Dumping exclusivity could double iPhone sales Apple could double its iPhone sales if it ended its policy of exclusive contract with mobile service providers. That's the considered opinion of Morgan Stanley analyst Kathryn Huberty, voiced in a research missive issued Friday morning. Huberty cites a 136 per cent increase in the iPhone's French market share after the …
Remember, iPhones are not as much a cell phone as a symbol of bourgeois affluence that is available to the punters for a 'slight' markup - same with their computers, and their mp3 players.
Their products function acceptably, but are little more than fashion statements over their competitors, snobbery incarnate: "Oh, deah me, are you using a PC, Mrs. Henderson? Those have WINDOWS - you really should move to an Apple computer, they're so much safer mah deah."
If Apple actually began to TAKE a large part of the market share, the flaws in their 'benevolent dictatorship' business model would begin to shine through the aura of 'so much whiter than YOURS' they have somehow managed to put forth. That's why Apple's perfectly happy with the what, 2-5% they've managed to snatch during the Vista debacle, but I doubt they're seriously interested in spreading farther - otherwise they'll endanger their tidy business agreements with Microsoft...
So one of the reasons I only choose a GSM phone in the states (even though Verizon offers better CDMA coverage) is because my phone will work wherever I travel as GSM is the standard in every other country.
Is 4G LTE an international standard too? Are all the European countries going to deploy it, or does it represent more fragmentation of the global market?
The Canadian government (CRTC) allowed Rogers to buy Fido in 2005~2006 creating a monopoly for GSM phone providers in Canada. All the other providers are squabbling over CDMA users. It looks likely they will all move to GSM for the next generation (after 3G) then we might see some actual competition in the GSM / iPhone compatible space.
In all fairness, Fido (as a brand of Rogers) has managed to differentiate itself from its parent company with some slightly better pricing deals, but never as good as it was pre buyout.
There is zero possibility of having a canadian iPhone officially unlocked at this time, although all iPhone contracts are 3 years, and we only got it when the 3G launched, so there is still another 20 months or so before those start expiring. I still think there will be zero chance of an official unlock then too.
Yes, it used to be separate company. But the author is trying to claim that there is "competition" in Canada, an area I know something about. It makes me wonder if his other claims are as spurious for area which I don't know anything about.
There should be some movement when LTE comes out, but that's in the future. The Rogers/Telus/Bell cartel will probably have found a way to continue their anti-competitive ways by then, aided and abetted by the Competition Commission, whose main role seems to be to prevent any from happening.
This post has been deleted by its author
In the beginning it makes sense to go with exclusive carriers for many reasons:
1) Premium: When you're production constrained, as Apple were in the beginning, then it makes sense to go with the biggest margin per unit. You can't sell more so it doesn't make sense to drop prices.
2) It is way, way easier to roll out with fewer telcos than with many, each with their own quirky services etc.
Of course things change. and it makes sense to extend the telcos supported.
...Hong Kong (Three, Broadway, and Fortress)..."
Broadway and Fortress are not carriers. They're retail stores, and the iPhone they're selling is with Three (I think - I haven't actually checked). So Hong Kong would have an exclusive carrier arrangement, except for the fact that you can also buy the iPhone SIM-unlocked, contract free, from the HK Apple store.
Yes the iPhone is available from pretty much all the carriers here in Australia (which are completely separate, unrelated companies).
However, the handsets are priced fairly closely between all the carriers (and from Apple direct) at a price point that is roughly 4 times the RRP announced by Apple.
Price collusion is against the law here, yet this quite obvious price collusion has been ignored by the local Competition watchdog (which only ever seems to concern itself with the lack of broadband competition).
We are part of a free market, if you don't like the deals offered on iPhones in your locality then you are free to buy a different phone.
Being a free market means there is competition within the market not on specific toys within the market - much as Apple would like it differently the market in question encompasses either mobile phones in general or possibly PDAs (more specifically), not just Apple iPhones.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
