Print 24 comment(s) - last by Manch.. on Mar 29 at 7:40 AM

Sales quotas are said to be one detail being examined

The European Union (EU) has received complaints about anticompetitive practices carried out by Apple, and its administrative department -- the European Commission -- is closely monitoring the situation.

Carriers throughout Europe (but mainly French carriers) have sent information regarding their contracts with Apple to the European Commission saying that Apple's rules for carrying the iPhone are anticompetitive. 

While Apple's terms are different from carrier to carrier, a major complaint from the European carriers is that Apple forces them to sell a certain amount of iPhones over a determined amount of time. If the carrier does not meet this quota, then they must pay Apple for the unsold devices.

The carriers say that this forces them to focus more on selling the iPhone each month than competing devices. 

What does Apple have to say about this?

“Our contracts fully comply with local laws wherever we do business, including the E.U.," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman. 

The European Commission hasn't opened a formal antitrust investigation yet because it hasn't received a formal complaint of anticompetitive practices. The Commission wants evidence that Apple's actions have hurt consumers and it wants to make sure that this is an issue it can solve. 

However, the European Commission is monitoring the situation. It will have to speak to the carriers before launching a full investigation.

The carriers said they must agree to Apple's quota or they won't receive the iPhone at all. This is an issue, considering its one of the best-selling smartphones that customers regularly ask for. Having the iPhone draws many customers to carriers in the first place.

If Apple were to be subject to an investigation (and said to have been anticompetitive by the European Commission), the fine could be as high as 10 percent of the company's most recent annual sales worldwide. 

This isn't Apple's first run-in with the European Commission. In December 2011, Apple and book publishers Penguin, Harper Collins (News Corp., USA), Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp., USA), Hachette Livre (Lagardère Publishing France) and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck (owner of inter alia Macmillan, Germany) were under the microscope when the EU found out about their selling practices. The EU saw this as anticompetitive against the likes of Amazon, and launched an investigation. 

Apple and four of the publishers (all but Penguin) submitted a settlement proposal to the EU in August 2012, saying that the publishers will not restrict or limit an e-book sellers' ability to set, change or reduce e-book prices for two years. They also won't interfere with an e-book retailer's choice to offer discounts, and added the five-year suspension of the "most-favored nation" contract. The investigation was settled later in the year. 

Source: The New York Times

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: So?
By CeriseCogburn on 3/23/2013 3:10:02 AM , Rating: -1
So let me get this straight - the *-*/-s*****g EU commissions of crimes think they are so special that they can "fine" 10% of annual WORLDWIDE SALES...


Hey EU, you get to fine sales for the tiny complaining crap cuntry of the frenchie frogs, AND THAT'S IT JERKWADS !

You know, a bigger criminal hogging rip off artist going after a tiny in comparison company, claiming jurisdiction over their WORLD WIDE sales is really THE TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE HERE AND NOW.

Wake up lame sheep ! I can't stand lying appleheads but let's face it the pig faced hog wild arrogant c0n artist robber baron sick as it gets totally out of control EU crapission with their masters of lining their own pockets fine needs to be taken down about 193,000 percent.

RE: So?
By Tony Swash on 3/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: So?
By theapparition on 3/25/2013 10:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
Funny that there's still quite a bit of gun violence in Europe. Of course only the criminals have access to guns.

Additionally, out of all US gun violence cases, less than 2% had anything to do with so called "assault weapons". So banning them would result in an almost imperceptible decrease in gun violence.....always assuming that the lack of an assault weapon would immediately cause the potential attacker to instantly stop his actions and repent. Or more logically, they would just carry out the same crimes with non-assault weapons resulting in no change at all.

RE: So?
By Manch on 3/29/2013 7:40:19 AM , Rating: 1
Ever been to Switzerland? every male between the age of 20 and 30 have one.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki