Slashdot Mirror


How Jobs Played Hardball In iPhone Birth

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Apple bucked the rules of the cellphone industry when creating the iPhone by wresting control away from normally powerful wireless carriers, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Only three executives at the carrier, which is now the wireless unit of AT&T Inc., got to see the iPhone before it was announced. Cingular agreed to leave its brand off the body of the phone. Upsetting some Cingular insiders, it also abandoned its usual insistence that phone makers carry its software for Web surfing, ringtones and other services... Mr. Jobs once referred to telecom operators as "orifices" that other companies, including phone makers, must go through to reach consumers. While meeting with Cingular and other wireless operators he often reminded them of his view, dismissing them as commodities and telling them that they would never understand the Web and entertainment industry the way Apple did, a person familiar with the talks says.'"

479 comments

  1. On a general level... by daddyrief · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm really for anything that helps wrestle proprietary control settings away from the major carriers.

    --
    "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm really for anything that helps wrestle proprietary control settings away from the major carriers.

      Yup, you can expect Apple to fairly license proprietary control settings in a reasonable and non discriminate manner and help level the playing field in the cell phone market!

      Thanks Apple for giving us more choice!

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be "insightful." The parent is far more trolling than this comment.

    3. Re:On a general level... by SultanCemil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are 100% on target. The major carriers in the USA have gotten so incredibly bad it boggles the mind. I am now in Australia, and what a difference. Real competition! You can take your phone *with* you. Its a huge difference. Oh, and the phones tend to be better. Man, the FCC really needs to require unlocking of phones.

      --
      Cemil.
    4. Re:On a general level... by mp3phish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While I normally do not like to praise Apple, this is one thing I commend them on. With all the proprietary gimmicks Apple tries to shove down customer's throats, they are not as bad as the gimmicky trash shoved down wireless carrier's throats. For this reason, I have to take Apple's side on this.

      The wireless carriers in the US (and a few other regions) have been gouging the eyes out of customers simply because they have always been considered a premium service, thanks to the federal subsidy known as the universal service fund on landline phones. While the rest of the world commoditized their wireless telephone markets, the US wireless carriers turned them into crap shoot proprietary bullshit.

      The iPhone (though I refuse to admit it is a good deal, or worth anything close to $500) is the first step in finally commoditizing wireless telephone service. Not allowing the carriers to screw up the phone's firmware is what companies like Nokia and Motorola should have done a decade ago. It is no wonder the wireless carriers are doing what they do, look at how easilly the FCC allowed SBC to buy out AT&T Wireless and then buy out AT&T long distance all in a 3 year period, consolidating almost every drop of the original baby bells.

      Thank you Apple for your willingness to play Hardball. I am glad you can see through the corporate crap that is Cingular/AT&T/SBC. My only hope is that you can take the same approach to your own business model and look at yourself from an outsider's perspective, just as you have approached this problem with Cingular.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    5. Re:On a general level... by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure a locked down phone that only runs Apple's software and is only available on Cingular, with Apple claiming that it's morally wrong to unlock a phone (such people are "bad guys") to run on other networks, is going to do that.

      Anyone who thinks Apple is trying to do anything but shift power from one proprietary group to another is delusional.

      Worse still, Cingular is one of the only two major GSM/UMTS carriers in the US. So it was one of the few that was truly open and non-proprietary, compared to the likes of Verizon.

      I'm hoping some of Apple's innovations in the UI realm will make their way to competing phones, but right now the Apple phone itself is bad news from the point of view of opening up the industry. It represents everything that's bad about the US mobile phone industry, it's expensive, locked down, and treated by its maker as little more than a weapon to play in some insane power wars in which the end user will always be the victim.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:On a general level... by renegadesx · · Score: 1

      In Australia we have a saying for that, FUCK TELSTRA

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    7. Re:On a general level... by Ucklak · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Apple has always been about the user experience, even from the unpacking of a piece of hardware with their brand on it.

      These carriers and Microsoft included are all about using their products and services.

      Apples side of the diametric is that you use their services on their product versus using the product with the services that are included.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    8. Re:On a general level... by JudgeFurious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about from the point of view of "using a phone"? Is it bad news from that point of view?

