Why is Apple the only company able to dictate terms to carriers?

M

MrCrispy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,961
iPhone 5S is untouched on any carrier, they dare not modify or block anything.

Samsung Galaxy phones, e.g. S5, they remove lots of features, latest being Verizon blocking Paypal support for the fingerprint scanner.

I'd have thought Samsung is now big enough to have that kind of pull. With the S3 they were able to introduce the same phone without carrier variants. Not carrying a Galaxy phone is suicide, no carrier would dare refuse it.

Why is Verizon allowed to block updates/remove features from everything except an iPhone? Is it just sales $$, is it money paid?
 
Verizon could always delay having it just like last year with the HTC One M7. That alone this year especially would probably get HTC back up to being one of the top 4 mobile oem, maybe even 3, of course, still a very distant third.

http://www.androidcentral.com/android-market-share-dipped-slightly-q4-samsung-gained-oem

Samsung's lead isn't so enormous that Moto or HTC couldn't catch back up with 2 years of really, really good lineup if Samsung got "blacklisted" by either AT&T or Verizon, and especially not both. The market share that not being able to sell to Verizon customers would hurt.
 
Last edited:
Because carriers won't care if they stop selling Samsung or htc, but Apple sells one device and it is still the most popular handset with enough people willing to switch carriers so they can stay on iOS.

just because Samsung is big didn't mean much, in the end is still android.
 
Because if it wasn't for apple's original iPhone, carriers would had to wait a lot longer before they could rape customers on smartphone plans. Quid pro quo.

But seriously, as much as I dislike Apple, their phones are cash cows for networks. Ergo, Apple has more pull in what they can demand. Just the way it works.
 
teh_chem said:
Because if it wasn't for apple's original iPhone, carriers would had to wait a lot longer before they could rape customers on smartphone plans. Quid pro quo.

But seriously, as much as I dislike Apple, their phones are cash cows for networks. Ergo, Apple has more pull in what they can demand. Just the way it works.
Click to expand...

What kind of pisses me off is that they decided to change their return warranty to 14 days now. Everyone else had done this for a while now, while Apple's was the only one still at 30 days. In this regard Apple was doing it right while the other manufacturers were being s. :D

I think it's because Android is much easier to modify than an iPhone, and carriers want to make sure you don't tether or do other things that they don't want.
 
You have to dig back into the history of the iPhone to understand why.

The original AT&T (then Cingular) deal played directly into Apple's hands. Apple refuses to compromise designs, and AT&T was desperate for a hit when Verizon was doing pretty well -- it was willing to forego the usual attempts to force bloatware and cripple features if it meant having the hottest smartphone on the planet for a few years. Verizon balked at the iPhone, in part because it couldn't pull off some of the heinous things it did at the time of negotiations (like disabling Bluetooth to make you use some of its services).

Trimlock has an important part of it: there are many Android and Windows Phone OEMs, but there's only one Apple. As long as the iPhone is even moderately successful under current terms, the carriers won't object. With other manufacturers, I think there's also a combination of legacy relationships, market share and corporate values at work. Anyone that isn't either Apple or Samsung instantly has far fewer bargaining chips to work with, especially if they're struggling or have long had a subservient role (originally, HTC wasn't even allowed to use its own name on a lot of US phones).

And frankly, a lot of them just refuse to stand their ground. Much like some PC vendors, the volume discounts, advertising offers and distribution promises trump the user experience. Heck, it was surprising when Samsung avoided having to create custom GS3 variants for each carrier (under the pretence of exclusives). We're still not at the point where OEMs beyond Apple (and the Nexus maker du jour) have either the courage or the cash to put their foot down.
 
I just hope the oem's realize they have a lot more power, in fact they have all the power, if they can only come to a common understanding. If all the phone oem's refuse to give in to any US carrier, carriers have no choice but to give in. Without phones they have no business.

