Apple iPhone and related items (cont.)

[paolo]

Aren't there already providers that offer all media? (Your point probably isn't simply that)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I don't think so. How many people would by an iPhone if they had to pay the full price up front?

I did, and it was a very good move, too - I've saved several hundred quid. Subsidised phones are really just a finance plan organised by the phone company and usually not to the consumer's benefit at all. All that you need is another type of finance plan.

 

[Bungle73]

I did, and it was a very good move, too - I've saved several hundred quid. Subsidised phones are really just a finance plan organised by the phone company and usually not to the consumer's benefit at all. All that you need is another type of finance plan.

So did I, but only because I didn't want a contract and hardly make any calls. Most people balk at the £500 cost for a SIM free iPhone and prefer to pay the much cheaper price they can get it for if they take out a contract......even if it means paying more in the long run.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Eventually, the operator-subsidised and network tied phone model will be history I think. You aren't tied to a data service when you buy a computer so why should you be when you buy a pocket computer? What I really want to see is a universal data bill - landline, wifi, cellular. All in the same service plan, agnostic of device.

Yeah that and xbox owners being able to play with PS3 gamers online too would be nice.

 

[DIMPLES1]

Help. The power on MrD's iphone has just gone & it won't turn back & it doesn't look like its charging. I've plugged it onto the computer with itunes open, but as there's no power it isn't registering. He didn't get the 20% or 10% battery warnings, it seems to have just gone. Any ideas, please folks???

NO WORRIES - got it working. MrD's panic is over

 

[Crispy]

I don't think so. How many people would by an iPhone if they had to pay the full price up front?

See fridge's post - the minimum monthly contract is really a repayment plan for the phone. The actual cost of providing the service is quite a bit lower.

 

[Bungle73]

See fridge's post - the minimum monthly contract is really a repayment plan for the phone. The actual cost of providing the service is quite a bit lower.

See my previous post.

BTW does anyone know WTF they've removed info for Southeastern services to/from St. Pancras International from the National Rail Enquires app in the latest update? This is very annoying since I use these services.

 

[Crispy]

Yeah, but the point is that the network's credit is at a crappy rate.

 

[Bungle73]

Yeah, but the point is that the network's credit is at a crappy rate.

Lots of people obviously don't care about that, otherwise they'd all be buying their phones SIM free at full price.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So did I, but only because I didn't want a contract and hardly make any calls. Most people balk at the £500 cost for a SIM free iPhone and prefer to pay the much cheaper price they can get it for if they take out a contract......even if it means paying more in the long run.

You're just restating the same point though.

People balk at the cost, and they can get a crap finance plan on the contract, so they go to that so they don't have to put up so much money up front. So all you have to do if you want to offer a phone off contract is to offer them another type of finance plan for their phone.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I did, and it was a very good move, too - I've saved several hundred quid. Subsidised phones are really just a finance plan organised by the phone company and usually not to the consumer's benefit at all. All that you need is another type of finance plan.

I've found the opposite to be true away from the iphone. Look at the cost of something like a Desire HD unlocked, then cost of contracts with it and the sim only ones.

Phone works out to be about £200 to £250 by buying through a contract I worked out.

 

[Crispy]

You're just restating the same point though.

People balk at the cost, and they can get a crap finance plan on the contract, so they go to that so they don't have to put up so much money up front. So all you have to do if you want to offer a phone off contract is to offer them another type of finance plan for their phone.

and - crucially, sign a seperate agreement for network services,

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, that's part of the difference in the finance plans; it divorces the financing aspect from the service aspect, though network operators would be free to offer their own deals I presume involving both.

 

[editor]

Looks like Apple's plans have been well and truly scuppered (although iPads may get the new SIM).

The Sunday Telegraph understands that Apple has given up on its plan to bypass operators after they warned that they would refuse to continue subsidising the cost of the expensive phones. At present mobile operators pay Apple the full £375 cost of the phone, which they pass on to consumers for free if they sign up for 24-month contracts.
Apple had wanted to exclude operators, such as Vodafone and O2, from the sale process in order to build a more direct relationship with customers. The Californian technology giant had been working on plans to create an integrated SIM card so that consumers could buy the phone without having to sign up to operators' long-term contracts.
A senior source at a mobile operator said: "Apple has long been trying to build closer and closer relationships and cut out the operators. But this time they have been sent back to the drawing board with their tails between their legs."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...898/Apples-iPhone-SIM-card-plan-thwarted.html

 

[paolo]

Looks like Apple's plans have been well and truly scuppered (although iPads may get the new SIM).