        I have to confess that I'm really only concerned with that point of view and don't really care all that much about whether the mobile phone industry is "opened up" in some fashion or another. As long as the service provided is acceptable (it is) at a price I feel is not out of line (it isn't) then that about covers it for me.

        From the very beginning all I wanted was a phone. I didn't care what games you could play on it or whether or not it could browse the internet or send text messages. I didn't give a shit if it had a calculator or a for that matter if it even saved numbers. I can remember numbers and I'm loath to give up the responsibility of doing so. I know so many otherwise intelligent people who can't remember more than one or two phone numbers now that they have an almost limitless address book in the palm of their hands. They save every number that comes their way but don't know any of them. I don't want to be one of those guys. For years I've bought a simple plan, used a free phone, and that was fine for me. Now Apple has made this really cool phone and for the first time I'm actually considering paying a butt-load of money to buy something much farther up the phone "food chain".

        And I'll be damned if all I really care about is whether or not it works as advertised. I don't give a shit if it runs Linux or can be unlocked to run on any network I might imagine running it on. I don't care. I just want it to work. It's a fucking phone not some flag to rally around or a battlefield to fight for our rights on. It's not a "weapon in some insane power war" either. It's just a phone.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    9. Re:On a general level... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      oic you mean like the proprietary controls on the iphone, which locks you into cingular for 3 YEARS? retard.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    10. Re:On a general level... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm an Aussie and haven't got a clue about US telco's, I recall that Telstra was tipped to be the distributor for the iPhone in Oz but has recently told Apple to "stick to knitting" because their phone is "only 2.5G not 3G"? IIRC, Cingular is the parent company of Telstra's biggest competitor.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a weapon to play in some insane power wars"

      Dude, it's a product. You know, to solve a problem and make some money in the process? It's not even out yet. Get over your righteous self.

    12. Re:On a general level... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Telstra's biggest competitor is Optus. Optus is owned by SingTel (Singapore Telecom). The iPhone is EDGE (IIRC), which never really took off in Australia, the four+ years ago it was introduced. Telstra's NextG etc networks are CDMA, not GSM, that's why.

      US telco's (speaking as an Australian who moved to the US in December) are up and down. On one hand, for A$200 (US$175), my wife and I get unlimited time to each other, and each of us to any five land or cellular lines in the US and Canada, unlimited evening time, unlimited weekend time, 2000 additional minutes beyond that, unlimited text messaging, and unlimited data, as well as free WiFi access at any of the provider (T-mobile)'s hotspots. On the other hand, it's amazing how horrible coverage can be. Major suburban centers with /zero/ coverage. Some areas where you roam onto another network (fine, esp. since you don't get charged for it these days), but in my office in Redmond I get nothing, while Cingular and Verizon are fine. Mind you, elsewhere, it's the reverse, and friends with those two ask to use my phone.

    13. Re:On a general level... by dr.badass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple claiming that it's morally wrong to unlock a phone (such people are "bad guys") to run on other networks, is going to do that.

      Apple didn't claim that. Glenn Lurie of Cingular did.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    14. Re:On a general level... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to confess that I'm really only concerned with that point of view and don't really care all that much about whether the mobile phone industry is "opened up" in some fashion or another. As long as the service provided is acceptable (it is) at a price I feel is not out of line (it isn't) then that about covers it for me.

      Do you realize that's the exact same attitude a majority of Americans had about AT&T before the break-up? When long-distance calls were easily over a dollar a minute and it was illegal to connect a non-telco handset to the phone-line in your house?

      Your perception of what is "acceptable service" and a reasonable price is shaped by the status quo and, pretty much by definition, the status quo favors the entrenched businesses and systems.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:On a general level... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple shouldn't have to license FairPlay any more than Microsoft should have to license the Win32 API to Apple so I can run my DirectX games on any computer.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    16. Re:On a general level... by Benaiah · · Score: 1

      no they should both have to license them out. Because refusing by refusing to anyone can reverse engineer the technology and then sell it off due to the interoperability clause in the DMCA. "Reverse engineering shall be permitted where it creates interoperability between two products." I pulled that quote from my bum.

      If direct X went to linux/mac i would instantly wipe windows from every machine in my house forever.
      If fairplay got licensed to the zune. No one would care.

