News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > General discussions > Other manufacturers > The O2 iPhone discussion thread Bookmark topic

Let's be fair, there is no way that this is an unsubsidized device, it must be partially subsidized in some way. I would imagine if it was sold sim free the price would be nearer £400.
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:09:35
Edit : Quote


Apple makes the money back on the handset costs in its monthly share of the O2 contract.

Basically, the O2 isn't subsidising the iPhone- as is usually the case, Apple is. That's why they want you to keep the 18 month contract.

As far as I'm aware, until the iPhone the operator subsidised the handset cost against the contract, with the iPhone its the manufacturer.

Kind of turned the situation right around.

Say, for example, Apple gets £10 per month out of the minimum £35 a month you pay to O2. That's £180 per customer over 18 months, bringing the actual cost of the handset up to the £450 mark.



--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:18:19
Edit : Quote


@JoolsG4

That's exactly the point I was trying to make, thanks.
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:23:57
Edit : Quote


in which case Jools, that's monopoly, and that practice is banned in the EU.

Which ever way you look at it, somebody somewhere has to unlock the iPhone, wether it be at point of purchase by Apple or wether it be in 3 months time by O2, but neither seem as though what they are doing.

From where I'm standing, the whole practice is illegal, but I'm no legal eagle hence why I'm trying to gain clarification from some government body but failing miserably.
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:26:07
Edit : Quote


I fully understand that they may be looking to recoup the cost's by collecting some of O2's monthly contract, but the way they are going about it is all wrong!

They are selling a device without contract, without a written agreement between Apple/O2 and the consumer to say that you agree to go on contract and give them the rest of the money for the device!

They are effectively selling a simfree device which any Tom, Dick or Harry with a bank account can go and buy without signing into a contract!



Though I agree it is obviously subsidized, the way they are selling it is as a sim free unsubsidized unit as it is sold outside of any contract or written agreement!

And to my understanding you can't even play music on it until you do sign into the contract, so not only is the device locked to one provider until you take out the contract, but also the device is disabled and nothing more than a nice looking shiny paper weight!

_________________
+11 A-Z +276 eBay.
I My New Curve!!

[ This Message was edited by: Nanu on 2007-11-12 11:37 ]
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:34:49
Edit : Quote


exactly nanu, I can fully understand Apple wanting to recoup the cost, which is fine, but by doing so, they then play themselves in the EU laws, as to say, I want my iPhone unlocked within my contract, O2/Apple must do it, there are no 2 ways about it, if a consumer requests it, O2/Apple HAVE to supply it, at what cost I don't know but they are even failing to get over the first hurdle, which is where we go back to th pint of purchase, is it therefore Sim free? in which case, must be unlocked....

see my confusion here?
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:40:04
Edit : Quote


I'm not really sure if it would be classed as a monopoly...

O2 do offer other phones on other tariffs, and there are other networks to choose between...

I'm not sure it can be a monopoly where just one device is concerned. If O2 were the only network, and Apple were the only handset manufacturer, then yes, it would be a monopoly.

It's like 3 have the exclusive rights to the Skypephone - no other network sells this particular phone. Is that also a monopoly?

A variety of handsets have always been available exclusively on one network, in the past.
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:41:10
Edit : Quote




All of the above though have been sold on contract!

The iPhone isn't!!!!!!

That's the difference to get the skype phone you have to sign up to 3, who will then give you the phone, as you have signed an agreement to buy it from them and pay them the outstanding balance.

But I can go and buy the iPhone without putting my signature to anything, and it will be my phone to do with what I like by trading laws, but oh no I can't do with it what I like because to use it I Then have to sign up to O2 which then becomes frowned upon!
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:46:27
Edit : Quote


[quote]
On 2007-11-12 12:41:10, JoolsG4 wrote:
It's like 3 have the exclusive rights to the Skypephone - no other network sells this particular phone. Is that also a monopoly?
/quote]

No that's not the same, as 3 supply the phone and therefore the contract, in the iPhones case, Apple supply the phone as an entity, yet to use the thing you have no choice but to join O2, therefore removing any choice whatsoever, the contract being the second entity, one won't work without the other and vica versa.

It goes back to buying a car but being told you can only fill up at Shell.

It doesn't help that neither company knows their arse from their elbow, and all the Ts and Cs are about as ambiguous as a very ambiguous thing!

A bit of clarification is all we're after, from there I know where I stand, and can then tackle, O2 or Apple dependent on the actual phone.

If Apple supply the phone at a unsubsidised cost, it has to be sim free.

If O2/Apple subsidised the cost, they have to unlock it when requested for a fee.

But neither statements can be confirmed, which is where is confusion lies!
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 12:48:44
Edit : Quote


Personally I think O2 and Apple will have there arses covered. O2 will obviously know the laws with being a mobile network for many years, and they obvously wouldn't ignore anything that could infringe them in any way.
--
Posted: 2007-11-12 14:39:51
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index