Some telecoms analysts had suggested the take-up had not been as strong as expected.
"This (the launch of the iPhone in France) has had a positive image impact for us and led to a very positive commercial result," France Telecom Chief Executive Didier Lombard told BFM radio on Thursday.
Lombard had previously said he expected to sell between 50,000 and 100,000 iPhones between the launch and the end of 2007.
He said on Thursday 48 percent of purchases had been tied to new subscriptions to Orange, France Telecom's mobile operator.
"Overall, we have sold more than 70,000 units," he said.
On a separate matter, Lombard said he was taken by surprise by French President Nicolas Sarkozy's proposed media reforms.
Sarkozy said on Tuesday the government was considering levying an "infinitesimal" tax on broadband and mobile operators' sales to make up for a shortfall that would be created by scrapping advertising on public television.
Showing posts with label iphone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iphone. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The iPhone Has Very Little New Technology: So Why Does Apple Need 200 Patents?
Mike Masnick over at Techdirt picks up the old invention vs. innovation debate and how it applies to the iPhone. So, does that mean that Apple's 200 patents surrounding the iPhone are unnecessary? Or even unjustified?
According to Masnick's line of argument, invention is the process of actually developing something novel and completely new. On the other hand, innovation is the process of taking a new (or existing) technology and making it useful for the public.
Apple under the leadership of Steve Jobs has been a leader in innovation. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player; they just innovated it and made it mainstream. Ditto with the Mac and graphical user interfaces. Apple is incredibly good at making technology chic, easy, and, most importantly, fun-to-use.
So what about those 200 patents? Does Apple's success at innovation give it the right to patent all this innovation of existing technology? Critics of the U.S. intellectual property law system would argue no. They claim that the rewards of the market -- i.e. strong product sales -- are incentive enough.
Others would claim that both inventors and innovators need patents to give them a profit incentive to invent or innovate. Without these patents, competitors would quickly copy the new ideas and steal any reward the industrious pioneers might have seized from their hard work.
Going further, some defenders of the current patent process would go so far to argue that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between invention and innovation, at least from the perspective of the market.
According to Masnick's line of argument, invention is the process of actually developing something novel and completely new. On the other hand, innovation is the process of taking a new (or existing) technology and making it useful for the public.
Apple under the leadership of Steve Jobs has been a leader in innovation. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player; they just innovated it and made it mainstream. Ditto with the Mac and graphical user interfaces. Apple is incredibly good at making technology chic, easy, and, most importantly, fun-to-use.
So what about those 200 patents? Does Apple's success at innovation give it the right to patent all this innovation of existing technology? Critics of the U.S. intellectual property law system would argue no. They claim that the rewards of the market -- i.e. strong product sales -- are incentive enough.
Others would claim that both inventors and innovators need patents to give them a profit incentive to invent or innovate. Without these patents, competitors would quickly copy the new ideas and steal any reward the industrious pioneers might have seized from their hard work.
Going further, some defenders of the current patent process would go so far to argue that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between invention and innovation, at least from the perspective of the market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)