Why AT&T Has a Lock on the iPhone

John C. Welch wrote:
> On 8/7/09 6:59 AM, "Christopher Smith" <xxman.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> If you mean sort of kind of depending on the carrier, maybe, and every new
>>> phone, you were never sure, so maybe even less. The difference between
>>> windows mobile prior to the iPhone and the iPhone is monstrous.
>>>
>> I think you miss the point here: before the iPhone even existed, some
>> carriers were providing these freedoms on some phones.
>>
>
> Nooo...what you're missing is that the *degree* of concession Apple got from
> AT&T was unheard of. You would get some versions of this before, but it
> would be one model of phone on one carrier.
Apple managed to get a version of this, but it was for one model of
phone on one carrier. :-) Nothing to see here.
> The same model on another carrier? You could not rely on those concessions.
If you mean they wouldn't provide these concessions for all their
phones, that is true... as is the case with the iPhone.
> Even on a carrier that made some concessions, they'd pooch up others.
You mean like tethering? plan flexibility? ;-)
> It was the overall package
> deal that Apple got from AT&T, and every other carrier that was significant,
> and the fact that they got the *same* deal from *every* carrier.
>
"Every" carrier, by which you mean "one carrier per market", and if you
check, they don't all have the same deals (although I agree that there
is a fair bit of uniformity on deal points). This is largely a function
of making the phone's brand trump the carrier's brand. I would argue it
was simply a reflection of Apple's brand power rather than any kind of
exclusive deal.

--Chris

On 8/8/09 5:33 AM, "Christopher Smith" <xxman.org> wrote:

>> Nooo...what you're missing is that the *degree* of concession Apple got from
>> AT&T was unheard of. You would get some versions of this before, but it
>> would be one model of phone on one carrier.
> Apple managed to get a version of this, but it was for one model of
> phone on one carrier. :-) Nothing to see here.

Three models of iphone in the usa, canada, the EU, Europe....


>> The same model on another carrier? You could not rely on those concessions.
> If you mean they wouldn't provide these concessions for all their
> phones, that is true... as is the case with the iPhone.

No, I meant you couldn't rely on the SAME concessions for the SAME model of
phone on different carriers. For example, sprint would allow you to do
bluetooth data transfers, Verizon would not, even on the same phone.

>> Even on a carrier that made some concessions, they'd pooch up others.
> You mean like tethering? plan flexibility? ;-)

Verizon disabling data transfer features that worked on other carriers.


>> It was the overall package
>> deal that Apple got from AT&T, and every other carrier that was significant,
>> and the fact that they got the *same* deal from *every* carrier.
>>
> "Every" carrier, by which you mean "one carrier per market", and if you
> check, they don't all have the same deals (although I agree that there
> is a fair bit of uniformity on deal points). This is largely a function
> of making the phone's brand trump the carrier's brand. I would argue it
> was simply a reflection of Apple's brand power rather than any kind of
> exclusive deal.

It was both, and as you may recall, verizon had a shot at it, but they
rejected it, because they were unable to give up any power, or change
anything about how they did business. AT&T chose to be a bit more forward
thinking and reaped the rewards.

--
John C. Welch

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 02:33:01 -0700, Christopher Smith wrote:
> John C. Welch wrote:
>> On 8/7/09 6:59 AM, "Christopher Smith" <xxman.org> wrote:
>>> I think you miss the point here: before the iPhone even existed, some
>>> carriers were providing these freedoms on some phones.
>> Nooo...what you're missing is that the *degree* of concession Apple
>> got from AT&T was unheard of. You would get some versions of this before,
but it
>> would be one model of phone on one carrier.
> Apple managed to get a version of this, but it was for one model of
> phone on one carrier. :-) Nothing to see here.

No 3 models on one carrier. The fact that you think of the 2G, 3G and
3GS as the same "model" is a bit of the accomplishment Apple achieved.

The most important part of the deal though isn't that users can upgrade
their phones it's that APPLE, not the carrier, gets to decide. All
iPhones contact APPLE to see if an update is available. In the past
carriers might, or might not have, allowed upgrades but you went
through the CARRIER for the upgrade, they decided.

How many blackberry users know that RIM actually provides the OS for
their phone. Very few I bet.

Apple achieved a huge deal in getting AT&T to agree to this, and once
the iPhone was a huge success they've forced that part of the agreement
on every other carrier. Their agreements with other carriers may
differ, but all iPhones go to Apple for their OS updates.

