Just one comment on the plentiful rumours each day about exactly which carrier is going to get the exclusive rights for iPhone in Europe (one day it's Vodafone, then it's T-Mobile, maybe in Germany, maybe not), then it's O2 in UK, Orange in France....
Most of the rumours say it's going to be the same 2.5g device as in the US. But I'm going out on a limb here and say that it will NOT be that. As I understand it, only Orange supports Edge in Europe. Other carriers have either slower 2G (GPRS) data networks, or 3G networks.
Given the lack of availability of wi-fi hotspots (at least for free) in much of Europe, the importance of 3G (or at least fast networks) is going to be MORE important in Europe.
My prediction is that Apple will release the 3G iPhone in Europe. At the very least, I do not believe they will release a slower one than the Edge version in the US. In making this prediction, I am betting against the supposedly more informaed Times, FT etc all reporting on this matter so certainly.
On a similar theme, while Apple appears to have agreed a 2 year exclusive with AT&T in the US, I do NOT believe they will agree such an exclusive in European markets. This is because they are more fragmented than the US (eg. typically 5 providers in many markets often with similar shares). Sure, there may be country exclusives. But I don't believe they'll be for much longer than a supply shortage would exist.
The mistake most media is making is that the deal and product that is in the US is the deal and product that will be made here. I don't think it is right to make that assumption. Sure, there will be similarities and the AT&T deal gives us a number of pointers. But no more.
What is important in all this is that Apple holds their ground and has driven the service providers so that they do not cripple the device. I'll be posting soon on why the Nokia N80 I got last year is the most disappointing phone I've had and how the UI on the iPhone trounces it.
Tags: Apple, iPhone, Europe, Orange, Vodafone, O2, T-Mobile
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
05 July 2007
07 February 2007
Well, Well, Well...(or, Steve Jobs comes out)
So, Steve Jobs (or probably one of his minions) has written a 2000 word essay articulating why we have DRM (clue: it's not Apple's requirement), and why it would embrace DRM-free music. If you've read this blog (and of course countless other intelligent sites), or you're just a rational technology follower, you will understand exactly what he is saying. Here are a few of the articles I've posted on this subject:
Link to FT article on EU/Norway anti-Apple stance
Apple's French problem with Fairplay
A discussion about interoperable DRM
More on France and DRM
DRM and digital music sales
(sidenote: an article written about a report on digital music sales stalling, which was not true; interestingly the same story was repeated later in the year after Forrester came up with some bizarre stats that also were just not correct)
One of Apple's challenges for 2006
I list DRM as one of the top 5 things to watch for in 2006
(ok, well, it's just 2007, but it WAS a hot topic in 2006 as well)
I have generally argued that Apple has had its hands tied with DRM; that, in general, it does not cause major restrictions to its users (certainly better rights than other ecosystems), and that it needs to succeed much further if it is to threaten a world in which Microsoft will inevitably take control, leading to far worse consequences to the consumer. I have also argued that certain EU countries are completely misguided in taking action against Apple.
Where I have been wrong is that I have for the most part assumed DRM was here to stay. While some commentators have felt it might be on the way out, I could not see that. What Steve's essay does above all, is to show that this suddenly seems plausible.
Of course, there will be conspiracy theorists out there (I've already seen a few comments from them). "Jobs is lying"; "why doesn't he sell non-drm music from the indie labels"; "his stats are wrong because I've bought x number of songs" where x is a number from zero to much higher than Steve's average figure! We'll no doubt see some industry bigwigs come into the debate with some point about Apple being disingenuous, and it's not THEIR fault after all.
Some might argue that this essay is somewhat defensive by Apple at a time it is under threat. It is also possible to argue that EU action has caused Apple to do this, so that is a good thing. But those are cynical views. Apple has done this at a time when it is still in the ascendancy in digital music, not when it is on a slippery slope downwards (this also shows Steve has learned the lesson of the Mac). And, if the EU had instead gone after the monopolistic labels, they could have forced this solution more directly and quickly, without causing confusion in the consumer base.
