Sprint says immediate device bans hurt not only phone makers, but also carriers
At the same time, this type of immediate product bans hurt not only the users and phone makers, but carriers as well. Sprint now said that having a smartphone subsidized on a carrier is a lengthy process taking sometimes up to a year, and when that kind of an immediate ban hits, it’s damaging to the carrier.
The operator was clear that it’s not supporting neither Apple nor Samsung or Google here, but rather focusing on all the wrong such an immediate ban can do, when the handset can go back on sale in just a week after it.
Sprint issued an amicus filing for the Galaxy Nexus sales recently, and actually that exactly what Verizon did back in the day when the Droid Charge and Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE were facing a ban. Verizon then claimed banning the devices would hurt the deployment of its LTE 4G network.
Most recently, both the US Congress and the United Nations took note of the Galaxy Nexus ban and will be working on resolving the patent wars in the best way possible.
source: Sprint via Electronista
1. fervid (Posts: 173; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Maybe they shouldn't have wasted all their money to get the iPhone then and invested in their LTE and Android lineup? A little late to complain about it now when you gave them millions to help pay the lawyers that then banned your phone.
5. Mitchel (Posts: 228; Member since: 25 May 2012)
It's not easy to do that. iPhone is still the most popular smartphone on US. So from a business standpoint, it's a common sense to put iPhone on their smartphone line up.. But Galaxy S3 and possible other high end android phones will eventually change the game..
7. deathyyy (Posts: 101; Member since: 20 Dec 2011)
The company wouldn't even be around if they had not gotten the iPhone. Regardless of your opinion on the device itself, it's still the bestselling individual device, and the 4S had an absolutely humongous release- Adding thousands of extra subscribers.
Maybe you also missed it, but Verizon did the exact same thing with the Galaxy Tab banning, last time I checked they weren't hurting for cash like Sprint is. Stop making unrealistic arguments just because you don't like the iPhone.
8. EclipseGSX (Posts: 1551; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Wrong, Sprint wont even turn a profit on the "thousands of extra subscribers" until 2014. They would still be around if they had not picked up the iPhone. They actually wouldn't be hurting as bad so you are contradicting yourself
12. aikonix (Posts: 59; Member since: 08 Apr 2012)
That is all correct besides the year, its 2015 when we can start making some sort of profit off the iphone, but in my opinion, it was a bad move by Sprint.
15. deathyyy (Posts: 101; Member since: 20 Dec 2011)
Considering the company was on the literal verge of collapse and much deeper in the red prior to October of last year..
2. Aeires (unregistered)
Sprint, talking out both sides of their mouth. They say Apple's lawsuits hurt carriers and consumers but openly embrace the iPhone without question.
10. dmckay12 (Posts: 243; Member since: 25 Feb 2012)
They did ask a question. They asked "How Much."
3. good2great (Posts: 1039; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
how is having the iphone hurting them in this situation? its the Google Nexus that's giving them a problem because of its ban.
if they didn't have iphone in the line up it still would be an issue because the ban is hurting their Google Nexus contract.
4. fervid (Posts: 173; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Sure the ban would still be there, but they wouldn't be paying millions to the person causing them pain and giving them more money to fight with. If I paid someone money for a phone and they came back and banned/blocked my other phones that I paid money for so only theirs worked I'd be wanting a refund. That is like Ford selling me a truck that puts out a signal so all my Chevys won't start. And Ford justifying it because they have a square truck bed, tires, and start with a key like theirs.
6. good2great (Posts: 1039; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
great car analogy...lol
i definitely understand your position on this...
9. appleDOESNT.com (Posts: 416; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
So Apple, you are suing Google, the king of all things search, for patent infringement on searching on a smartphone?!
Can't beat them, sue them iGuess.. whats next? vow thermonuclear war on them? :/
11. Jeradiah3 (Posts: 962; Member since: 11 Feb 2010)
Sprint makes a valid point. I dont understand why Apple wants to sue everyone about patents when they're one of the most wealthiest companies EVER!!
Lets see what Apple has done, shall we......................
