View Full Version : DOJ to look at AT&T/Apple Exclusivity
Will Department of Justice
Break AT&T's Exclusive
Deal With Apple's iPhone?
Silicon Valley Insider:
...The Department of Justice has begun an initial review to determine whether large U.S. telecom companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. have abused the market power they've amassed in recent years, according to people familiar with the matter.
The review of potential anti-competitive practices is in its very early stages, and it isn't a formal investigation of any specific company at this point, the people said. It isn't clear whether the agency intends to launch an official inquiry. ...More @ Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-justice-department-may-bust-up-atts-exclusive-deal-with-apples-iphone-2009-7)
LarryFlowers
07-10-09, 09:07 AM
The amazingly efficient DOJ will no doubt "find" that the AT&T/Apple deal stinks... by which time it will be totally irrelevant...:)
Will Department of Justice
Break AT&T's Exclusive
Deal With Apple's iPhone?
More @ Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-justice-department-may-bust-up-atts-exclusive-deal-with-apples-iphone-2009-7)
What I'd really like to see the DOJ look at from an anti-competitve standpoint is Apple's exclusive control and anti-compeitive behavior regarding its computer hardware? Apple controls the OS and all hardware and keeps hardware prices excessively high...there is no competition because Apple will not allow it.
Fontano
07-10-09, 10:14 AM
Lets see:
You have two mega-major mobile phone carriers (AT&T and Verizon)
You have two major mobile phone carriers (Sprint and T-Mobile)
You have numerous mid-major phone carriers
Alomst every company has an exclusive product (right now, yes I know many of those platforms have been announced to cross carriers)
AT&T - iPhone
Verizon - Storm
Sprint - Pre
T-Mobile - Android
If company A wants to be exclusive with company B under a valid legal contract, then so be it. Especially in the mobile market, where Carrier A, B, C, D don't use the same technology and you require a different submodel of each device to be on multiple carriers.
It's called business.
Maybe not business 101, but it certainly probably covered in Business 301
Wow, honestly?
I hate the exclusivity contracts and I really hate how the phone industry operates (all this BS of phones being hundreds of dollars unless you buy under contract)...but the Apple/ATT thing is totally fine in my book. Its not like exclusive handsets are anything new....I guess this is just the first time people figured it out or something :confused:
What I'd really like to see the DOJ look at from an anti-competitve standpoint is Apple's exclusive control and anti-compeitive behavior regarding its computer hardware? Apple controls the OS and all hardware and keeps hardware prices excessively high...there is no competition because Apple will not allow it.Other than (not then) the PC/MS/open OS industry which "owns" 90% of the installed PC/OS user base worldwide, you're absolutely correct. There is no competion. :rolleyes:
I'm a tad miffed because Ferrari has a monopoly on Ferraris
Stewart Vernon
07-10-09, 12:58 PM
Yeah, sometimes people go nuts with what they think they are entitled to...
I think an investigation is fine, in case they turn up some kind of strongarming or blackmail or that sort of thing...
but it's perfectly legal, and should be, for company A to have an exclusive deal with company B.
As already noted, many have a wrong interpretation on what constitutes a monopoly.
You have a monopoly, for example, if you are the only phone manufacturer in the world... or the only cellphone carrier in the US...
Virtually everyone can be the only manufacturer of the product they make... Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple computers... duh! :)
The "monopoly" becomes a problem when there is only one manufacturer of a product (or industry) and uses that monopoly to strongarm unfairness in competition.
All that said...
This seems like foolishness to investigate when so many other things are in need of attention. I'd love to be able to get an iPhone and choose my phone service... but that's not a right at all, and it's a waste (in my opinion) to spend a lot of legal wrangling on just that concept.
Anti-competive behavior is not limited to monopolisitc behavior. Anti-competitive behavior is much broader in scope and includes many other types of business practices that reduce or limit the free markets.
Agree that this type of investigation seems silly and is likely a result of the change of political administration from republican to democrat.
Yeah, sometimes people go nuts with what they think they are entitled to...
I think an investigation is fine, in case they turn up some kind of strongarming or blackmail or that sort of thing...
but it's perfectly legal, and should be, for company A to have an exclusive deal with company B.