The operators win.

Do consumers? I guess we'll never know. For now, the existing model remains unchanged.

 

[editor]

The operators win.

Do consumers? I guess we'll never know. For now, the existing model remains unchanged.

I'm not sure, but one thing I am pretty sure about: if their track record is anything to go by, Apple definitely weren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts in a selfless quest to provide greater choice and freedom for consumers.

 

[paolo]

I'm not sure, but one thing I am pretty sure about: if their track record is anything to go by, Apple definitely weren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts in a selfless quest to provide greater choice and freedom for consumers.

And the operators motives?

 

[editor]

And the operators motives?

Do you want the phone manufacturer to dictate which network you can connect to Y/N?

I don't like any of the networks much, but at least I can choose which one I go with - and there's competition between them.

 

[editor]

Interesting piece:

The GSMA is to create a new standard for manufacturers who don't want their products sullied by an operator's SIM, taking Apple a step closer to world domination.

Not that Apple is a member of the new Task Force which will be defining the standard for software SIMs, but the hand of Steve Jobs is clearly visible among the promises for greater flexibility and additional functionality that doing away with the removable SIM is supposed to provide....

The ability to download and install a software SIM, over some alternative network connection presumably, is arguably more complicated to implement than a physical slot. That is unless you are Apple, in which case iTunes already provides that connection and the interface through which to manage it.

When the rumours of Apple's software SIM started to surface it seemed hugely unlikely. A device without a removable SIM breaks the GSM standard so wouldn't be allowed in Europe, unless Apple somehow managed to change the rules... which is exactly what Apple has managed to do

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/18/gsma_apple/

 

[paolo]

Do you want the phone manufacturer to dictate which network you can connect to Y/N?

I don't like any of the networks much, but at least I can choose which one I go with - and there's competition between them.

What I'd like to see is the breaking of the tie between operators and handset ownership.

Manufacturers should be able to compete directly with each other, without any influence from operators.

Operators should compete with each other on the basis of being a supplier of a commodity service.

Consumers should be able to switch operators without changing handset.

They should be able to switch handsets without being disadvantaged by their operator.

I don't care who instigates this shift in market behaviour. It could be a handset manufacturer, an operator, or pixies. I've no axe to grind.

 

[paolo]

The GSMA taskforce for the new SIM include:

AT&T, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom Orange, KT, NTT DOCOMO, SK Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefónica, Verizon Wireless and Vodafone.

Being controlled "by the hand of Steve Jobs"?

 

[Crispy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...898/Apples-iPhone-SIM-card-plan-thwarted.html

Apple's custom iphone SIM plans canceled.

 

[editor]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...898/Apples-iPhone-SIM-card-plan-thwarted.html

Apple's custom iphone SIM plans canceled.

*coughs loudly and points back up the page.

 

[Crispy]

oops!

 

[Sunray]

Interesting piece:

That was the bit I mentioned before. On the face of that, it does nothing to the Phone/Operator contract. Just moving away from physical SIM's which I think are a bit old tech.

 

[paolo]

That was the bit I mentioned before. On the face of that, it does nothing to the Phone/Operator contract. Just moving away from physical SIM's which I think are a bit old tech.

It would make switching easier for some customers.

If you want to switch supplier of other services (energy etc) you can do it all online. No special supplier widget needed.

 

[editor]

There's some good comment on the Engadget site:

I don't know exactly the situation in the US, but there's a vast amount more competition in the phone markets in Europe. I can choose any one of six or seven carriers and get good coverage across 98% of the country.

In other words - the carriers aren't a problem here. Switching carriers is easy, as is porting your number. Thus, giving Apple another level of control (in this case between consumer and carrier) can only a bad thing for the consumer.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/22/apple-reportedly-abandons-supposed-push-for-integrated-sims-in-t/

 

[paolo]

Whereas the FT said:

"Closer to the operators’ hearts, it could allow customers to switch more easily from one to another or insist on shorter-term contracts."

 

[Bungle73]

I don't see how an integrated SIM would have changed much in the UK. Anyone can already buy an unlocked iPhone and use which ever carrier and contract they wish.

 

[paolo]

Let's paint a picture further into the future.

You not only have no contract, you have no specific operator. At the point of dialling, your phone interrogates the available operators, and places the call according to your criteria. Which may simply be 'cheapest'.

The operators do not want to move a single inch towards this type of idea. It would reduce them to being commodity suppliers and compress margins dramatically.

One may dismiss the idea of such functionality as far-fetched, but it's not been too far-fetched for Google to patent it.