Why would it be a restrictive practise? Yes it may have a cartel like stench but I suspect it would be one of the few ways Networks could rest power back from Apple. In reality it wouldn't reduce competition it would if anything allow the networks to have a more flexible business arrangement with Apple, and also offer a wider range of packages for the consumer. Broadly speaking you will see there is much of a muchness between packages on each network, they are largely of similar cost and offering. This is how Apple restricts competition but not allowing its products to be subject to market forces, hence the handcuff like arrangement with networks the world over.

Apple is due a reality check, it happens to the best companies when they hit their peak or shortly after. Apple has arguably peaked, it is only maintaining visiblility through a series of lacklustre product launches. That polished look Apple exudes is starting to wear thing with the consumer at large. Companies from China and even America are showing you can have a stellar handset at affordable prices, this is where Apple is going to come unstuck. The market right now is at saturation in the west Samsung and Apple pretty much have the premium market wrapped up, theres little growth available in this segment now, but there is oodles in the mid to lower range. Motorola and latterly ZTE, Huawei and Xaomi have shown they can produce handsets for the budget conscious and still have decent specs. This is where the growth is especially in the far east, not in expensive overhyped and oversold devices. I say all this as an iPhone owner as well. I am a lover of technology and competition, Apple's business practises with restrictive agreements and mass litigation impede that.

I do suspect readers have enough sense to know there is a good reason why Japan's Iphone sales in October were very high (said to be 76% of Japan's smartphone sales.)

Methinks Kidspud only plays at being a permanently confused Apple fan.

What control do you think Apple has over the networks? Are they forced to sign contracts?

From what I see the networks are happy to agree deals and appear to make good money from them. If what Apple are doing is illegal then they should be prosecuted, however, the networks creating a cartel to manipulate prices seems to be a strange response.

Well, according to you it is because the Japanese network force the customer to buy the phone.

I would expect the reason the number is so high is because it is a new phone on the market, however, I don't know if it is exceptionally high because I didn't see the % figures printed (for example) when the S4 came out.

Do you now have another explanation.

Nice reference to apple fan, nice to see others have dragged you down to their level

So what on earth are you then?
:love:

Well I'm not sure I would give myself a label, mainly because I'm not 5 years old.

However, as I have said many times, I own a samsung android phone and a iPad mini.

Did you not have an alternative explanation for the japan sales, as your first one seem to be incorrect?

No. The networks are not forced into signing contracts. However, what happens after they do sign them is shocking and frankly it doesnt matter if it's illegal or not hence why some networks are pulling out. More will follow in time i would think.

What happens then? Do the terms of the contracts signed change?

So far, the only negative claim is that the networks hold a liability. We don't actually know what that liability is, we don't actually know if that is even true, and based on this it is claimed the treatment is "shocking".

And as I've already said, this claim that some networks are pulling out, is countered by a lot more networks signing up.

Have you turned into pie man?!! You seem to be vigorously defending apple here again! Did you or did you not read the article posted in the first post?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11...s_and_tax_you/

Apple have always been known by their forceful and unfair pushing of networks.

Yes I did.

What I read was a quote from an analyst who is speculating on the terms of a contract and speculating on the size of a liability. Followed by speculative comments based on "unnamed insiders".

From it, I concluded that the article contains lots of speculation.

It seems you derived from it that Apple's behaviour is "shocking". Amazing how we see things differently.

Nope. I said if APPLE reduce their price

Oh those poor networks - having to deal with nasty Apple

If a network is not happy with Apple then they don't have to deal with them if they choose not to.

This is big business - any company that is any good will be forceful and get what it wants. That's good business sense - I hardly think the networks are not the same.

I always try to be correct, and there is only slight reason to treat anyone like they are under 5 these days.

One quick google tells you about those windfall Japanese sales. If you ever got the urge to offer something to the thread, you would try it.

That will be a no then.

Yes, an analyst who knows much more than you do. So basically you are doing what pie does and claiming you know better.

Thought as much.

It is indeed big business, but no company should not be allowed to dictate what a network does.

I don't even know who pie is, so I can't help you with that one.

An analyst that has given himself a $2B margin. However, we will see how accurate he is when Verizon report at year end, as I believe they are due to renew their deal with Apple, which I assume they won't if it has caused them so much trouble and they have had to write off $12B.

Still doesn't explain why networks (including the largest in the world) are signing up with such a "shocking" company.

Because lots of people want iPhones and they're still some of the biggest selling highest margin handsets available. If the networks didn't sign up they'd be known as the network that didn't sell iPhones and would lose a lot of custom.

Same reasons networks used to pay through the nose for a few months of exclusivity on new iPhones.

Why? f a network wants to buy iPhones then they have to abide by Apples rules. The network chooses to do that - they are not being dictated to.

Not sure that is really the same as the exclusivity deal was not the best for O2 all the other networks said they wouldn't of made enough of a profit to justify it.

I can certainly believe it as well because O2 wasn't really upgraded at all since then.

It's down to the market. Apple will continue to have a strong negotiating position with the networks as long as their devices sell well and are wanted by the consumer. Networks just won't renew contracts if they're not making a decent profit on it. But the overwhelming majority of them seem to be okay with it at the moment. The situation may of course change in the future.

I'm sure the most important contracts will have been renegotiated already.

Business users provide large profits and guessing, it is some of these users who are happier with a small phone.

The opposite in the US.
This hints that A T & T are acknowlediging people do not want a new phone saving them $15 a month, maybe more.

AT&T lowered prices for its heavy-duty plans, too. For example, a 30GB plan that costs $330 today will cost $265 a month starting Sunday, or $250 with an unsubsidized device."

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013...act-customers/

Little wonder that Three's CEO David Dyson is making overtures to selling up/out.