As already noted, many have a wrong interpretation on what constitutes a monopoly.
You have a monopoly, for example, if you are the only phone manufacturer in the world... or the only cellphone carrier in the US...
Virtually everyone can be the only manufacturer of the product they make... Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple computers... duh! :)
The "monopoly" becomes a problem when there is only one manufacturer of a product (or industry) and uses that monopoly to strongarm unfairness in competition.
All that said...
This seems like foolishness to investigate when so many other things are in need of attention. I'd love to be able to get an iPhone and choose my phone service... but that's not a right at all, and it's a waste (in my opinion) to spend a lot of legal wrangling on just that concept.
SayWhat?
07-10-09, 03:20 PM
I'd like to see DOJ look into eBay/PayPal, but I guess that's a topic for another board.
I'd like to see DOJ look into eBay/PayPal, but I guess that's a topic for another board.
That's a tricky one for sure. It could either really benefit people or really screw a lot of people depending on what the outcome was.
My problem is I try to use other things like Google Checkout and such, but selling on forums and such most people just dont have it while just about everyone has paypal.
Plus there really is not much advantage to using GC, they still have a bunch of fees and in essence provide the same ending effect.
Fontano
07-10-09, 04:23 PM
I'd like to see DOJ look into eBay/PayPal, but I guess that's a topic for another board.
Why?
It is not like you have to use Ebay to use PayPal, or PayPal to use Ebay.
Sure Ebay is a lot easier for most auction if you have PayPal.
PayPal has over many years worked on it's API's, it's reputation, it's security, and so on, and has made it a very easy thing to use and a very popular thing to use to send money over the internet.
Have you ever tried to setup an account to accept actual credit card transactions on the internet, it is a pain with a lot of over head. And given the risks involved.
Steve Mehs
07-10-09, 05:04 PM
To me, making an issue out of this, is not only anticompetitive in itself but also extremely unAmerican. The way I look at it is the iPhone is the holy grail, it's the new bar, it is the phone that every handset manufacture wants to not only be but beat, and every carrier wants to offer something like it or better. To me that inspires a lot of competition in the cell phone provider market and in the smartphone market. And we've been seeing results of that competition for a while now from the phones Fontano mentioned. The iPhone is inspiring other handset manufactures and Smartphone OS designers to come out with something better. To me that is competition at it's finest.
Verizon had the opportunity to get the iPhone, but they didn't want to pony up the cash. Their loss. AT&T Mobility is doing what all great American businesses should do, maximize the bottom line, and I think the iPhone has been a huge success for the company. Two businesses came to an agreement, Apple and AT&T, to offer a product in conjunction with a service, there is and should be nothing wrong with that. If Verizon offered the iPhone, would pricing be any different? Probably not. Look at the wireless mobile broadband plans offered by the three big providers, pretty much all the same.
I'm no fan of AT&T, but I absolutely loathe Verizon. Only reason I have AT&T service is for the iPhone. And I don't even use the thing as a phone that much, I use my other cell phone for that. The iPhone goes I go, but I'd rather live without it then give one red cent to Verizon. I'm a Sprint fanboi, even though they destroyed my beloved Nextel, and would love to see the iPhone go to Sprint, but I doubt it will happen. And even then I still wouldn't use it as a phone, since I think CDMA is crap.
The Department of Justice has begun an initial review to determine whether large U.S. telecom companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. have abused the market power they've amassed in recent years, according to people familiar with the matter.
Maybe I'm just being stupid here, but well duh! Where did all this power amassed in recent years come from? If this really is an issue and if the DOJ is really so concerned about competition in the wireless industry, then why did they approve all these mergers and buyouts over the years (like the Alltel/Verizon merger a few months ago for instance) so that we're essentially down to four choices, well three if you don't count T-Mobile who can't even spell 3G at this point.
Stewart Vernon
07-10-09, 10:04 PM
Anti-competive behavior is not limited to monopolisitc behavior. Anti-competitive behavior is much broader in scope and includes many other types of business practices that reduce or limit the free markets.
Agree on anti-competitive behavior not being limited to monopolies... I think I was keying off another poster saying "monopoly" when I wrote that earlier.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.