    17. Re:On a general level... by bubbaD · · Score: 1

      Actually I miss old Ma Bell. The phone bill was simple, straightforward, no strange extra charges, including a mess of charges that for me are usually $0.00
      It also would have been nice if Ma Bell had fiber cable laid out, and thousands of investors, employees and others wouldn't have gone broke laying out dark fiber. Sigh.

    18. Re:On a general level... by ymenager · · Score: 1

      Right..... and wrong......

      It absolutely true that this is just one closed and proprietary company grasping power and control from another group of companies.

      The good point about this is, that group of companies had for a very long time held that power completely and absolutely, in a iron grip.

      But Apple has made them flinch. Their grasp is no longer absolute, and all other companies will now see that it is actually possible to take that power from the mobile telcos, while planting the seed of doubt into the telco's management (and thus weakening their resolve).

      So although it is not an improvement the current situation, it has laid the foundations where that might happen in the future, and in that we can thank Apple.

    19. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please read my comment.

      I didn't say Apple should license fairplay, I implied that Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).

      Thank you for pointing out that Microsoft, like Apple and the telcos is not above using proprietary tricks to lock out competition. Do you really think anyone's surprised by that?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    20. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      so I can run my DirectX games on any computer.

      You can play directX games on any computer - just install XP. It's quite simple. Even a mac can be turned into a useful gaming PC these days.

    21. Re:On a general level... by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? What about the iPod + iTunes tie in? This is not about using their product with the services that are included? If it isn't, nothing else is.

      You have a point about the out of box experience. Every manufacturer attempts to do this to some degree, and Apple does it as a major focus. But this is not what apple is all about. It is pretty far down the list when it comes to their "core competency."

      You are fooling yourself if you think for one minute that the iPod + iTunes lockin has anything to do with maintaining control over the user experience. You are also fooling yourself if you think for one minute anything lock-in related apple does has anything to do with the "user experience" outside it being a minor positive side effect to people who fanboy around like you.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    22. Re:On a general level... by Grail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forgive me for trotting out Apple's own tired line on this subject: Licencing DRM means there will be more chances for the details of the DRM to be leaked, and thus the system will be compromised. The best way of handling DRM is to not use it at all. This will ensure 100% interoperability and allow for true competition in the marketplace.

      Microsoft "licenced" their DRM system to their friends and colleagues in a system called "Plays For Sure". You might have heard of that mess when reading up about the abominable Zune media player.

      DRM isn't just bad for consumers, it's bad for hardware manufacturers, content providers and anyone attempting to run a media store.

      Apple does give you choice: you can choose to (a) buy the song from the iTunes Music Store and only play it on iTunes or an iPod, or (b) buy the song from a bricks-and-mortar store (ie: as a CD) and play it where you want. If the device that Apple sells you doesn't do what you'd like, complain to Apple or buy another device (or hack your iPod to give you the features you want).

    23. Re:On a general level... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I know so many otherwise intelligent people who can't remember more than one or two phone numbers now that they have an almost limitless address book in the palm of their hands. They save every number that comes their way but don't know any of them. I don't want to be one of those guys.

      Do you have any reason for this other than a vague fear of change? Do you feel compelled to remember the IP address of every server you connect to on the Internet, or do you allow technology to help manage that information for you?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    24. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      DRM isn't just bad for consumers,

      WTF? DRM is awful for consumers. It takes away your fair use, it takes away unfair uses, it generally makes life bloody inconvenient to format shift, etc.

      DRM is dreadful for consumers, bad for content owners, but a boon for hardware manufacturers. (Sorry, the DRM on your music player isn't compatable with the cheapest music store, go and buy another player).

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    25. Re:On a general level... by BOFHelsinki · · Score: 0

      It's going that way here in Finland too. When we used to be something of a (Nokia's) playground for new mobile tech and services, it was a given that you first chose your phone, then went shopping for an operator. (And during the mad customer-gather discounts, people had several; my uncle at best had a dozen cards, swapping when some freebie offer ended... never knew which number to call him, before the Number Freeze law). But now the long-term package deals are becoming the norm. Maybe the other makers were willing to play possum to penetrate Nokia's home turf, and enabled the operators to get the upper hand. Granted, you can still get any phone & op combo separately, but the most generous deals are packages only. And that's why I'm suffering from the considerable brain damage and buggy apps of the N70 for some 15 months more... I was too cheap for my own good... Never again a package deal. (Although, I pay about USD50/mo for it all -- phone, calls, surfing -- so it's not that bad a deal, but I seriously regret getting this sorry piece of beta hardware...)