Kevin

John C. Welch wrote:
> On 8/8/09 5:33 AM, "Christopher Smith" <xxman.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> Nooo...what you're missing is that the *degree* of concession Apple got from
>>> AT&T was unheard of. You would get some versions of this before, but it
>>> would be one model of phone on one carrier.
>>>
>> Apple managed to get a version of this, but it was for one model of
>> phone on one carrier. :-) Nothing to see here.
>>
>
> Three models of iphone in the usa, canada, the EU, Europe....
>
There have been three models released over time, and really the two
models available right now are just an "old" model and a "new" model. If
that's your standard for "models", then this is definitely not an
unprecedented thing. HTC had the 6700, 6800 and HTC Touch Pro, and let's
not even talk about all the BlackBerry's...
>>> The same model on another carrier? You could not rely on those concessions.
>>>
>> If you mean they wouldn't provide these concessions for all their
>> phones, that is true... as is the case with the iPhone.
>>
> No, I meant you couldn't rely on the SAME concessions for the SAME model of
> phone on different carriers. For example, sprint would allow you to do
> bluetooth data transfers, Verizon would not, even on the same phone.
>
Apple hasn't achieved this. They have one set of "concessions" from each
carrier, and only one per market. There are plenty of phones that came
before them that were more successful in this regard.
>>> Even on a carrier that made some concessions, they'd pooch up others.
>>>
>> You mean like tethering? plan flexibility? ;-)
>>
>
> Verizon disabling data transfer features that worked on other carriers.
>
You are missing what I'm saying. iPhone plans aren't consistent vary
from carrier to carrier. For example: AT&T doesn't currently allow
tethering.
>>> It was the overall package
>>> deal that Apple got from AT&T, and every other carrier that was significant,
>>> and the fact that they got the *same* deal from *every* carrier.
>>>
>>>
>> "Every" carrier, by which you mean "one carrier per market", and if you
>> check, they don't all have the same deals (although I agree that there
>> is a fair bit of uniformity on deal points). This is largely a function
>> of making the phone's brand trump the carrier's brand. I would argue it
>> was simply a reflection of Apple's brand power rather than any kind of
>> exclusive deal.
>>
>
> It was both, and as you may recall, verizon had a shot at it, but they
> rejected it, because they were unable to give up any power, or change
> anything about how they did business. AT&T chose to be a bit more forward
> thinking and reaped the rewards.
>

Well, that is one way of characterizing it. My understanding was that
the Verizon deal would have also been exclusive as well, so Apple was
choosing between exclusive partners. This is why T-mobile and Sprint
were really never at the table.

I think there is lots of empiricle evidence (both before the launch of
the iPhone and since) that cell phones can have these freedoms without
being locked in to a single carrier. Had Apple been more forward
thinking, they could have gone that way, but they like to have control,
and of course the revenue upside can't be ignored (there's a reason why
Apple's share of the profits in the smartphone space far exceeds their
market share ;-).

--Chris

Bruce G Potter wrote:
>
> On Aug 7, 2009, at 5:19 AM, <tidbits-talkemperor.tidbits.com>
> <tidbits-talkemperor.tidbits.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Consumer Reports has rated Apple's service as excellent, and no
>> other computer company even comes close. A typical Apple store
>> probably has more employees hanging around than the much larger
>> Best Buy store down the street.
>
> Yeah, but I spent 20 minutes in the Apple Store in Annapolis, holding
> my credit card and the copy of Disk Warrior that I had to wade through
> 4 geniuses talking about stuff, before someone (I think her name was
> Ashleigh) deigned to take my hundred bucks. Not my definition of
> great service, nor the continuing bad advice from on-line technical
> experts re: how to recover from a "Migration Assistant"-induced error
> on my hard disk and in the OS.

Yes. The stores need to make it a LOT more obvious how to actually pay for something and get out the door. Maybe putting a picture of a classic NCR cash register on the back of the blue t-shirts.

David

On 8/9/09 6:36 PM, "Christopher Smith" <xxman.org> wrote:

>>> Apple managed to get a version of this, but it was for one model of
>>> phone on one carrier. :-) Nothing to see here.
>>>
>>
>> Three models of iphone in the usa, canada, the EU, Europe....
>>
> There have been three models released over time, and really the two
> models available right now are just an "old" model and a "new" model. If
> that's your standard for "models", then this is definitely not an
> unprecedented thing. HTC had the 6700, 6800 and HTC Touch Pro, and let's
> not even talk about all the BlackBerry's...

