totally irrelevant if you need an iPhone or not, it is relevant that if Apple wants to sell it, I must be able to buy it without having a contract forced down my throath as well.

And I will repeat, the only reason why they are getting away with their scams so far is that they are a small party in the market, mostly popular with fanboys who think Apple can do no wrong AND that there is an easy way to get around Apples scam by ordering a phone in Belgium. That is, untill some consumers in France decided they'd had enough of this nonsense.

Tontoe

12-22-2008, 07:48 PM

Hazir

12-22-2008, 08:25 PM

Actually, I got the part about Apple violating silly anti bundling laws in Europe. That's not the issue. What I(and I suspect my fellow Americans) don't understand is how bundling has anything to do with forcing workers to buy from company stores.

Well, that and why the EU thinks bundling is so heinous that it must be banned, but I'll take an explaination of the first.Well, it's really remarkable that you can't understand a simple rule that simply outlaws making one transaction dependent on a secundary transaction. Any, it applies to the workers having to buy at factory stores and it applies to forcing the buyer of a phone to take out one particular contract.

'We' don't see any difference between the two practises and that's why they both fall under the same rule. Maybe you Americans should learn something from a system that doesn't believe that self-regulations of the markets is the only way to make those markets work. Especially now that you got yourself into such a nasty mess living under the illusion that your financial markets could fend for themselves.

Dreadnaught

12-22-2008, 09:28 PM

But the person doesn't have to buy that phone. There are other phones that they are free to choose from. A worker who is forced to buy at a particular store must buy at that store.

Hazir

12-22-2008, 09:33 PM

But the person doesn't have to buy that phone. There are other phones that they are free to choose from. A worker who is forced to buy at a particular store must buy at that store.It does not matter if that person doesn't have to buy that phone. Let me repeat that, it does not matter if that person doesn't have to buy that phone. What matters is that the seller may not try to sell something that isn't essential to the operation of the phone before he will allow you to buy the phone. That is the iPod deal, you buy the phone, and then you have to 'buy' the service at their designated provider or they going to **** up your phone.

I don't see any difference between the practises, besides the fallacy that makes it relevant if one does or doesn't have to buy a product. Ones place of employment is also a matter of choice.

Agamemnus

12-23-2008, 12:44 AM

It does not matter if that person doesn't have to buy that phone. Let me repeat that, it does not matter if that person doesn't have to buy that phone. What matters is that the seller may not try to sell something that isn't essential to the operation of the phone before he will allow you to buy the phone. That is the iPod deal, you buy the phone, and then you have to 'buy' the service at their designated provider or they going to **** up your phone.

I don't see any difference between the practises, besides the fallacy that makes it relevant if one does or doesn't have to buy a product. Ones place of employment is also a matter of choice.

Well, for the sake of economic efficiency, tie-in sales that do not affect the competitiveness of.. competitors... are not a problem. I am not saying that is the case here, but I am saying that every single tie-in sale attempt should not be scrutinized constantly. But I agree with you that it's not enough in the US. Here, I don't think our regulators know what they're doing and haven't for the past 18 years... perhaps it is because there are far too many political appointees...

Because the main purpose of this service is for online gaming, you moron. If the client can't be trusted because he's running modifications which have unknown implications upon the software, then the client has to be barred from taking part in the online gaming community.
Come on now, Khendraja'aro.. resorting to insults to make your point now? Yes, I know what the main purpose of the service is. But, if you take the second part of what you said here and put it into the context of a standard PC, how are you making any sense? The client can't be trusted, period. Not on a PC, and not on an XBox. But, it takes a lot of server processing power to verify all the data the client sends through and the client software could be modified to the advantage of the player using it, which is why programs like Punkbuster exist. No one is saying "you can't modify your PC, or otherwise we're going to go into your house and smash it into little bits, and then ban you from our servers."

That's what Blizzard does. That's what Punkbuster does. That's what Microsoft does. EVERYONE with an interest in keeping their online games cheat-free does that.

No, that's not what Microsoft does. Microsoft bans players who have a modified XBox360, not just a modified game.