However, while I welcome this essay, the clarity it provides on why DRM is here, what Apple's contractual obligations are and its suggested remedies, one part of me worries that while we may end up with DRM-free music, there are two questions unanswered. The first is whether as a result, we will get a choice of formats so that more efficient open formats are offered (such as AAC rather than just MP3). More importantly, to an audiophile at least, is whether the solution will encompass digital offerings that are at least if not better than CD-quality (eg lossless, or even enhanced lossless), and if so, that they do not cost ridiculous amounts of money. My worry is that the industry will settle on a lowest-common-denominator solution (or a number of solutions around that level). Given a choice between (fair) DRM'd music in true audiophile quality and DRM-free music in lower quality, I might be in a small minority, but I would prefer the former.
Finally, it should also be pointed out that the essay makes no mention about DRM and video material, and indeed some of the arguments made for making music DRM-free would not apply to movies or tv shows. But, make no mistake this is still a BIG story with far-reaching consequences.
Tags: Apple, DRM, EU, Steve Jobs, iTunes
Link to FT article on EU/Norway anti-Apple stance
Apple's French problem with Fairplay
A discussion about interoperable DRM
More on France and DRM
DRM and digital music sales
(sidenote: an article written about a report on digital music sales stalling, which was not true; interestingly the same story was repeated later in the year after Forrester came up with some bizarre stats that also were just not correct)
One of Apple's challenges for 2006
I list DRM as one of the top 5 things to watch for in 2006
(ok, well, it's just 2007, but it WAS a hot topic in 2006 as well)
I have generally argued that Apple has had its hands tied with DRM; that, in general, it does not cause major restrictions to its users (certainly better rights than other ecosystems), and that it needs to succeed much further if it is to threaten a world in which Microsoft will inevitably take control, leading to far worse consequences to the consumer. I have also argued that certain EU countries are completely misguided in taking action against Apple.
Where I have been wrong is that I have for the most part assumed DRM was here to stay. While some commentators have felt it might be on the way out, I could not see that. What Steve's essay does above all, is to show that this suddenly seems plausible.
Of course, there will be conspiracy theorists out there (I've already seen a few comments from them). "Jobs is lying"; "why doesn't he sell non-drm music from the indie labels"; "his stats are wrong because I've bought x number of songs" where x is a number from zero to much higher than Steve's average figure! We'll no doubt see some industry bigwigs come into the debate with some point about Apple being disingenuous, and it's not THEIR fault after all.
Some might argue that this essay is somewhat defensive by Apple at a time it is under threat. It is also possible to argue that EU action has caused Apple to do this, so that is a good thing. But those are cynical views. Apple has done this at a time when it is still in the ascendancy in digital music, not when it is on a slippery slope downwards (this also shows Steve has learned the lesson of the Mac). And, if the EU had instead gone after the monopolistic labels, they could have forced this solution more directly and quickly, without causing confusion in the consumer base.
However, while I welcome this essay, the clarity it provides on why DRM is here, what Apple's contractual obligations are and its suggested remedies, one part of me worries that while we may end up with DRM-free music, there are two questions unanswered. The first is whether as a result, we will get a choice of formats so that more efficient open formats are offered (such as AAC rather than just MP3). More importantly, to an audiophile at least, is whether the solution will encompass digital offerings that are at least if not better than CD-quality (eg lossless, or even enhanced lossless), and if so, that they do not cost ridiculous amounts of money. My worry is that the industry will settle on a lowest-common-denominator solution (or a number of solutions around that level). Given a choice between (fair) DRM'd music in true audiophile quality and DRM-free music in lower quality, I might be in a small minority, but I would prefer the former.
Finally, it should also be pointed out that the essay makes no mention about DRM and video material, and indeed some of the arguments made for making music DRM-free would not apply to movies or tv shows. But, make no mistake this is still a BIG story with far-reaching consequences.
Tags: Apple, DRM, EU, Steve Jobs, iTunes
30 January 2007
Praise for British Journalism
I've been quick to post about poor British journalism, especially when concerned with things of an Apple nature (but certainly not exclusively). It is therefore pleasing when I can link to articles that show a good comprehension of the issues involved with excellent succinct writing.