However, I know that the phone/carrier relationship will be the exact same
for every model iphone that I get. Even within sprint, the deal and features
you got on one HTC handset did not automatically carry over to the next. For
example, the 6601 was capable of running 3G speeds on sprint. The HTC forums
had a number of posts about it, the hardware could handle it. But *Sprint*
knifed it because they had a different model of Windows Mobile phone they
wanted for 3G, and they could force new contracts, etc. on it. So again, no,
you do not, nor did you get the same carrier/handset producer interaction on
a per-model basis you get with the iPhone.

>>>> The same model on another carrier? You could not rely on those concessions.
>>>>
>>> If you mean they wouldn't provide these concessions for all their
>>> phones, that is true... as is the case with the iPhone.
>>>
>> No, I meant you couldn't rely on the SAME concessions for the SAME model of
>> phone on different carriers. For example, sprint would allow you to do
>> bluetooth data transfers, Verizon would not, even on the same phone.
>>
> Apple hasn't achieved this. They have one set of "concessions" from each
> carrier, and only one per market. There are plenty of phones that came
> before them that were more successful in this regard.

Every model of handset prior to the iPhone was a tossup for capabilities.
You might get the same basic featureset, you might not. You might have
features that worked on a previous device from the same manufacturer not
work on the next one. It was, and is, inconsistent, no matter how you try to
spin it.

>>>> Even on a carrier that made some concessions, they'd pooch up others.
>>>>
>>> You mean like tethering? plan flexibility? ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Verizon disabling data transfer features that worked on other carriers.
>>
> You are missing what I'm saying. iPhone plans aren't consistent vary
> from carrier to carrier. For example: AT&T doesn't currently allow
> tethering.

However, AT&T has not said "No, never, don't even talk to us about it",
which is what verizon did. You may not like AT&T's reason for delaying it,
but that is still a far cry from AT&T saying "we're modifying the firmware
on the phone so it is impossible". That is what happens to other phones. The
*carrier* controls the OS/Featureset.

>>>> It was the overall package
>>>> deal that Apple got from AT&T, and every other carrier that was
>>>> significant,
>>>> and the fact that they got the *same* deal from *every* carrier.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "Every" carrier, by which you mean "one carrier per market", and if you
>>> check, they don't all have the same deals (although I agree that there
>>> is a fair bit of uniformity on deal points). This is largely a function
>>> of making the phone's brand trump the carrier's brand. I would argue it
>>> was simply a reflection of Apple's brand power rather than any kind of
>>> exclusive deal.
>>>
>>
>> It was both, and as you may recall, verizon had a shot at it, but they
>> rejected it, because they were unable to give up any power, or change
>> anything about how they did business. AT&T chose to be a bit more forward
>> thinking and reaped the rewards.
>>
>
> Well, that is one way of characterizing it. My understanding was that
> the Verizon deal would have also been exclusive as well, so Apple was
> choosing between exclusive partners. This is why T-mobile and Sprint
> were really never at the table.

Apple wanted, at the time, a lot of control from the carriers, and some
fundamental changes to things like voicemail. To get those concessions, they
had to offer concessions of their own. This happens all the time, or do you
think there's no connection whatsoever between the labels getting what they
wanted, (variable pricing on iTunes) and Apple getting what it wanted, (no
more DRM)?

T-Mobile was never going to be able to be an exclusive carrier in the US.
They simply are incapable of it. Period. You have 20 pounds of dirt,
T-Mobile can only hold ten pounds.

Sprint has the coverage, but at the time, that company was a complete mess,
heck they STILL hadn't recovered from the Nextel debacle. These days,
they're not in great shape, but they're not as bad as they were. However, if
the Palm Pre is not a *massive* long term hit for them, they're in dookey.

So, out of the 4, there were only two logical choices to start with, and
both had to make concessions. AT&T did the deal, Verizon said no. At the
time, both made the best decision for their respective companies. Apple came
out ahead with AT&T, because they only had to make one model of hardware,
GSM. Had they gone with Verizon, they would have still had to make GSM
phones, and if anyone thinks that would have been magically better than
AT&T, they need to move into reality.

>
> I think there is lots of empiricle evidence (both before the launch of
> the iPhone and since) that cell phones can have these freedoms without
> being locked in to a single carrier. Had Apple been more forward
> thinking, they could have gone that way, but they like to have control,
> and of course the revenue upside can't be ignored (there's a reason why
> Apple's share of the profits in the smartphone space far exceeds their
> market share ;-).