And "poor design decisions"? You obviously haven't got the faintest clue that design hasn't got anything to do with creating hacks.
lol

Tontoe

12-23-2008, 01:03 AM

Hazir

12-23-2008, 05:17 AM

Well, for the sake of economic efficiency, tie-in sales that do not affect the competitiveness of.. competitors... are not a problem. I am not saying that is the case here, but I am saying that every single tie-in sale attempt should not be scrutinized constantly. But I agree with you that it's not enough in the US. Here, I don't think our regulators know what they're doing and haven't for the past 18 years... perhaps it is because there are far too many political appointees...

Come on now, Khendraja'aro.. resorting to insults to make your point now? Yes, I know what the main purpose of the service is. But, if you take the second part of what you said here and put it into the context of a standard PC, how are you making any sense? The client can't be trusted, period. Not on a PC, and not on an XBox. But, it takes a lot of server processing power to verify all the data the client sends through and the client software could be modified to the advantage of the player using it, which is why programs like Punkbuster exist. No one is saying "you can't modify your PC, or otherwise we're going to go into your house and smash it into little bits, and then ban you from our servers."

No, that's not what Microsoft does. Microsoft bans players who have a modified XBox360, not just a modified game.

lol
Packaging as such isn't illegal, what is illegal is that there is no alternative to the package deal. Which is what Apple tries to establish; a situation in which you can't use your phone unless you use their services.
The difference is the company store concept is coercion based on someone's livelihood. Yes, people can move jobs but that's much harder to do than not buying an iphone. I don't have to consider health insurance or salary when purchasing an iphone. Besides, the company store concept is also designed to foster debt and dependence. Apple has yet to reach that level of evil. You're not acknowledging degree and that's important in this case. Your argument is akin to jailing for both carjacking and lollipop theft because they both involve some degree of stealing.Well, guess what, we're not acknowledging degree because the practise in principle is wrong. Regardless of which choices are involved, the stronger marketparty is not allowed to use his strength to force you into a second choice by demanding you enter into a second contract in order to obtain something. I am seriously starting to think Americans are too stupid to understand that 'chosing' to buy a phone that you subsequently can't use as you like isn't a real choice.

Dreadnaught

12-23-2008, 09:14 AM

I think you actually have a better case with the bundling argument.

But there is a difference between choosing to buy any given phone and being forced to buy a phone.

Agamemnus

12-23-2008, 12:23 PM

I think you actually have a better case with the bundling argument.

But there is a difference between choosing to buy any given phone and being forced to buy a phone.

In terms of tie-in sales, the difference in terms of economic efficiency is not whether you are forced to buy it (that would only apply to necessities such as food, housing, and water/power), but whether the tie-in represents a monopoly, or in other words makes a profit for the producer at the expense of both consumers and competitors who can only provide one or the other type of good.

Read this nao:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/knowledge_goods/tie-in/ei1983.html

Hazir

12-23-2008, 08:44 PM

In terms of tie-in sales, the difference in terms of economic efficiency is not whether you are forced to buy it (that would only apply to necessities such as food, housing, and water/power), but whether the tie-in represents a monopoly, or in other words makes a profit for the producer at the expense of both consumers and competitors who can only provide one or the other type of good.

Read this nao:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/knowledge_goods/tie-in/ei1983.htmlThat's the US rule. In the EU the rules are much stricter. Here there needn't be a monopoly for the deal to be illegal.

Tontoe

12-24-2008, 03:37 AM

Packaging as such isn't illegal, what is illegal is that there is no alternative to the package deal. Which is what Apple tries to establish; a situation in which you can't use your phone unless you use their services.

But there are alternatives. I'm not sure why you're so intent on ignoring the myriad of other phones out there but, they do exist and people do buy them. Just because you're fixated on Apple doesn't mean someone else can't purchase similar functionality on the network of their choice at the next vendor.

Well, guess what, we're not acknowledging degree because the practise in principle is wrong. Regardless of which choices are involved, the stronger marketparty is not allowed to use his strength to force you into a second choice by demanding you enter into a second contract in order to obtain something. I am seriously starting to think Americans are too stupid to understand that 'chosing' to buy a phone that you subsequently can't use as you like isn't a real choice.

It is a choice. Any purchaser of the iphone(a product no one is forced to buy) knows upfront that they must have a contract with X network as well. It's not hidden. No one purchases an iphone then stands shocked when a cackling Steve Jobs jumps from behind a kiosk, curls his nefarious black mustache and says "Aha! I have you now! Sign with our prefered network or face inoperability!" So, when a customer purchases an iphone, they do so knowing they must pay for this other thing too. It's a pain that I won't put up with, but others will and with the number of options on the market, we can all be happy.

