Can Apple Find a European iPhone Partner? 323
pete314 writes "A Vnunet.com article claims that European mobile operators are unwilling to concede to Apple iPhone partnership demands. Several operators went as far as to say they 'will never offer the iPhone.' In the US, Verizon reportedly passed on the device, and AT&T is rumored to have engaged in a revenue-sharing deal that includes monthly payments to Cupertino." In Europe, unlike in the US, Apple has the option of selling the iPhone through its own dealer network without a simlock.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, AT&T (Cingular) and T-Mobile are both GSM providers. Apple could have easily sold an unlocked phone to be used by those providers.
Given the competition... (Score:5, Insightful)
I say this as someone who bought a couple of upper-crust Nokias (price comparable to estimates of the iPhone's cost) a couple of years ago and had no end of problems. It isn't that the hardware sucked, though there were several design flaws, but it's not like Apple are immune from those. It wasn't even that the software sucked. It was the sheer level of bureaucratic incompetence related to every after-sales interaction. Guarantees that mysteriously lapse on the UK guarantee lookup system. Phones replaced by grey market alternatives shipped in from Saudi Arabia that mysteriously don't qualify under the warranty at all. It is almost entirely impossible to communicate with Nokia themselves. The 'Nokia Shop' system - the Nokia-branded vendor through which these things are bought - are actually Mobile Phones Direct and have no relationship with Nokia at all. And of course the operator from whom one bought the contract holds no apparent responsibility. All this is advantageous to them - call them and tell them your £450 phone has broken and they'll point out that it's just about time for you to renew your contract and, hey, you're eligible for a phone upgrade. It is not in their interest to support the one you've just spent eighteen months paying for.
If I were trying to sell an upmarket mobile phone, especially one as expensive as the iPhone is likely to be, I'd be desperately looking for a way to handle all this which wouldn't equate Apple with the open invitation to open a case with Trading Standards that is the UK mobile industry. For whatever reason, Apple currently have a fairly good name when it comes to expensive-but-neat gadgets. Nothing loses the customer's trust like trying to figure out who in the system of phone operators, retail outlets and repair centres is responsible for fixing a broken mobile.
If it's not obvious from the above I'm actually rather hoping that Apple do take some responsibility for this product; if they do I might be inclined to buy one just to give myself and Trading Standards a break. You know you've got a problem when you discover you've been put on Trading Standards' Christmas card list.
Re:Answer: yes (Score:3, Insightful)
> therefore it must be a million dollars without a contract, you're wrong.
> Even though a two year contract with AT&T is required for iPhone in the US,
> the iPhone is not subsidized - the price is what it is.
My reading of the page is that the phone will not be subsidised *further* for their *employees* - ie there will not be any discount if you work for them and they have to pay the same as anyone else.
I do *not* read that as implying that the phone's price is not reduced in exchange for committing to a 2 year contract.
Did I miss something?
Re:Answer: yes (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in summary: would it be cool if the first gen iPjone had 3G? Of course. But with WiFi and considering the relatively limited AT&T 3G coverage in the US for the time being, I don't see it as the massive problem some others do. I don't think it will negatively impact the majority of iPhone early adopters, and those who feel they need 3G can certainly wait
Doesn't matter How much they'd make (Score:5, Insightful)
Secret moral of the story: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why we put up with it is a mystery to me.
Re:Answer: yes (Score:2, Insightful)
I know a lot of people think the lack of 3G is killer, but 3G doesn't cover much of the nation yet.
We're talking about the European market, where 3G is practically universal and wifi is relatively rare. It might not hurt Apple in the USA, where things are different, but it's a killer in Europe.
I Don't Quite Understand What... (Score:2, Insightful)
*I say a "middling, short-term income stream" because I do think that, as great as the iPhone is, it doesn't know its market; it's too big to be a glomour phone yet it doesn't have the features to be a business phone, it's "market-confused", if you will
But their just my theories, feal free to counter-theorize.
Apple just has to wait a couple weeks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:haha (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Answer: yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact that the parent post asks rhetorically "would it be cool if the first-gen Iphone had 3G?" amazes me. Jesus, is it still 2002 in the USA or something? If Apple takes that attitude to Europe it'll get laughed at. And it is.
* figure invented on the spot
Re:haha (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple just has to wait a couple weeks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The article is misinformed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:iMslow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Answer: yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think it will be sold SIM-free (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple just has to wait a couple weeks (Score:3, Insightful)
Carriers aren't in the business to resell phones. Phones are just the means they use to sel their service.
European carries want you to buy their 3G connection and video capabilities.
Every sold iPhone means one more customer who won't buy their 3G service. And incidentally, because of the price of this device, it's exactly the people who'd buy 3G who'd buy the iPhone.
iPhone means bad business for European carriers, this is why they don't want to have anything to do with it.
Re:Answer: yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, while Motorola and AT&T invented the Cellular telephony technology, your FCC kept the technology from being implemented for a crapload of time. It took a phone call from Ronald Reagan to take them out of their eternal sleep. Meanwhile, Japan and Northern Europe already had implemented their own cellular networks.
Please, believe me, the mobile phones around in Europe would kick the iPhone's ass. Go to Finland for example and show your shiny iPhone to a person there and they'll ask you a few things:
1. Does it have 3G
2. Does it have a Card Slot so I can expand it's memory?
3. Can you create REAL applications that will run on it?
4. Does it have GPS?
5. Can you change the damn battery when (not if, but WHEN) its life is over?
What exactly does your beloved iPhone do? besides allowing me to touch a large screen with two fingers at the same time? Everything else is technology that was available in mainstream Mobile Phones 3 years ago.
As everyone knows you can't answer yes to any of the above questions. So at that point, the Finnish guy will take out his shiny N-Series Nokia Smartphone (with a REAL Operating System, with REAL applications, a REAL SDK and a lot of freedon to offer) and tell you to go stick your iPhone where the sun don't shine, because it's the only thing he would think about doing with it.
In it's current state, the iPhone cannot succeed in Europe, and it's not about the price, because it's a normal price for a Smartphone. The only problem is that the iPhone IS NOT A SMARTPHONE, and if Apple continue to not look at what the established mobile phone businesses are doing IT WILL NEVER BE ONE.
From a European point of view (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Given the competition... (Score:3, Insightful)
The experience you discuss in sorting it out is just typical of UK customer service within the mobile phone industry. Just like their fixed-line counterparts, mobile phone networks are run by a bunch of arrogant tossers whose attitude is "We don't care. We don't have to. Everyone else is just as bloody awful so there's precious little point in you going elsewhere."
And the whole idea of the "service provider" - does that exist in the US? - whereby you have an operator who runs the network but they don't actually deal with the customer directly - the customer has to go through a service provider. Absolutely nuts. The only reason I can think of for it existing as a concept is to make the industry more complicated.