What you *can* do, and the deal you're going to get are two very different
things. At the time, the iPhone was a complete unknown, and Apple's track
record with AT&T sucked. The Rockr was NOT a resounding success. So there
was no way, no way in any reality that Apple, at that time, had the pull to
walk in and say "this phone is a license to print money, do what we want and
smile."

It was a big change in cell phones in general, it required real, non-trivial
changes to AT&T's voicemail infrastructure that ONLY applied to the iPhone,
it required AT&T to not be the sole point of sale for the device, it
required a lot out of AT&T for a *completely* unknown device and future, and
Steve Jobs is not perfect. He'd had a failure here and there. You cannot
look at things now, apply them retroactively, and say that Apple could have
done it differently, because that's simply not how things were at that time.

--
John C. Welch

There is a big difference in the cell phone industry before iPhone and After iPhone.

Before the iPhone, cell phones were at the beck and call of the providers. They said what the phones could look like and what features they could have. Verizon, for example, would disable Bluetooth and MP3 playing abilities. They didn't want people directly downloading data or music between their computer and phone. You want music on your cell phone? Pay Verizon. You want to download that picture you took to your website? Pay Verizon.

It actually got to the point where cell phone manufacturers were leaving the business because the providers simply refused to pay that much for the phones. After all, they were giving them away for free in order to keep their customers entangled in their web.

And, Apple became part of that world. Remember the Motorola Rokr? The first so called iPod telephone? Apple wishes you don't.

The iPhone was a radical invention and was a radical offering. Verizon was apparently Apple's first choice of provider. Verizon has the best network and data capabilities. But, Verizon wanted to call the shots. They wanted to say what the iPhone could and couldn't do. For example, Verizon use to limit users to particular WAP enabled websites that paid Verizon for the privileged, and I can imagine Verizon wanting to keep this source of revenues. Verizon use to insist that websites provice WAP access in order to conserve bandwidth too. And, Verizon never offered an unlimited data package. I can imagine Verizon ticking off these points to Apple when Apple contacted them about a new iTunes enabled phone.

Fortunately for Apple, AT&T was desperate for something to reinvigorate their business. They were the biggest cell phone network, but they  were slowly losing business to Verizon due to customer satisfaction issues. AT&T was desperate enough to try anything to turn business around -- even if that meant giving Apple total control over the handset design and having to offer unlimited data plans.

The result was a revolution. Suddenly, people were flocking to AT&T just for the chance to use the iPhone. AT&T customer base started to grow once again. The other carriers took notice and eased their restrictions. Even Verizon started offering full Internet access and tried to get phones that could compete against the iPhone.

With phones like the new Blackberries, the Palm Pre, and the Android handsets, we have forgotten how stupid even the smartest phones were. We have forgotten the primitive "Before iPhone" era and how the main purpose of our phone was to be a cash machine for our cell phone service providers who nickeled and dimed us for each "feature" we wanted.

Thanks to the iPhone, the climate has completely changed it is no longer the cell phone service providers who are calling the shots. It is now the manufacturers. They are insisting on a cut of the service contract. They are dictating to the cell phone service providers what services they expect the cell phone network to provide, and they are the ones in control.

I dont' know if Apple would insist on exclusive agreements now a days. Exclusive agreements meant that other cell phone service providers went looking for their own iPhone version. Would Palm have sold the Pre if Sprint could have sold the iPhone? Would the Android handset ever come to fruition if Apple could have have allowed T-Mobile to sell the iPhone? The exclusivity helps AT&T because only they have the real iPhone, and everyone else doesn't. It hurts Apple becuase it limits the number of iPhones Apple could sell, and it allows serious innovation that could hurt iPhone sales.

--
David Weintraub
qazwartgmail.com

A lot of this discussion (for example, about how cell phone networks dictate to phone manufacturers) applies mainly to the US. In most of the rest of the world one buys one's phone wherever (e.g., at the local market) and then goes to whatever network they wish to use to buy a SIM card for it. I got my phone (a Nokia Symbian smart phone) in Hong Kong and have SIM cards for it in 5 countries. There were no problems with this, even in the US where T-Mobile was quite happy to sell me a SIM card.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:13 AM, mta714 <mtaumich.edu> wrote: >> A lot of this discussion (for example, about how cell phone networks dictate to phone manufacturers) applies mainly to the US. > > Good point - why is that? Probably there are many reasons; I think it'd be a very interesting discussion.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Marc Farnum Rendino <mvgfr1gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:13 AM, mta714 <mtaumich.edu> wrote:
>> A lot of this discussion (for example, about how cell phone networks >> dictate to phone manufacturers) applies mainly to the US.
>
> Good point - why is that? Probably there are many reasons; I think it'd be a very interesting discussion.

