Sprint CEO: Exclusive Contracts Important for Wireless
Article
Comments 11
Sep 17, 2009, 12:32 PM by Eric M. Zeman
Sprint CEO Dan Hesse recently made some comments about several things going on in the wireless industry. Regarding exclusive distribution agreements between network operators and handset makers, Hesse noted that the deals are important for promoting innovation in the wireless industry. He said of the FCC's investigation of the practice, "The legitimate question is how long the exclusivity periods need to be. It's a fair question." Hesse wouldn't comment on reports that Deutsche Telekom is pursuing Sprint as an acquisition target, but said of industry consolidation, "I don't know if its going to happen or if it's necessary. It's a healthy, growing industry with growth potential."
Reuters »
Ummm....Not so fast Dan
Innovation comes from more than just technological advances. It also comes from business practices, pricing and ingenuity for changing a standard in what we are used to. But it is most importantly also brought on by consumers needs or wants. It is human nature to evolve. If a business or manufacturer does not make a discovery of innovation, an individual will. It is the law of physics. Having exclusivity rights has certain advantages, but the retentive drawbacks overtake the these advantages. I say exclusivity stalls the competitive angle. If you have something nobody else has, why change? This is not innovation.
A great example of this, is the iphone. Here is a device that innovated a new interface and design that no one has seen before ...
(continues)
I wish all companies had this mindset.
Unfortunately, unless it's somehow made illegal, it's unlikely that many will sacrifice immediate profit for future innovations.
Exclusive contracts I see him referring two is like the one we have with Pal for the pre, it is exclusive for a set period of time, giving us an ability to compete just as it does ATT with the iphoney and VZ with there phones//
We need them to allo...
(continues)
Agree...
I think exclusive contracts give something for each carrier wants, but in my opinion, it does help consumers. It forces innovation from the manufacturers. Samsung, LG, Motorola, and other companies make handsets that the US specifically request. If I want my carrier to have something like the Blackberry Bold only I want it to do this instead of that or this on top of that, then I go to RIM and get them to make it work.
Still, I don't think it should be an indefinite thing. At some point, I think manufacturers should have the ability to venture off to other carriers with the same design or at least slightly modified...
I've only gotten into wireless within the past three years, but I feel like (broken record) that certain phones like t...
(continues)
I thought the Motorola Timeport 270c was a "revolutionary" device. It had a bluetooth module and bluetooth headset as optional accessories. Man, I loved that phone. Best Motorola I ever owned. WAY better than the V710 and Silver Q I later purchase...
(continues)
Bundling? It makes as much sense today as it did when your choice of home phone was either a rotary desk model or a rotary wall mount. It is not for nothing that the FTC has awoken from it's 25 year slumber to investigate this restraint of trade pra...
(continues)
Samsung Upgrades its Wearables
Google Overhauls Android's Parental Controls
Samsung's New Foldables Stick to the Formula