    26. Re:On a general level... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But what about people that only want to use free and open source software? How are they supposed to play DirectX games? Unless Microsoft are forced to document their APIs in a manner acceptable to the Free Software movement (i.e. no fees or NDAs), how are other OSs supposed to implement them?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    27. Re:On a general level... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "SingTel" - My bad.

      Phones don't interest me much, I still have a Nokia 5110 but it only lasts ~3 min on a full charge. Perhaps it's time to trade it in.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re:On a general level... by bazald · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Apple is free to implement the DirectX API for "their" operating system whenever they choose to do so. Ever heard of Wine?

      http://www.winehq.com/

      --
      Insert self-referential sig here.
    29. Re:On a general level... by SuperDre · · Score: 0

      the problem only with Jobs is that he want to take control away from to carriers only to be able to have full control himself...

    30. Re:On a general level... by bodan · · Score: 1

      Are those free and open source games? I'd guess not, but if I'm wrong, just port them to OpenGL :)

      --
      "I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
    31. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Please read my comment.

      I didn't say Apple should license fairplay, I implied that Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).
      Lock out of what exactly? Out of selling music online? Out of making a Mobile Music Player?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    32. Re:On a general level... by tbone1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      no they should both have to license them out.

      You gave no good reason for this. Well, you would like to do it, but that doesn't make it right. I would like to punch politicians in the face and hit baseballs through the windows at CNN headquarters, but that doesn't make it right.

      Forcing them to license their product is a violation of their property rights, which is a slippery slope. It also creates more government interference and regulation, which is the last thing we need.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    33. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But what about people that only want to use free and open source software? How are they supposed to play DirectX games? Unless Microsoft are forced to document their APIs in a manner acceptable to the Free Software movement"

      I want to run my car on water and pixie dust, but the damned car makers and fuel suppliers have locked me in to their proprietary "internal combustion" and "gasoline" technology.

    34. Re:On a general level... by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      It proves my point.

      You can either use the iPod as an external hard drive or you can use iTunes music store service that only works with the iPod.
      The user experience is handled 100% from Apple from purchase to usage.

      Granted (and I don't own an iPod) there is not a single mp3 player that is like the UI of an ipod. There are many like it but none with a 3 and only 3 move selection to get music.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    35. Re:On a general level... by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 5, Funny
      If fairplay got licensed to the zune. No one would care.

      Not true. Two Zune owners would be thrilled. The other one thinks he's got a brown cell phone with really crappy reception.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    36. Re:On a general level... by danpsmith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And I'll be damned if all I really care about is whether or not it works as advertised. I don't give a shit if it runs Linux or can be unlocked to run on any network I might imagine running it on. I don't care. I just want it to work. It's a fucking phone not some flag to rally around or a battlefield to fight for our rights on. It's not a "weapon in some insane power war" either. It's just a phone.

      You might be modded up and everything, but this is a common point of view. However, you yourself said you considered buying the iPhone. Why would you pay $500 for "just a phone"?

      The problem in my opinion is that wireless carriers in this country like to lock down phones to prevent you from not spending millions of dollars on ringtones and graphics. They lock down the actual capabilities of the phone. There's things right now that phones on these carriers could do if it weren't for barriers that they put up, and they don't let them. You can't use a voice recording as a ringer because they don't want you to, not because it isn't possible. They start to limit your abilities to use your hardware in order to charge you 1.99 per 10 second ringtone that's untransferrable, and doesn't have what you want in song selection. Then, after your POS phone that they give you breaks or dies because you left it on the charger too long and that's enough to kill it in some bad hardware cases, you have to buy a new phone and buy your ringtones and wallpapers all over again. Many people wondered why when you bought your cell phone there wasn't a regular telephone ring style tone and all the stock ringers sounded like weird sci-fi or classical crap that nobody'd want to embarrass themselves using, it's because they were gonna charge 1.99 per tone for anything else.

      People buy camera phones everyday only to find out that the only conceivable way to transfer pictures out is to email them to yourself on some phones, at, of course, a charge per picture.

      There are ways around these things, and I have found one (I bought an unlocked motorola that came with a USB cable, now I pay the mafia for nothing), but the average person doesn't take these avenues and that's what corporations like Cingular, etc. depend upon.

      In other countries cell phones are able to be used on other networks. They are unlocked so you can use any sim card you want. The phone I bought, I can take overseas, plug in a prepaid sim and use it there. This is how the technology works. Each network isn't a unique snowflake, your hardware can already work on competitor's networks, it's just that they don't want you to use it.

      They want to lock your phone to the network so that you buy a 2 year contract with them. Because the phones are unaffordable otherwise. They lure you in with the 2 year 50 dollar phone deal, and then you are still paying long after you realize their service sucks in your particular area. You could switch but you'd have to pay the fee. Everytime you switch you have to do another activation charge and another phone. Yes, sometimes you can get a phone for free but with a contract. You can't cancel without their fees. It's a real ripoff.

      I use a monthly prepaid plan with a rollover balance on Cingular now with an unlocked phone I bought online from canada. This isn't average, but it actually guarantees interoperability. Years ago I bought a phone on AT&T only to have them "merge" with Cingular and force me to buy an inferior phone which was awful and unsatisfying just because they chose to lock the phone I bought. Well, they can change all day and all I'll have to buy now is a new sim card. They won't get any more dollars out of me for new phones just because they felt like screwing their customers by moving to a different name. Cingular is the new AT&T or something now, it's only a matter of time before Cingular becomes AT&T again with another sim card or AT&T and whatever merge and it becomes "let's make you buy a new phone" wireless. Whatever, as l

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    37. Re:On a general level... by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      But what about people that only want to use free and open source software? How are they supposed to play DirectX games? Unless Microsoft are forced to document their APIs in a manner acceptable to the Free Software movement (i.e. no fees or NDAs), how are other OSs supposed to implement them? Um... They aren't?
    38. Re:On a general level... by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 1

      Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).

      Music companies only give rights to music stores that use DRM, Apple has the most popular player that supports playing DRM, but the DRM is proprietary. You get it now?

    39. Re:On a general level... by SwiftOne · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Forcing them to license their product is a violation of their property rights...creates more government interference and regulation

      "property rights" ARE "government interference and regulation". Property rights are granted by the government to encourage and reward innovation. I don't consider "you can't use this without paying me $$$" to be innovation.

      The modern PC is a great example of how innovation is helped by open specs, but open specs help the market and thus society, not the creator. Perhaps the government should lighten up on their "interference and regulations" and we could see some real improvements in consumer tech.

    40. Re:On a general level... by mstone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fallback capacity?

      I work as a supervisor, and don't want to tell you how many people I've seen come in late for work, saying, 'I would have called in to let you know, but my phone was dead and I couldn't remember the number." There's no reason for that to be a lie.. there's no penalty for calling in, but two no-call/no-shows will get you fired. It's common enough that I've taken to handing out laminated cards with all our division's phone numbers.

      I also see about one person every two or three months who's lost their cell phone, or had one die in a way that makes it impossible for them to recover their numbers. You can tell them by the thousand-yard stare, as they cope with the idea of trying to get all those numbers back.

      Yeah, there are significant benefits to storing information in the world rather than in your head. But information stored in your head has the benefit of being available to you any time, anywhere.

    41. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).

      Music companies only give rights to music stores that use DRM, Apple has the most popular player that supports playing DRM, but the DRM is proprietary. You get it now? So Apple is locking out others out of not offering an online music store? Or not offering an iPod? Or being better than Apple?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    42. Re:On a general level... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple shouldn't have to license FairPlay any more than Microsoft should have to license the Win32 API to Apple so I can run my DirectX games on any computer.

      You don't have to license the Win32 API, because reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability is protected by the DMCA. You do have to license FairPlay, because a competing implementation would not only almost certainly run afoul of Apple patents, and because it would be an unlicensed copy protection circumvention device, and thus illegal under the same body of law.

      You are welcome to attempt making another analogy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:On a general level... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Creating an API for your operating system is now a "proprietary trick?" Admit it, even you are getting tired of your anti-Apple schtick.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    44. Re:On a general level... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Licensing and reverse-engineering are different things.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    45. Re:On a general level... by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So ... Microsoft Word isn't an attempt at vendor lockin through a proprietary format because anybody can buy/create a different word processor?

      Other companies can't start music stores easily because they don't have a DRM scheme that's acceptable to music companies and can also play on devices. If Apple were to license their DRM scheme then another company could make a music store that could sell DRM to music iPod (and the music corps require DRM), or they could make a music player that plays iTMS music.

      If you're fine with companies milking proprietary formats, fine, but cut the "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies" BS. It just makes you look dumb.

    46. Re:On a general level... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      no they should both have to license them out. Because refusing by refusing to anyone can reverse engineer the technology and then sell it off due to the interoperability clause in the DMCA. "Reverse engineering shall be permitted where it creates interoperability between two products." I pulled that quote from my bum.

      The DMCA also prohibits creation or possession of an unlicensed copyright protection circumvention device. Thus it actually prohibits the creation of such a device.

      Thus the DMCA protects Wine, but prohibits PlayFair.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    47. Re:On a general level... by bazald · · Score: 1

      Your point would be a valid one if he had not specifically stated that we were discussing the API, which is publicly available. Perhaps you are right that I was taking his comment a bit too literally however...

      --
      Insert self-referential sig here.
    48. Re:On a general level... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My point was that if Apple has to license FairPlay, then Microsoft should have to license Win32. Nobody would have to reverse-engineer anything.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    49. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So ... Microsoft Word isn't an attempt at vendor lockin through a proprietary format because anybody can buy/create a different word processor?

      Other companies can't start music stores easily because they don't have a DRM scheme that's acceptable to music companies and can also play on devices. Sure they have, it's called PlaysForSure and isn't just limited to one player.

      If Apple were to license their DRM scheme then another company could make a music store that could sell DRM to music iPod (and the music corps require DRM), or they could make a music player that plays iTMS music. Yeah, so? If Microsoft had made PlayForSure available for Macs, Apple wouldn't have to make their own DRM system. And now you want to penalize them for being more successful than Microsoft? Mr. Gates, is that the best you can do?

      If you're fine with companies milking proprietary formats, fine, but cut the "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies" BS. It just makes you look dumb. Could you show me where I said anything like "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies"? No? Thought so.

      So why don't you just say what you mean instead of burning strawmen? Too stupid? Or don't they teach you anything more sophisticated at the School for Microsoft Shills?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    50. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, Apple doesn't have to license FairPlay because everyone else is "free to implement" the FairPlay DRM through reverse-engineering, like WINE.

    51. Re:On a general level... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Phones don't interest me much, I still have a Nokia 5110 but it only lasts ~3 min on a full charge. Perhaps it's time to trade it in. keep it to give to your kids, that's one way to keep their phone bills down
    52. Re:On a general level... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      With all the proprietary gimmicks Apple tries to shove down customer's throats...

      Which gimmicks are those? Granted, not all Apple's software is open source, but they're not very proprietary either. Large portions of their OS are Unix. Unlike Microsoft, Apple supports (and pushes) standard MPEG formats (h264+AAC instead of WMV and WMA). Their iWork formats are XML. OSX supports NFS and SMB. For server-end software, they offer FTP, Samba, SSH, Apache, MySQL, Jabber, etc.

      Really, when you look at Apple is doing, they're generally using real standards, common protocols, and even loads of standard open-source packages. The only way that they could be more open/less proprietary would be to open all their source, and they're certainly no more "proprietary" than Microsoft.

    53. Re:On a general level... by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 0, Troll


      Could you show me where I said anything like "I still don't get what advantage proprietary formats give to companies"?

      >I didn't say Apple should license fairplay, I implied that Apple is not above using proprietary tools to lock out competitors (just like the cell phone companies).

      Lock out of what exactly? ... So Apple is locking out others out of not offering an online music store? Or not offering an iPod? Or being better than Apple?


      Have you figured out what's being locked out yet? Dumb dumb dumb.

    54. Re:On a general level... by burndive · · Score: 1

      DRM isn't just bad for consumers,

      WTF? DRM is awful for consumers.

      I think you missed the word "just."