The FT is the one example of British journalism that invariably never fails. It's understanding of the issues around Norway's (and Europe's) seeming dislike of iTunes is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately this editorial piece requires a paid subscription, but here's some excerpts:
In case you think the FT is too kind on Apple this paragraph also shows a keen sense of some of the issues and possible outcomes:
Most commentators on this issue seem to think Apple needs to make concessions. But at this time, it should make none. Concessions will not benefit the consumer, but will benefit the unreformed labels, and most importantly will play into the hands of Microsoft. Without Apple, we would now have a complete dominance of Windows Media Player - and probably back several versions too. We would have a DRM that was forced on us by Microsoft and its cozy collusion with the entertainment industry. We would have dull, clunky WMA players, with poor synchronisation and seriously restrictive DRM. This was first and foremost a war about Apple's and Microsoft's vision of digital delivery. We are just part way into that war in which Apple has scored some important victories over the massive and resource-rich Microsoft. Ultimately, a long and hard war will be to the great benefit of the consumers (and hopefully lead to a permanent business model change in the music industry). Healthy competition can benefit the consumer far more than government action (witness EU action against Microsoft which was far too late, and failed to provide any benefit to the consumer). Action unilaterally at this time against Apple is actually anti-consumer, and plays into the hands of those with most to lose.
Good work FT!
Tags: Apple, iPod, EU, Norway, FT
The FT is the one example of British journalism that invariably never fails. It's understanding of the issues around Norway's (and Europe's) seeming dislike of iTunes is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately this editorial piece requires a paid subscription, but here's some excerpts:
In Norway a total monopoly on selling alcohol is legal but now Apple’s 70 per cent market share in downloaded music – which is probably only temporary – is not. Norway’s consumer ombudsman and its counterparts in Sweden, Finland, France and Germany have really not got this monopoly malarkey quite worked out.
Apple’s success in digital music is due to design, innovation and a good business model: qualities to encourage, rather than punish via questionable competition rules. Perhaps Norway needs to sort out the alcohol before worrying about the rock ’n’ roll.
In case you think the FT is too kind on Apple this paragraph also shows a keen sense of some of the issues and possible outcomes:
This does not mean that Apple is right to maintain a proprietary model: there is ample evidence that consumers benefit from open, universal standards. If there is no further innovation, and iPod remains the state of the art for years to come, then Apple might maintain an unhealthy market dominance.
But technology moves quickly in electronics. Competitors like Sony Ericsson have not yet made much of a dent in Apple’s market share, but the trend for integrating music players with mobile phones will threaten the iPod’s dominance over the next few years.
Most commentators on this issue seem to think Apple needs to make concessions. But at this time, it should make none. Concessions will not benefit the consumer, but will benefit the unreformed labels, and most importantly will play into the hands of Microsoft. Without Apple, we would now have a complete dominance of Windows Media Player - and probably back several versions too. We would have a DRM that was forced on us by Microsoft and its cozy collusion with the entertainment industry. We would have dull, clunky WMA players, with poor synchronisation and seriously restrictive DRM. This was first and foremost a war about Apple's and Microsoft's vision of digital delivery. We are just part way into that war in which Apple has scored some important victories over the massive and resource-rich Microsoft. Ultimately, a long and hard war will be to the great benefit of the consumers (and hopefully lead to a permanent business model change in the music industry). Healthy competition can benefit the consumer far more than government action (witness EU action against Microsoft which was far too late, and failed to provide any benefit to the consumer). Action unilaterally at this time against Apple is actually anti-consumer, and plays into the hands of those with most to lose.
Good work FT!
Tags: Apple, iPod, EU, Norway, FT
07 January 2007
French Follies
I wrote back in April 2006 about the foolishness of Chirac trying to take on Google with a French (and German) competitor funded by the state, known as Quaero.
I read in a recent Ars Technica post that this project has already run into severe difficulties and that France and Germany have gone their separate ways on it.
I'd hardly take credit for an insightful post as I'm not sure any reasonable business person thought any differently than me. But, really, what was he thinking and why do the French let him get away with this?
(As an aside, my partner points out that in her subject area the whole world uses the term "DNA", except that is, the French, to whom it is "ADN". Can anyone tell me how such practices really help defend the French culture, increase it's influence abroad, and enhance it's competitiveness in the global economy?)
Tags: Jacques Chirac, Quaero, Google
I read in a recent Ars Technica post that this project has already run into severe difficulties and that France and Germany have gone their separate ways on it.
I'd hardly take credit for an insightful post as I'm not sure any reasonable business person thought any differently than me. But, really, what was he thinking and why do the French let him get away with this?
