French law may impede Orange iPhone deal

Some economists would argue that Apple would make more money with the larger market provided by a competitive, open system, even if it meant lower percentages from the partner companies individually. France would give Apple the chance to test market that concept. Apple may think that they have a big success on their hands with the iPhone in the U.S., but it is possible that they would have sold many more iPhones by now if they had gone with an open, competitive system. Many people simply do not want to do business with AT&T, nor do they want to sign contracts with cell companies who are notoriously poor service providers. Such heavy handedness, and there-is-only-my-way-of-doing-things attitudes are what got Steve Jobs kicked out of Apple the first time. Apple's board would be wise to consider the possibility that despite the brilliant success of his comeback, that he has again reached the point where his renown hubris is holding the company back rather than advancing it.

Soooo... ok, it says the phone has to be sold w/ and w/o a contract. Duh- it's called prepaid. Bienvenue a la monde d'Europe. They can still program the phone to only work with Orange SIM cards (comme AT&T) so a contract or sans contract SIM will work. Now do you want me to say this to you en francais? Y'all etes STUPIDE!!!

...eh I don't think so. The French are only good Europeans when it suits them, otherwise they go their own merry way, imposing laws and tariffs that are in direct violation of EU Treaties to which they are signatories. Bare in mind that they have a limit on the number of American movies allowed into France each year and a tariff imposed upon them in defiance of free trade agreements between Europe and the U.S. Zut Alors!

Certainly, France is not perfect and does certainly have it's flaws, but this law is actually a good one. Each country within the EU has some ways by which it can legally work its way around European agreements. And the countries that do, most always have good reasons to do so. Does the EU knows what's best for each and every of its members? No way! But, to get on topic again, in this whole iPhone fiasco-in-the-making, I definitely choose France's side. Sure, every company is free to choose it's partners. Might be monopolistic behaviour, yes, but then again, I never really understood why Microsoft can't ship Windows with it's own browser or media player, and Apple can do so with Mac OS X.

Okay, I think my personal conclusion is that I don't care at all what happens regarding the iPhone and Apple's network partners. I'm not really interested in the iPhone, to be honest...

" Might be monopolistic behaviour, yes, but then again, I never really understood why Microsoft can't ship Windows with it's own browser or media player, and Apple can do so with Mac OS X."

Monopolies are not illegal. Just Monopolies that come about through illegal means. Microsoft got its Monopoly by implementing illegal measures. Any Monopoly Apple may have was not done that way. That is why Microsoft runs afoul of things when bundling their media player and browser and Apple does not. Plus Apple is not a Monopoly on the desktop anyway

> Monopolies are not illegal. Just Monopolies that come about through illegal means.

Almost, but not quite. Monopolies contravene EU law only when they abuse their market position.

de Villiers

The French are French

Move on nothing to see here ,let them do without the iPhone

You do not understand anti-trust law. Anti-trust law rarely cares about how you go to be a monopoly. Instead, it cares about what you do after you become a monopoly. Microsoft was never said to have gained its monopoly through illegal behavior. Instead, once it became a monopoly it abused that market power to expand its influence in other markets. So, the reason it cannot ship Windows with an integrated version of its own browser is because it illegally used its market power to crush the competition. For instance, it gave Explorer away when Netscape had to charge people for its software. It could do this because it was relying on money it made from Windows. Moreover, it forced companies like Dell to ship Explorer as the default browser if it wanted special prices on Windows. In Europe, part of Microsoft's punishment was not to be allowed to tie the browser and media player to the OS. It also had to offer a version of its OS without these two things included. This was part of its punishment for abusing its power. Microsoft's plan originally was to not allow third party browsers and media players to work on Windows.

Apple was never deemed to be a monopoly in any market, much less a abusive monopolist.

You write, "" Might be monopolistic behaviour, yes, but then again, I never really understood why Microsoft can't ship Windows with it's own browser or media player, and Apple can do so with Mac OS X."

Monopolies are not illegal. Just Monopolies that come about through illegal means. Microsoft got its Monopoly by implementing illegal measures. Any Monopoly Apple may have was not done that way. That is why Microsoft runs afoul of things when bundling their media player and browser and Apple does not. Plus Apple is not a Monopoly on the desktop anyway."