Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
If people do their research on buying a new phone as you claim, they would obviously know whether or not they want an iPhone. So they go to US Cellular, and ask about the iPhone. Sales person says they don't have one, so they buy the Samsung Galaxy instead. Is that Samsung stealing market share from Apple, or Apple being ######ed since they offer the iPhone exclusive deal to AT&T for years before giving anyone else a chance.
I honestly don't see how you could say Samsung was stealing market share from Apple in that case since it was 'impossible' for the iPhone to even be sold in the first place. Apple couldn't have gained market share at or through US Cellular even if Samsung didn't exist.
|
You can argue that Apple was confident in its ability to make successful sales through one vendor by going exclusive with AT&T
precisely because it was confident in its ability to protect its IP. If IP was not protected then I cannot see why AT&T itself would have entered into any kind of deal. Putting aside whether you believe the patents are valid or not, making an argument that offering a cheaper alternative (on any carrier) to the iPhone did not affect sales is verging on the absurd, in my opinion.