The US consumer has little concept of Total Cost of Ownership. A $299
iPhone is obviously cheaper than a $499 iPhone of the same model, even
though the two year cost using the same plan is only slightly less.
Therefore (along with other factors), the carriers get away with the
high-profit situation they have created.

On Sep 25, 2009, at 4:07 AM, johnbaxterlists wrote:

> The US consumer has little concept of Total Cost of Ownership. ...
> Therefore (along with other factors), the carriers get away with the
> high-profit situation they have created.

I don't think that consumers in other countries are any more savvy or
better at figuring out TCO than American consumers.

I suspect this has a lot to do with the regulatory environment.
Simply put, Europe (and other countries who's legal/political
sensibility is in the European tradition) is much more serious about
consumer protection, and is willing to be more interventionist than
American regulators are in the cell market. (Remember the minor flap
when the French government forced Apple and whoever was Apple's French
partner to offer an unlocked version of the iPhone?) So, cell network
providers are (grudgingly) more consumer friendly because their
governments force them to be. I suspect that the balance of power
between the cell network companies and the hardware manufacturers that
favors the manufacturers are merely an unintended consequence of these
more robust consumer protection policies.

I'm sure this is an over simplification. Other factors such as market
size and other economic factors undoubtedly figure in as well. And,
of course, Europeans (and perhaps Asians as well) are much more likely
to travel across national borders than Americans as a sheer
consequence of geography, and are more likely to demand "openness" in
their cell phones.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Tomoharu Nishino <tomoharunishino.us> wrote:
>
> I'm sure this is an over simplification.

Yep. In fact, I would say this, that for the most part, cellular use
is probably cheaper in the US than Europe, so regulation isn't the
panacea that you think it is. And I say this as an American living in
Europe for the past 12 years+.

--
 -Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland

On 27-Sep-2009, at 00:39, Jon Glass wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Tomoharu Nishino
> <tomoharunishino.us> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure this is an over simplification.
>
> Yep. In fact, I would say this, that for the most part, cellular use
> is probably cheaper in the US than Europe, so regulation isn't the
> panacea that you think it is. And I say this as an American living in
> Europe for the past 12 years+.

In the EU you are not double charged (or in some cases quadruple
charged) for every call or SMS. You only pay for calls/SMS you make.
Here, you pay for both the call you make and the call you receive.
With AT&T you get charged 4 times for every SMS/MMS because there is
the charge to send and receive, and then there is an additional 'data'
charge (again, send and receive).

It is nearly impossible to block your phone from unwanted SMS messages
unless you are willing to sit on hold with the carrier for and hour
and get _ALL_ SMS messages blocked.

Service contracts in the US average $60/month.

A friend of mine in Europe with two iPhones pays exactly the same as I
pay for one iPhone and one non-iPhone. He has less minutes than I do,
but remember that those minutes are twice as useful to him. He also
has unlimited text messaging included in his plan, and option that
would cost me, I think $40. Throw into the mix that I am frequently
unable to get a 3G signal (and by frequent I mean many times a day)
and am often unable to get a mobile signal at all (and by often I mean
many times a week); whilst he is never without mobile coverage (not
sure about the 3G coverage, but I don't hear him whinge about it, so
I'm guessing it's better than mine).

On the other hand, prices and plans and availability do vary widely by
country. What is true in Poland is not going to be true in Italy, or
France, or the UK.

The other thing that makes mobiles more economical in the EU is that
you often are paying for calls you make ANYWAY, even from a land line.
For example, phoning up Pizza Hut in Paris (the mind rebels, but yes,
there are Pizza Huts in Paris) costs you money to place the call.

If you're already used to paying for certain calls, then the cost
associated with the cellphone is a price increase, but not a
difference from 'free' to 'not free' which is a much bigger jump.

Jon, having just returned to the US from 5 years in England, my experience is the opposite of yours. American cellular services is MUCH more expensive, less flexible, and much, much less consumer friendly.

Let's look at the iPhone, here's a scenario for a 32GB iPhone 3GS with a 1200 minute monthly plan and 500 text messages.

CONTRACT: O2 allows you to have either an 18 month or 24 month contract, so England wins on flexibility. The 24 month contract costs 44.05 GBP with no hidden charges, while the American equivalent costs 125 USD per month -- you add the base rate ($80) plus the iPhone surcharge ($30) plus text messages ($20 for 1500).

