| Author |
The O2 iPhone discussion thread |
Aware
Joined: Jun 24, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Oxon, UK
PM |
On 2007-11-11 23:39:31, JoolsG4 wrote:
No O2 contract = no monthly income for Apple!
Jools, I guess this is the same for US iPhones and AT+T contracts, no??
So then, how much do Apple get from an iPhone used with an AT+T Pay and Go sim, as is the case when the contract activation credit check is failed??
For that point, do the O2 iPhones activate differently?? What if you fail the activation credit check over here?? I doubt O2 would still offer a contract......
_________________
 P990i(R6D23), T650i(R6AC/RED) 
A-ZoTT
* Treat people as YOU EXPECT to be treated! *
[ This Message was edited by: Aware on 2007-11-11 23:24 ] | |
|
Jools
Joined: May 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Well, I don't know if that's their intention, but I read that handset manufacturers (in particular Nokia) have been trying to get network operators to give them a slice of the contract revenue for some time.
However, up until the iPhone, no one had persuaded any operator to do so. I presume they never had a product the operators thought was compelling enough to give part of the monthly revenue.
I think that's basically the reason why the O2 iPhone contracts are relatively expensive for what you get - part of the monthly fee goes straight to Apple (presumably to help offset the cost of the handset R&D). And that's why Apple are so keen to keep UK iPhones locked to O2 - it's an 18-month minimum revenue stream for them, that they wouldn't get if you unlocked it.
If you think about it, it's quite an 'innovative' business model really... O2 aren't paying out in advance to subsidise the handset costs, and Apple has a 'guaranteed' income from the contracts.
|
Dogmann
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: London England
PM |
@indup
Thanks for the vote of confidence as that is what i am planning on doing as long as the fact i don't own one stops me.
@all
As has been said on the other page the fact you buy the iPhone outright unsubsidised is what IMO makes the locking and forcing you into a contract both a restrictive practice and illegal only time will tell if i and others are right in our assumption but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Marc
_________________
Nokia E61, 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-11-11 23:30 ] |
p900 lover
Joined: Jan 08, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London
PM |
On a side note i just spoke to a friend who works for 02 and on friday they sold 54 iphones in her store in Brighton, not bad i think. |
fatreg
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Dear Sirs,
I write this as an avid mobile phone user and an ex phones salesman, the Apple iPhone launched on Friday 09/11/2007 at a retail cost of £269, apparently an unsubsidised price, however, to allow the phone to function you have to sign up to an 18 month contract with O2, my concern lies with the fact that you buy the phone out right at the start of the contract, therefore is your property and such should be to do with it as you will, but this doesn't appear to be the case with the iPhone, I've spoken to O2 regarding the situation and they refer me back to Apple since they make the product, however, I draw you back to the outset, I buy the phone, it's mine, to use it I have to with no choice but to sign up for an 18 month contract with O2, Since the phone is bought outright at the outset, this to me seems as though they are applying unfair purchasing conditions, it's like going out and buying a brand new car but being told you can only use Shell petrol in it. It appears to be somewhat unfair and unjust.
It appears to me as though Apple and O2 have just used the same sales model they have in place in the US, which is all good and well, but laws over here regarding competition and sim unlocking are in place EU wide, whereas they are not in the US.
My main concern is that I work a lot in different countries and need by phone to be unlocked, and i thought that buying the phone outright at the start of the contract would have meant the phone was unlocked?
Just wondered if you could shed any light.
Thanks in advance
*name removed*
that's what I've just sent to the competition people......
lets see what happens if anything at all.
|
fatreg
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
email failed!
why have an email address if it doesn't work!?
GRRR
|
mswallis
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 460
From: England
PM |
On 2007-11-12 00:30:18, Dogmann wrote:
@all
As has been said on the other page the fact you buy the iPhone outright unsubsidised is what IMO makes the locking and forcing you into a contract both a restrictive practice and illegal only time will tell if i and others are right in our assumption but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Marc
So if you had to sign-up to the contract instore, like all other phones, would you have the same arguement? |
fatreg
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-12 11:24:11, mswallis wrote:
On 2007-11-12 00:30:18, Dogmann wrote:
@all
As has been said on the other page the fact you buy the iPhone outright unsubsidised is what IMO makes the locking and forcing you into a contract both a restrictive practice and illegal only time will tell if i and others are right in our assumption but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Marc
So if you had to sign-up to the contract instore, like all other phones, would you have the same arguement?
Possibly, as the phone is still being purchased unsubsidised.
|
Nanu
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Warrington, UK
PM, WWW
|
That's exactly the point, if you had to sign a contract there and then there possibly wouldn't be as much of an argument as O2/Apple could argue it is subsidised but would still have to provide you with an unlocking code!
As it stands you can walk into Apple/O2/CPW and purchase the phone without signing anything, therefore by law it is your property to do with what you like, not what they tell you to do with it, all they would have to do is make you sign a disclaimer agreeing to their T's & C's regarding the contract and then you would have no argument but as it is they don't so there is an argument to be had and whether people like it or not and whatever the outcome of the argument will be, it will be had by someone somewhere!
|
fatreg
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
the term brick wall comes to mind,
having spoken to, otelo, consumer direct and the competition commission I am none to wiser, they all seem to place the blame on each other.
from my point of view, they are 2 queries,
1) Purchasing the phone outright, yet being forced to use O2.
2) O2 not obliging to having the phone unlocked at a request by a consumer.
|
mswallis
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 460
From: England
PM |
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. |
Jools
Joined: May 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
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.
|
mswallis
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 460
From: England
PM |
@JoolsG4
That's exactly the point I was trying to make, thanks. |
fatreg
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
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.
|
Nanu
Joined: Feb 18, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Warrington, UK
PM, WWW
|
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!
On 2007-11-12 12:09:35, mswallis wrote:
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.
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 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-11-12 00:16