1. They revolutionalized the cellphone industry with the original iPhone in '07
2. Annual revenue is in the BILLIONS every year
3. Created the 1st tablet (iPad)
4. Millions of new users every year
5. Made every other competitor play "catch up" with devices and OS
6. Made the most fluid OS
7. If Im not mistaken, provided the first "cloud" service
8. At least 5 carriers carry the current iPhone
the list goes on and on!! Let the competitors have their fun because they're not going to stop you from making billions every year
I'll say it again, I tihnk they started suing other companies after Steve Jobs passed away. I dont think that he cared as long as it didnt hurt their profit margin
13. aikonix (Posts: 59; Member since: 08 Apr 2012)
dude look at what you wrote and speak again...
Seriously, they created the first tablet? No.
Did not provide the first Cloud service.
Not millions of new users every year...
Not the most fluid OS....
Please re-think and write again.
Yes they revolutionized how we think of phones, at that time people were thinking phones would soon be the size of a quarter, then now the opposite.
But as they put out a product, 1st gen of a good smartphone, other people took the opportunity to take what people were slowly fashioning in and made it BETTER. Keyword, better.
Now that Apple has the SAME iOS since '07 and really hasnt changed since, Apple is butthurt because people are actually leaving them and therefor are patent trolling every company to get them off the market so it can be Apple only.
Consumers like variety. We like options. Not every iPhone suits someone, not every Android suits someone. HAVING options that can fit anyones needs is what we need more of. Apple demands that to be stopped.
Apple will continue to fail.
14. benzb (Posts: 26; Member since: 19 Jan 2012)
I am not an Apple Fanboy at all - I actually own an Android device. However, Apple did revolutionize the cellular phone industry and they did come out with the first real tablet. They are also doing very good financially....
AAPL 598.90 -0.91%
They were sitting at less than $70 per share about 5 years ago and with our economy being pretty bad, I would say this is amazing! Most companies in communications, electronics, etc., have either stayed at the same stock price or dropped during this time period.
In my opinion, the iPad is the best tablet available. I can't say the same about the iPhone though. Android tablets are not exactly there yet. I do think they do make solid products and have the best technical support available. I don't know many other manufacturers that give you the option to take in your desktop computer/tablet/phone and have it repaired on-the-spot for FREE during the manufacturers warranty period WITHOUT being required to purchase a warranty; With Apple you can!
16. Doakie (Posts: 1101; Member since: 06 May 2009)
I do agree Apple revolutionized the smartphone, and they also lead the push for multi-touch slate tablets. Although I disagree they make the best tablets. I've owned an iPad 2, a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and a HP Touchpad. Honeycomb on the Galaxy Tab is a much better OS for a technologically inclined person.
But I would counter that no other computer manufacturer has the built in profit margins that Apple does to provide the level of service Apple provides. You probably actually are paying for that "extra warranty" in their elevated price. Whereas that is optional in all other desktop computers.
17. MyJobSux (Posts: 77; Member since: 01 Apr 2012)
I didn't read all the posts but most of you completely missed the point of the story. Not only sprint but every company works for years at a negotiating table and spends millions to bring a phone to their market. The specific phone here is the Galaxy Nexus. Apple simply doesn't want the competition so it uses some bland patent to keep anyone from moving the competitors phone. Now, it doesn't matter if apple is against Samsung or Samsung is against apple or if HTC is against Motorola. Its that any given carrier has a massive amount of money tied up in bringing a phone to their marker for their customers. If sprint or any carrier is told they can't sell a phone they spent millions on then their inventory doesn't move. They are left holding millions of dollars in merchandise. It aggravates customers and makes the carrier look bad to the consumer. I side with what sprint is saying. I also feel apple needs to back off the patent war. If they can't compete with the market then they need to change their product. Granted some patents should be upheld but a patent that makes a tested phone number a hyperlink so the end user can simply touching to dial the number is a stupid reason to stop carriers from selling a device.
the rest of you need to spend more time comprehending what your reading and less time giving your biased opinion
18. TechnoTechyes (Posts: 56; Member since: 24 Jan 2011)
The judge is only concerned about what might hurt Apple. Consumers, Carriers, Software Developers, and other companies can get screwed as long as it does not hurt Apple.