Agamemnus

12-25-2008, 12:28 AM

That's the US rule. In the EU the rules are much stricter. Here there needn't be a monopoly for the deal to be illegal.

That might be a rule, but in practice you need to be a glaring red-light blinking monopoly to see any action against you in the US.

Loki

12-25-2008, 12:46 AM

It is a choice. Any purchaser of the iphone(a product no one is forced to buy) knows upfront that they must have a contract with X network as well. It's not hidden. No one purchases an iphone then stands shocked when a cackling Steve Jobs jumps from behind a kiosk, curls his nefarious black mustache and says "Aha! I have you now! Sign with our prefered network or face inoperability!" So, when a customer purchases an iphone, they do so knowing they must pay for this other thing too. It's a pain that I won't put up with, but others will and with the number of options on the market, we can all be happy.

It's called having a nanny state. Wouldn't want to give the consumer the choice of making a decision the bureaucrats think is bad.

Hazir

12-25-2008, 02:02 AM

It's called having a nanny state. Wouldn't want to give the consumer the choice of making a decision the bureaucrats think is bad.It's sure surprising that people from the country where 'self-regulation' by companies failed so disastrously still dare say this kind of thing.

Steely Glint

12-25-2008, 05:50 AM

Not when it's Loki it isn't.

GGT

12-25-2008, 06:56 AM

This thread was hard for me to follow :( but then I replaced phone with tv and it would be like selling a television set that only operates by also buying the services of Dish Network. Because the tv manufacturer said so, and made a deal with Dish. Not cable, not DirectTV, not analog with a converter box, just Dish.

maybe? :noob:

Loki

12-25-2008, 12:25 PM

It's sure surprising that people from the country where 'self-regulation' by companies failed so disastrously still dare say this kind of thing.

I'll take the occasional disaster over consistent inefficiency. Though at least your logic is consistent. If people want to buy the "wrong" thing, don't let them. If people want to vote the "wrong" way, make them vote again.

Hazir

12-25-2008, 07:55 PM

I'll take the occasional disaster over consistent inefficiency. Though at least your logic is consistent. If people want to buy the "wrong" thing, don't let them. If people want to vote the "wrong" way, make them vote again.For starters it's not about limiting the choice of consumers but about limiting the ways in which companies try to bind them into contracts that in the end cost them more than the alternatives.

As for the Irish vote; there is nothing democratic about letting 3 million Irish voters decide the future of 450 million Europeans.

@GGT; roughly that, with the added nicety that your TV will not work any longer at all if you try to connect it to another source than the one proscribed. Not even if you return it to the original service.

Loki

12-25-2008, 09:27 PM

For starters it's not about limiting the choice of consumers but about limiting the ways in which companies try to bind them into contracts that in the end cost them more than the alternatives.

As for the Irish vote; there is nothing democratic about letting 3 million Irish voters decide the future of 450 million Europeans.

@GGT; roughly that, with the added nicety that your TV will not work any longer at all if you try to connect it to another source than the one proscribed. Not even if you return it to the original service.

It's not the government's role to decide which offers are good and which are bad. If the offers are as bad as you say they are, then people won't take them, and the company will go bankrupt. No need for government interference.

That's not exactly the fault of the Irish, now is it? Should the fact that their vote has other ramifications mean that they should be forced to vote again and again until they reach the "right" conclusion?

Nessus

12-26-2008, 01:58 AM

It's not the government's role to decide which offers are good and which are bad.
Well, that's that sorted then. Everyone can just go on home, I guess.

If the offers are as bad as you say they are, then people won't take them, and the company will go bankrupt. No need for government interference.

Surely you're joking, mister kitty.

Loki

12-26-2008, 01:06 PM

Surely you're joking, mister kitty.

No, let's have faceless bureaucrats, most of whom have never been out in the real world and who are earning their comfy salaries and work expenses, to determine just what each person should and should not buy. After all, bureaucrats know best, right?

GGT

12-26-2008, 01:14 PM

Which upsets you more, Loki---that France's rules affect a US company, or that a US company can't control the French consumer? :bulb:

Loki

12-26-2008, 01:21 PM

Neither. The French are, as usual, shooting themselves in the foot and setting the ground for more long-term stagnation.