Unfortunately, they are all competitors and even if most of them agree, a single one can backstab the others and get exclusive contracts. Also, Google must be held accountable. They have substantial power yet have done nothing to help oem's or users, since Google really doesn't give a damn if there are 100 oem skins or updates are held back or whatever, as long as oem's pay up for Play services.
 
Its all about negotiation. And there are many angles to this. But one thing is for sure. If apple says no, not only will you lose many customers but you will have no one to turn to because no one can make an iPhone but apple. But with android they can saw well we will just sell more of the HTC one or some other competitor. Sometimes its a bluff other times its not.

However negotiation is complicated. Sometimes a company you don't think can negotiate, like say HTC can, it could be they have just become so desperate they now are saying we would rather crash and burn then not get out way. Or sometimes it could be the carriers getting scared. HTC could have said if you don't let me make a universal brand Samsung will be able to call all the shots. If none of the big companies will play ball they can always look to smaller companies. Any day now we are going to see one of the Chinese makers break in on this very issue, by being the only guy who will make custom phones for carriers.

The only way to stop this madness is actually up to people like us, we would have to push for public awareness and push for changes to laws that would make phones more transferable like in other markets. Or push for legislation that grants us more rights to our phones so even if carriers installed bloatware or took items out we could reinstall it or remove it. Personally I think this whole need to root a phone is disgusting. Can you imagine the hell if MS had done this all those years with the carrier bloatware. So why is it in the future after we already learned of that, that we now put up with it? We are going backwards, how jacked up is that?
 
Last edited:
teh_chem said:
Because if it wasn't for apple's original iPhone, carriers would had to wait a lot longer before they could rape customers on smartphone plans. Quid pro quo.

But seriously, as much as I dislike Apple, their phones are cash cows for networks. Ergo, Apple has more pull in what they can demand. Just the way it works.
Click to expand...

Last I knew, no they weren't.

Between the pricing demanded by Apple and the lack of bloat...Carriers don't make much money at all on iPhone devices, and they cut into their profit off the service plan.
 
Skripka said:
Last I knew, no they weren't.

Between the pricing demanded by Apple and the lack of bloat...Carriers don't make much money at all on iPhone devices, and they cut into their profit off the service plan.
Click to expand...

They do make money from iPhones, but it's primarily through volume (and, of course, the bigger spenders on data). That and Apple serves as leverage. An Android monopoly wouldn't just be bad for customers -- it'd leave carriers at the complete mercy of Google (and, in the current market, Samsung).
 
Aurelius said:
They do make money from iPhones, but it's primarily through volume (and, of course, the bigger spenders on data). That and Apple serves as leverage. An Android monopoly wouldn't just be bad for customers -- it'd leave carriers at the complete mercy of Google (and, in the current market, Samsung).
Click to expand...

It is at best debatable:

http://betanews.com/2012/06/05/iphone-market-share-heavily-depends-on-carrier-subsidies/
http://betanews.com/2012/06/07/iphone-kills-carrier-profits/

Carriers don't make crap for profit compared to Android per device...due in no small part to carrier subsidizing the cost of high-end expensive Apple handsets.
 
More iPhones sold = More contracts = More money. A contract is a much better source of revenue than the sale of a phone.
 
xIronCrossx said:
More iPhones sold = More contracts = More money. A contract is a much better source of revenue than the sale of a phone.
Click to expand...

Except that due to the revenue loss on the phone...the 1st contract (per device per customer) isn't much of a break even either. It is why there's 2-year contracts with ETAs. That is roughly how long it takes to break even for carriers.
 
MrCrispy said:
I'd have thought Samsung is now big enough to have that kind of pull. With the S3 they were able to introduce the same phone without carrier variants. Not carrying a Galaxy phone is suicide, no carrier would dare refuse it.

Why is Verizon allowed to block updates/remove features from everything except an iPhone? Is it just sales $$, is it money paid?
Click to expand...

Because Samsung gets something significant in return. Go to verizonwireless.com and you'll see a giant ad for the Galaxy S5 and the Ativ. And Verizon is the one paying for ads and promotions like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zuhx6_RrAE

Samsung would much rather take advertising campaigns over some silly modifications that they don't give a shit about.