(As an aside, my partner points out that in her subject area the whole world uses the term "DNA", except that is, the French, to whom it is "ADN". Can anyone tell me how such practices really help defend the French culture, increase it's influence abroad, and enhance it's competitiveness in the global economy?)
Tags: Jacques Chirac, Quaero, Google
13 October 2006
How (not) to fix Airbus
As a European (and an ex-plane spotter!) it is sad to see the situation that Airbus has found itself in lately. It managed to take the talent of wilting country civil aerospace programmes and show that such talent with reasonable investment could compete with the best. (The ongoing debate about tax breaks is too much for here, but I would argue that the US companies have benefited from effectively similar breaks at state level, and particularly through Federal defence spending).
While Boeing descended into despair with its own management failings, corruption and older aircraft, Airbus seemed to go from strength to strength - and in the process perhaps vindicating that the Chirac/French Establishment view of European industrial collaboration COULD be successful.
Now, as most of the problems appear out in the open (I hope), it's quite clear that all is not well and hasn't been for some time. The business of civil aircraft development is a tough one indeed. But success and change can only be talked about in terms of decades, not years. What is worrying however is how when problems happen governments resort to interventionist behaviour.
Read this article from the BBC to see what I mean. The focus is on Chirac (as usual) supposedly batting for the French worker, but in fact undermining efficient corporate governance which in the long run will cost the very jobs he so wants to protect. But, he's not alone. Even right wing Angela Merkel is considering the German government intervening to buy the shares from Daimler Chrysler (that will help their debt problem). And, of course, Spain is considering doubling its stake to safeguard the jobs in its own country.
Nothing of course from the UK. I come from near the main factory that builds the wing assemblies for most Airbus aircraft. They have transformed themselves from a business jet building factory to an efficient provider of leading edge (sorry for the aviation pun) wings, even as the pound has risen. There will probably be no UK government help for them (as indeed there shouldn't be). But how that must irk when their supposed colleagues are getting taxpayer subsidies to put them out of a job.
Will France ever get a government that is prepared to be honest with its population and show that it must grasp change not fight it? How long can the average French citizen really believe that massive subsidies to small contingents (farmers, state-run firms, etc) are really a good use of their taxes? I have a high regard for most French people I've met as individuals. They're not stupid, and their country has a great amount to offer the world.
But, if Chirac goes ahead with his plans and dictats, Airbus will be a weaker international competitor in a market of just two companies. That will be a waste of an opportunity that has been won by hard work and European ingenuity.
Tags: Airbus, Chirac, EU
While Boeing descended into despair with its own management failings, corruption and older aircraft, Airbus seemed to go from strength to strength - and in the process perhaps vindicating that the Chirac/French Establishment view of European industrial collaboration COULD be successful.
Now, as most of the problems appear out in the open (I hope), it's quite clear that all is not well and hasn't been for some time. The business of civil aircraft development is a tough one indeed. But success and change can only be talked about in terms of decades, not years. What is worrying however is how when problems happen governments resort to interventionist behaviour.
Read this article from the BBC to see what I mean. The focus is on Chirac (as usual) supposedly batting for the French worker, but in fact undermining efficient corporate governance which in the long run will cost the very jobs he so wants to protect. But, he's not alone. Even right wing Angela Merkel is considering the German government intervening to buy the shares from Daimler Chrysler (that will help their debt problem). And, of course, Spain is considering doubling its stake to safeguard the jobs in its own country.
Nothing of course from the UK. I come from near the main factory that builds the wing assemblies for most Airbus aircraft. They have transformed themselves from a business jet building factory to an efficient provider of leading edge (sorry for the aviation pun) wings, even as the pound has risen. There will probably be no UK government help for them (as indeed there shouldn't be). But how that must irk when their supposed colleagues are getting taxpayer subsidies to put them out of a job.
Will France ever get a government that is prepared to be honest with its population and show that it must grasp change not fight it? How long can the average French citizen really believe that massive subsidies to small contingents (farmers, state-run firms, etc) are really a good use of their taxes? I have a high regard for most French people I've met as individuals. They're not stupid, and their country has a great amount to offer the world.
But, if Chirac goes ahead with his plans and dictats, Airbus will be a weaker international competitor in a market of just two companies. That will be a waste of an opportunity that has been won by hard work and European ingenuity.
Tags: Airbus, Chirac, EU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