GGT

12-26-2008, 01:35 PM

Neither. The French are, as usual, shooting themselves in the foot and setting the ground for more long-term stagnation.

Then what's the big deal if they want to shoot their own feet?

I'm still trying to figure this whole product plus service thing out anyway :noob:

I look at phones like I do electronics like tvs, or hair dryers; they should work no matter which electric company serves me, they should come with the right kind of prong, too.

But then there's the parts issue, like car parts for certain models, battery packs that aren't interchangeable....or that our outlet prongs are different than Europe's. Well, my hair dryer has 125/250 adaptor....

I feel like I'm missing something conceptually b/w hardware and software, or something. Hasn't Microsoft been doing this sort of thing for years? :(

Widows Peak Oz

12-27-2008, 07:12 AM

GGT, did you need some more input to understand the phone dealies?

Hazir

12-27-2008, 07:29 AM

Neither. The French are, as usual, shooting themselves in the foot and setting the ground for more long-term stagnation.
And how is having more uses for your phones shooting yourself in the foot?

@GGT; yeah, Microsoft tried something similar, they also broke their teeth on the EU regulations.

Loki

12-27-2008, 12:33 PM

And how is having more uses for your phones shooting yourself in the foot?

@GGT; yeah, Microsoft tried something similar, they also broke their teeth on the EU regulations.

We both know this is nothing more than a non-tariff barrier.

GGT

12-27-2008, 01:43 PM

GGT, did you need some more input to understand the phone dealies?

Maybe. :noob: Just not sure why phones should be treated differently than other electronics. Tvs and computers aren't bundled with a service contract.

Also can't fathom why anyone would buy a phone that's tied to a designated provider.....

Loki

12-27-2008, 01:46 PM

Maybe. :noob: Just not sure why phones should be treated differently than other electronics. Tvs and computers aren't bundled with a service contract.

Also can't fathom why anyone would buy a phone that's tied to a designated provider.....

So just because you can't fathom why someone would want to buy something, the government should make it illegal? :bored:

GGT

12-27-2008, 01:57 PM

So just because you can't fathom why someone would want to buy something, the government should make it illegal? :bored:

Now where did I say such a thing? :o

I'd think, as a business decision, Apple would want to appeal to more customers than less. They're going to WalMart now for that very reason.

What's the rationale for exclusive service bundling? It doesn't make sense to me, that is what I said :confused:

Loki

12-27-2008, 02:05 PM

Hazir

12-27-2008, 03:29 PM

If Apple wants to make stupid business decisions, that's its choice.
Yeah, untill to come to Washington begging for a bail out. Like the rest of your industries after they start finding out their business decisions were stupid.

Socialism ex-ante is worse than some regulation before the system derails.

GGT

12-27-2008, 03:42 PM

hmmm you have a point there Hazir.

I still don't get it tho, law or not. Why would Apple basically tie their product to a provider that won't "compete" with other providers?

Talk about one propping up another.....:bulb:

Loki

12-27-2008, 06:40 PM

Yeah, untill to come to Washington begging for a bail out. Like the rest of your industries after they start finding out their business decisions were stupid.

Socialism ex-ante is worse than some regulation before the system derails.

Yeah, just like the hundreds of internet companies that got a bail out after the dot com crash, right?

Hazir

12-27-2008, 11:26 PM

Yeah, just like the hundreds of internet companies that got a bail out after the dot com crash, right?Too difficult to use the crash actually happening as we speak I see.

Loki

12-27-2008, 11:28 PM

Too difficult to use the crash actually happening as we speak I see.

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government would "save" Apple if it was facing bankruptcy?

Hazir

12-27-2008, 11:41 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government would "save" Apple if it was facing bankruptcy?
No dear, I am seriously suggesting that the US government is propping up so much of the economy as we speak that saving Apple hardly would stand out as extra-ordinary any longer.

The system you've got has got so little to do with a free market any longer that it's preposterous that you whine about the French not letting Apple do as it pleases.

Loki

12-27-2008, 11:45 PM

No dear, I am seriously suggesting that the US government is propping up so much of the economy as we speak that saving Apple hardly would stand out as extra-ordinary any longer.

The system you've got has got so little to do with a free market any longer that it's preposterous that you whine about the French not letting Apple do as it pleases.