There's a perception that carriers are walking all over everyone but Apple, but this just isn't true. There's just a difference in priorities and thus the negotiation tradeoffs made by Apple vs. everyone else.
 
Skripka said:
Except that due to the revenue loss on the phone...the 1st contract (per device per customer) isn't much of a break even either. It is why there's 2-year contracts with ETAs. That is roughly how long it takes to break even for carriers.
Click to expand...

$90 per month takes 24 months to break even on $400-$450? (2gb data)

The problem with most of the calculations is that no one has exact figures, at least not from what I read in your posted links. It all seemed like speculation.
 
I would say Apple has so much clout because you deal with Apple and Apple only. If you're not willing to play by Apple's rules, you don't get the device. With Android, if one manufacturer refuses the carriers demands, another manufacturer fills the void.
 
xIronCrossx said:
$90 per month takes 24 months to break even on $400-$450? (2gb data)

The problem with most of the calculations is that no one has exact figures, at least not from what I read in your posted links. It all seemed like speculation.
Click to expand...

It is a legit problem (lack of hard infO), but it is a common consensus based on leaks from just about every carrier...but then there's all the other costs on the carrier's part WRT getting and keeping a customer. Between ongoing network load to paying the staff who deal with the customer. The handset is the cheap part.
 
Skripka said:
Last I knew, no they weren't.

Between the pricing demanded by Apple and the lack of bloat...Carriers don't make much money at all on iPhone devices, and they cut into their profit off the service plan.
Click to expand...

Wasn't talking about money made from the device itself; the first smartphone (popular smartphone that masses of people wanted to buy) enabled providers to tap into revenue generation that they couldn't before, real smartphone data plans. Cell providers make their money on service, not devices. why do you think 'subsidized' device prices were even offered to customers? Because the providers make the real money on the 2 year service agreements. And that's what they want is steady income, charging for three services on a plan for 24 months, knowing full well a majority of people are unlikely to leave after their 2 year contract us up, at which time the next new iPhone (or other fancy device) has come out which they'll get subsided and pledge another two years to the company. That's the model providers like, the continued subscription plan that consistently nets them an order of magnitude more money over time rather than selling a device once.
 
Yeah, teh_chem has it. When Sprint made a deal for the iPhone, it warned that the device would initially be a money-loser because of device acquisition costs. However, that became less of an issue over time as more customers both switched to smartphone plans and entered subsequent contracts where the device costs wouldn't be that steep.

Besides, flagship Android phones like the GS5 and One cost $600-plus unsubsidized at these carriers as well. If Apple's asking for a lot, it's asking for about as much as its rivals... these days, at least.
 
Easy answer for the OP: Samsung doesn't care. They still advertise all the features that carriers may remove, so.it's no loss for them.
 
Aurelius said:
Yeah, teh_chem has it. When Sprint made a deal for the iPhone, it warned that the device would initially be a money-loser because of device acquisition costs. However, that became less of an issue over time as more customers both switched to smartphone plans and entered subsequent contracts where the device costs wouldn't be that steep.

Besides, flagship Android phones like the GS5 and One cost $600-plus unsubsidized at these carriers as well. If Apple's asking for a lot, it's asking for about as much as its rivals... these days, at least.
Click to expand...

Sprint paid $20B to get the iPhone and they will never recoup that no matter how many phones they sell, it was a huge loss and a very stupid move.
 
MrCrispy said:
Sprint paid $20B to get the iPhone and they will never recoup that no matter how many phones they sell, it was a huge loss and a very stupid move.
Click to expand...

Sprint is stupid anyways. First of all the went with CDMA and are really picky with their phones(completely locked versus the GSM part being unlocked on Verizon), they failed with WiMax and they just haven't done much to improve their service. They were already failing before the iPhone deal, although that was another terrible move by Sprint.
 
the answer is easy, because all of the sheeple think it's cool to own their overpriced crap....
 