PHONE: With this contract, O2 sells the phone for 96.89 GBP and AT&T sells it for about 300 plus taxes and other fees (activation, etc) that I can't find listed online.

LIKE-FOR-LIKE: Receiving SMS messages is free in the UK, so O2's 500 messages actually represent more like 1000 messages in America. Sending messages to foreign cell phones is much cheaper in the UK. Roaming charges are a bit less too.

CONCLUSION: After 2 years, total cost of ownership in the US would be 3400 USD. In England, you'd pay 1154 GBP, which is about 1800 USD at the current exchange rate. The iPhone costs an American _double_ what it costs an Englishman, and the American ends up with a less flexible contract and more confusing terms.

I hope someone will check my math, I just bought an iPhone in the US so I've researched the issue -- and it makes me furious!

-- Ash Ranpura, London, England and Dayton, Ohio.

On 28-Sep-2009, at 03:57, Ash Ranpura wrote:
> PHONE: With this contract, O2 sells the phone for 96.89 GBP and AT&T
> sells it for about 300 plus taxes and other fees (activation, etc)
> that I can't find listed online.

Yeah, I checked O2's prices and for what I pay AT&T ($115 for iPhone
and no iPhone with 700 shared minutes and some texting) I would have
a LOT more minutes (and minutes are 'worth' more in the UK), 500 text
(versus 200), AND I would have gotten a 32GB iPhone FREE (another $300
saving). So, 3,000 minutes, 500 text, unlimited data, free 32GB
iPhone, all for about $115 a month. To get a comparable AT&T plan
would cost $145. True, it would be 'unlimited' minutes since the next
step down for AT&T is 1350 minutes, well shy of O2's 3,000.

And that's at the high end. If we look at the 'intro' level, the
difference is more obvious.

AT&T 450 minutes, 200 texts, $74/m $200 FULL PRICE IPHONE
O2 600 minutes, 500 texts, $54/m Discounted iPhone ($138)

More minutes, and remember, these minutes are only OUTBOUND, lots more
text, lots cheaper.

TCO for AT&T $1976 for 16GB iPhone with 10,800 minutes and 4,800
texts for 24 months.
TCO for O2 $1434 for 16GB iPhone with 14,400 minutes and 12,000
texts for 24 months.

And, now that Orange has iPhones as well, chances are we will see even
more minutes and texts on these plans.

Oh, and that O2 plan? That would suit me perfectly at $54/m. In fact,
two of those would be cheaper than I pay AT&T and we'd have a lot more
minutes between us and a LOT more texts and still be paying less.

On Sep 27, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Jon Glass wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Tomoharu Nishino
> <tomoharunishino.us> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure this is an over simplification.
>
> Yep. In fact, I would say this, that for the most part, cellular use
> is probably cheaper in the US than Europe, so regulation isn't the
> panacea that you think it is.

Never said it was. As I understood the original thread, the question
was around why it was possible to get unlocked phones to use any SIM
card one likes in most parts of the world except the US, and why the
US carriers had so much power over the hardware manufacturers. Here,
I suspect that the regulatory environment is pretty critical. I never
claimed that regulation made cell phone use cheaper, just that it
prevented carriers from certain kinds of behaviors that negatively
affect consumers, or allowed them to have a dominant influence on
hardware manufacturers.

In fact, your reply would have been better directed at John, who's
response to the original question (on which I was commenting) was that
US consumers had little concept of TOC (implying that TOC was lower
elsewhere than in the U.S.).

Tomoharu

Ashe,

Thank you for the analysis as it is eye-opening. To boot, just to
color your face a bit more red with rage, Internet service in America
is way behind our European as well as Asian systems! Apallling, but I
still use it every day! Grr!

Sent on my iPhone

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Tomoharu Nishino <tomoharunishino.us> wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Jon Glass wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Tomoharu Nishino
>> <tomoharunishino.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure this is an over simplification.
>>
>> Yep. In fact, I would say this, that for the most part, cellular use
>> is probably cheaper in the US than Europe, so regulation isn't the
>> panacea that you think it is.
>
> In fact, your reply would have been better directed at John, who's
> response to the original question (on which I was commenting) was that
> US consumers had little concept of TOC (implying that TOC was lower
> elsewhere than in the U.S.).
>
My remark about TCO was directed at the howls over the eligibility for
subsidized updates for the iPhone 3GS. The difference is not a large
portion of the TCO of the phone over the ensuing two years--hence the
screaming seems (to me) unwarranted. Others will not agree.

  --John