Yes it would. The US is only supporting those companies whose failure would directly destabilize the economy. Outside of banking firms, there's probably less than half a dozen firms that the government wouldn't allow to fail.

GGT

12-27-2008, 11:45 PM

The system you've got has got so little to do with a free market any longer that it's preposterous that you whine about the French not letting Apple do as it pleases.

:cry:

hence, why I started the Death, erm I mean CHANGE thread.

:cry:

Bitter Jeweler

12-27-2008, 11:59 PM

Maybe. :noob: Just not sure why phones should be treated differently than other electronics. Tvs and computers aren't bundled with a service contract.

TV's no, but there was a time when some computers were tied to AOL.
Wasn't it eMachines that had an extraordinary low price, but you had to sign up for a 2 year AOL account?

Dreadnaught

12-28-2008, 03:00 AM

Now where did I say such a thing? :o

I'd think, as a business decision, Apple would want to appeal to more customers than less. They're going to WalMart now for that very reason.

What's the rationale for exclusive service bundling? It doesn't make sense to me, that is what I said :confused:

Once again, as I recall Apple gave an exclusive carrier deal so that the phone had a shot at becoming a national hit. Without it, all they had was good hardware. They needed a carrier to be signed-on in order to make this something that people could actually go buy.

Plus they had to get a carrier to agree to an unlimited data plan arrangement that didn't cost too much.

Hazir

12-28-2008, 12:30 PM

Once again, as I recall Apple gave an exclusive carrier deal so that the phone had a shot at becoming a national hit. Without it, all they had was good hardware. They needed a carrier to be signed-on in order to make this something that people could actually go buy.

Plus they had to get a carrier to agree to an unlimited data plan arrangement that didn't cost too much.Those plans are a dime-a-dozen in Europe. Already were before Apple started its iPhone scam.

Khendraja'aro

12-28-2008, 06:00 PM

Come on now, Khendraja'aro.. resorting to insults to make your point now? Yes, I know what the main purpose of the service is. But, if you take the second part of what you said here and put it into the context of a standard PC, how are you making any sense? The client can't be trusted, period. Not on a PC, and not on an XBox. But, it takes a lot of server processing power to verify all the data the client sends through and the client software could be modified to the advantage of the player using it, which is why programs like Punkbuster exist. No one is saying "you can't modify your PC, or otherwise we're going to go into your house and smash it into little bits, and then ban you from our servers."

Uh, actually, Punkbuster _will_ ban you if you modify core system files pertaining to the execution of games. Just like Microsoft will ban you if you modify core system files.

I think you don't quite understand how online games have and need to be secured.

No, that's not what Microsoft does. Microsoft bans players who have a modified XBox360, not just a modified game.
Or a modified PC. You do realize that Punkbuster also scans for modified DirectX, graphic driver and other core system files? And quite extensively to boot?

Agamemnus

12-28-2008, 09:54 PM

Uh, actually, Punkbuster _will_ ban you if you modify core system files pertaining to the execution of games. Just like Microsoft will ban you if you modify core system files.

Which is exactly where you're wrong. Game EXEs are not system processes, and system processes are not core game EXEs.

Or a modified PC. You do realize that Punkbuster also scans for modified DirectX, graphic driver and other core system files? And quite extensively to boot?
You're mad! (please don't eat me) For one, you can't scan for a "modified graphics driver"... there are millions of graphics drivers and versions. And if it did do these scans, even if they were possible, they would do nothing in regards to maintaining the integrity of the exe's or linked dll's running the game -- which is my main point against your argument.

I think you have misplaced loyalties here. Microsoft doesn't care about cheating-- no big game producer worried about their bottom line does. Even Punkbuster fails against some programs. They are worried about just that--the bottom line.

The motive for making it extremely difficult and/or impossible to modify an Xbox 360, which can be converted into a fairly powerful PC, is because Microsoft is selling its XBox 360's at a horrific loss. Why would they want people to buy them and use them as PCs, as well as let people use the peoples' own systems to play their games, too? It's completely logical (in the business sense) on their part to both make XBox's core system files difficult to modify and to hinge their non-modification on continuing the free "silver" online service -- they are putting up barriers to using their below-cost computers (XBox 360's) as general purpose PCs.

The catch is that what they are doing is only logical if you consider it as not illegal.