Its also just because they let them. Verizon tried to not deal with apple and it ended in ATT getting the iPhone which allowed ATT to steal a lot of customers. Verizon is probably fairly cautious now about losing the iPhone. If Samsung had pushed harder I think they could have forced the carriers to keep everything stock. Samsung is that powerful now, Samsung just doesn't realize it yet.

But there is another wild card. If you do something wrong the company might do something that is not apparent but really hurts you. For instance MS phone initiatives couldn't get any traction because Verizon purposely shoved them to the back of the stores and didnt want to sell them. Sprint essentially does the same thing with Samsung phones, they charge $50 more than anyone else for the GS4 and GN3 to try to push customers over to iPhones.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Sprint is stupid anyways. First of all the went with CDMA and are really picky with their phones(completely locked versus the GSM part being unlocked on Verizon), they failed with WiMax and they just haven't done much to improve their service. They were already failing before the iPhone deal, although that was another terrible move by Sprint.
Click to expand...

Verizon is forced to have their GSM portion unlocked due to 700mhz auction rules. Verizon doesn't turn customer-friendly for no reason.....

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/09/24...s-required-by-fcc-network-access-regulations/

MrCrispy said:
I just hope the oem's realize they have a lot more power, in fact they have all the power, if they can only come to a common understanding. If all the phone oem's refuse to give in to any US carrier, carriers have no choice but to give in. Without phones they have no business.
Click to expand...
however, if they all agree to do this, it might play into anti-trust concerns.... (all manufacturers refusing to play ball to Verizon unless Verizon agrees on one thing[no bloatware/control]? see any similarities with all book publishers refusing to play ball to Amazon unless Amazon agrees on one thing[MFC clause]?

there are consumer benefits to this, but there'll be a huge courtroom battle before it gets ruled one way or another
 
Which Sprint phone that has GSM support did Sprint supposedly locked down? The One X from 3 years ago with that embedded SIM, which, by the way, you can find me post an all out rant against Sprint talking about leaving on the official Sprint forums talking going to at length how this is very anti-business explaining in layman's terms, when we could finally have that convenience, but Sprint would rather take it away. Ever since that, every lte phone has been GSM capable.
 
Last edited:
CHANG3D said:
Which Sprint phone that has GSM support did Sprint supposedly locked down? The One X from 3 years ago with that embedded SIM, which, by the way, you can find me post an all out rant against Sprint talking about leaving on the official Sprint forums talking going to at length how this is very anti-business explaining in layman's terms, when we could finally have that convenience, but Sprint would rather take it away. Ever since that, every lte phone has been GSM capable.
Click to expand...

S4 is GSM capable, but locked for domestic use when launched. dunno about state right now

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=42591189&postcount=4

obviously, there are ways around it
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2415587
 
CHANG3D said:
Which Sprint phone that has GSM support did Sprint supposedly locked down? The One X from 3 years ago with that embedded SIM, which, by the way, you can find me post an all out rant against Sprint talking about leaving on the official Sprint forums talking going to at length how this is very anti-business explaining in layman's terms, when we could finally have that convenience, but Sprint would rather take it away. Ever since that, every lte phone has been GSM capable.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not understanding you; Sprint's LTE phones are not necessarily GSM-capable just by virtue of having LTE. Lots aren't. There are some multi-band/network phones, and some are carrier-locked (in this case, Sprint-locked), but that's like any other provider not selling network-unlocked phones.
 
teh_chem said:
Maybe I'm not understanding you; Sprint's LTE phones are not necessarily GSM-capable just by virtue of having LTE. Lots aren't. There are some multi-band/network phones, and some are carrier-locked (in this case, Sprint-locked), but that's like any other provider not selling network-unlocked phones.
Click to expand...
exactly, of course they will have US locked, but not internationally, except for the HTC One X of 3 years ago. I was responding to Iron Cross saying Sprint completely locked down their phone GSM.
 
GalaxyS5 said:
for carriers in the U.S. i think its the fact that Apple is an american company.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with it. All iPhones are free of carrier-installed apps regardless of where in the world they are sold or which carrier you use them on.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
the answer is easy, because all of the sheeple think it's cool to own their overpriced crap....
Click to expand...

I never quite get this kind of statement. Not so much the pricing (the iPhone is priced much like its rivals, sorry) as the irony of it -- hyper-conformists buying commonplace Android phones and Windows PCs, but trying to position themselves as counterculture heroes fighting against "sheeple."

Not that you're a rebel if you get an iPhone (far from it), but it's like trying to claim that real indie music fans love American Idol. It's more an attempt to justify your purchasing decision than assert any kind of rugged individualism.
 
Since iPhone alone account for 45% of all smartphones... but I think someone brought up the point that Apple was demanding full control even before owning all that market share. Apple was only the #6 brand value at 2007. (#1 in 2008.) It might have been AT&T is willing to try something new and it evidently stuck...
 
I believe its also very much due to Apple caring about their product and user experience much more. MS does this with WP, and their phones are 99.99% free of bloatware and get updates.

Google couldn't give a rats ass about Android bloatware, to them Android is an SDK and a Play store license sold to oem's, not a product. Samsung eliminated carrier variants with the S3 to increase their brand image.

But you Apple, MS as controlling companies, and then you have Samsung and a bunch of smaller oem's for Android. Samsung could if they wanted but there's no big reason for them to risk it.
 
A wish would be to have an FCC regulation that all carrier bloat should be uninstallable. Sprint's M8 only has one app that I cannot uninstall, some stupid Lumen toolbar. Sure, you can disable the toolbar and hide it, but wtf?

I think carrier bloat is a big problem for those who can't get a 32GB GS5. Is that for sale yet?
 
CHANG3D said:
A wish would be to have an FCC regulation that all carrier bloat should be uninstallable. Sprint's M8 only has one app that I cannot uninstall, some stupid Lumen toolbar. Sure, you can disable the toolbar and hide it, but wtf?

I think carrier bloat is a big problem for those who can't get a 32GB GS5. Is that for sale yet?
Click to expand...

And how would that wash with the old Constitution?

For example Sprint and NFL/NASCAR have long had a contract agreement in place to bloat phones with their apps in exchange for $$$$$ (last I checked). Why is the FCC allowed to nullify that quite legal contract? Not that I disagree with your idea, but finding a legal framework to justify it that will not get challenged and overturned at the first appeal is at best problematic.
 
Skripka said:
And how would that wash with the old Constitution?

For example Sprint and NFL/NASCAR have long had a contract agreement in place to bloat phones with their apps in exchange for $$$$$ (last I checked). Why is the FCC allowed to nullify that quite legal contract? Not that I disagree with your idea, but finding a legal framework to justify it that will not get challenged and overturned at the first appeal is at best problematic.
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with the constitution? Sprint gets money from NFL to put an app on the phone. You pay money to but it. You have every right to do what you want with the phone.

It'd be like buying Windows and not being allowed to uninstall bundled bloatware. There is absolutely no legal basis for it. The only reason carriers get away with it is because they all do the same thing, no one has challenged them, and they have monopolies in their areas so there's no competition.
 
MrCrispy said:
What has that got to do with the constitution? Sprint gets money from NFL to put an app on the phone. You pay money to but it. You have every right to do what you want with the phone.

It'd be like buying Windows and not being allowed to uninstall bundled bloatware. There is absolutely no legal basis for it. The only reason carriers get away with it is because they all do the same thing, no one has challenged them, and they have monopolies in their areas so there's no competition.
Click to expand...

No you don't. I'll wager that if you read the EULAs you technically don't have any software ownership and therefore right to determine what software runs on the phone or doesn't. You're paying a lease on the software that Sprint (for example) chooses to "provide" you in accordance with their agreements with other "people" (corporations)....In this case "providing" includes useless apps that eat space.


There absolutely is legal basis for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top