Khendraja'aro

12-29-2008, 09:30 AM

Ah, I see: You think that cheating only consists of modifying the binary executables of the game itself...

Here, I'll clean that up for you:

[...]Typical cheats are:
Wallhacks, which allow the player to see through walls. These work by altering the display driver to display objects that are normally obscured, or altering game textures to transparent ones. The only objects seen on the hacker's screen are those close by. The server will not send you the characters of the whole map, so you can not see across the whole map.[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike#Cheating

Just one example.

Now, I'll kindly tell you to STFU unless you go out and educate yourself as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Agamemnus

12-29-2008, 03:17 PM

Ah, I see: You think that cheating only consists of modifying the binary executables of the game itself...

Altering the way that the driver shows things are not controllable by the server, and that is why I said it is difficult to implement some server-side checks. Obviously the server can't (yet) stream the entire picture to the player, but only data for which the EXE and DLL create a picture.

You still can't scan for a "modified graphics driver". You might be able to scan for a modified dll that disables certain sized polygons, or something like that, but that is somewhat different than saying that Punkbuster will kick you if you have a graphics driver that doesn't meet its oh-so-exacting specifications.

So, let's go back to your problem with my assertion.

I am saying that Microsoft makes no modification of its Xbox system a condition of online play, and that is an illegal tie-in sale designed to encourage people not to use Xbox 360 systems as their general purpose PC.

You're saying "oh no, but Microsoft just wants to prevent cheaters, and allowing one to modify anything at all on the Xbox means cheaters will run rampant!"

And, I point you to the PC, and you point me back to details of EA's Punkbuster system, which you assert controls my PC.

And I assert it doesn't.

You: Does!
Me: Doesn't!
You: Does!
Me: Doesn't!
You: Does!

Me: WTFBBQOMG ARF.

Khendraja'aro

12-29-2008, 07:34 PM

[...]
You still can't scan for a "modified graphics driver". You might be able to scan for a modified dll that disables certain sized polygons, or something like that, but that is somewhat different than saying that Punkbuster will kick you if you have a graphics driver that doesn't meet its oh-so-exacting specifications.[...]

So, modifying a DLL which belongs to the graphics driver isn't modifying the graphics driver? :bulb:

I'm deeply impressed by your impeccable logic. :up:

And I'm not quite sure why you're talking of "EA's Punkbuster system". Last time I looked, Punkbuster doesn't belong to EA. They just license the technology.

CitizenCain

12-30-2008, 05:25 PM

Actually, I got the part about Apple violating silly anti bundling laws in Europe. That's not the issue. What I(and I suspect my fellow Americans) don't understand is how bundling has anything to do with forcing workers to buy from company stores.

Well, that and why the EU thinks bundling is so heinous that it must be banned, but I'll take an explaination of the first.

Someone should sue the French government.

You mean if I want a French passport, it comes bundled with expensive universal healthcare?!?! Anti-competitive, I say! :mad:

No, that's not what Microsoft does. Microsoft bans players who have a modified XBox360, not just a modified game.

In the first place, if you mod your hardware, you can (at least in theory) make any piece of software do about anything you want, often without it being detectable to the server you're playing on.

In the second place, it's more about piracy than cheating. By far the most common hardware hack for the Xbox 360 (or any console, really), is a "mod chip" that lets you play pirated games on burned DVDs. Preventing those players from playing online is really no different than the online CD key checks that almost every online game does these days.

Agamemnus

12-30-2008, 06:15 PM

So, modifying a DLL which belongs to the graphics driver isn't modifying the graphics driver?
:bulb:No, I said that scanning for a modified graphics driver isn't very easily done. There are millions of graphics drivers out there. You can try scanning for certain dll functions or something like that, though.

And yes, Punkbuster is licensed by EA, but details... :pout:

In the first place, if you mod your hardware, you can (at least in theory) make any piece of software do about anything you want, often without it being detectable to the server you're playing on.

You're right, but what I understand is that it is very hard to do so.

In the second place, it's more about piracy than cheating. By far the most common hardware hack for the Xbox 360 (or any console, really), is a "mod chip" that lets you play pirated games on burned DVDs. Preventing those players from playing online is really no different than the online CD key checks that almost every online game does these days.
Don't console CDs have the CD key somewhere in the CD itself?