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    55. Re:On a general level... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Ahh, memories of Ma Bell. When I was in college (before the breakup) I remember having to stand in line on campus to rent a phone to use for my dorm (since you couldnt just buy a telephone). I remember my roomate and I getting all belligerent and demanding to speak to Ma.

    56. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Lock out of what exactly? Out of selling music online? Out of making a Mobile Music Player?

      Lock out of interoperating with their music.

      The analogy was with the cell phone market don't forget. Apple's artificial limitation's on where you can play ITMS mp4s is similar to the cell phone company's artificial phone locks.

      A technological barrier to something that should be easy.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    57. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Admit it, even you are getting tired of your anti-Apple schtick.

      It's very sad when you mistake anti-DRM for anti-apple.

      I think you're jealous that I'm the number one mac fanboy.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    58. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

      The GP's analogy was quite stupid.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    59. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Dumb dumb dumb. Thanks for signing your posts. Not that it was neccessary, since you couldn't even answer a simple question.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    60. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Lock out of what exactly? Out of selling music online? Out of making a Mobile Music Player?

      Lock out of interoperating with their music. In what way exactly? Can other vendors not interoperate with "Apple music" via Quicktime? What do vendors are you talking about anyway?

      The analogy was with the cell phone market don't forget. Apple's artificial limitation's on where you can play ITMS mp4s is similar to the cell phone company's artificial phone locks.

      A technological barrier to something that should be easy. That should be easy what?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    61. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      In what way exactly?

      Errrrr right. You do understand that other vendor's can't implement fairplay don't you?

      It's an artificial barrier to something that should be easy. IE. If you buy music from one source, you should be able to play it everywhere.

      That should be easy what?

      I realise that English is not your native language, so you have a little difficulty following sometimes.

      By "A technological barrier to something that should be easy," I was saying that Apple has an artificial barrier to something that should be easy to do.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    62. Re:On a general level... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, except backing up information in the physical world is also doable. It's best to have a backup of the data in your phone, whether it's in your brain or in your PDA or laptop. The PDA or laptop is just a more efficient place to store it, it seems like.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    63. Re:On a general level... by j1mmy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rights are not granted by any government. They are retained by THE PEOPLE and recognized by the government. This is a very important distinction which you absolutely must understand before entering into any discussion of property rights.

      Open specs do help the market, but that doesn't mean businesses should be forced to open the specs of their software. If consumers are willing to buy what's available, then open specs don't even matter.

    64. Re:On a general level... by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      Rights are not granted by any government. They are retained by THE PEOPLE and recognized by the government. This is a very important distinction which you absolutely must understand before entering into any discussion of property rights. There is no inalienable right to property. The thing that we called property "rights" is an artificial creation. Note that prior to the European arrival in North America, most of the "Indian" tribes had no notion of property ownership. The Europeans came in and "bought" the property from the Indians for trivial amounts.

      Property ownership exists only because government says that it does. Like anything that government does, it is enforced by the threat of removal of actual, inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Our modern society leans mostly towards jail for this. That is at least more enlightened than previous societies which mostly used execution (or maiming) as the punishment for theft of property.

      Now, all that said, I still think that property ownership is a good artificial right for government to create. I am willing to accept the associated loss of freedoms for the corresponding gain in comfort. I.e. I like that I can purchase property and make improvements to it for me to enjoy without worrying that others will take my improvements away for their own use. This is similar to the way that I like that if I complain to my landlord that the neighbors are too loud, the landlord will threaten them with eviction to hold down the noise. Sure, that restricts my freedom to make lots of noise, but I value the restriction more than the freedom.

      Quiet is an *artificial* right, given to me by my landlord in exchange for my sacrifice of my right to make noise. In the same way, the government gives me property ownership in exchange for my binding promise not to infringe others' artificial right to property ownership. Government binds me to this promise with the threats of property forfeiture or loss of liberty (i.e. jail).

      If consumers are willing to buy what's available, then open specs don't even matter. By that logic, we should eliminate property ownership. After all, people without property are clearly willing to live in places they don't own. Therefore, property ownership is unnecessary. The fact that people are willing to compromise on an inferior solution does not indicate that we should avoid trying for improvement.

      It is true that 90+% of everyone buys MS Windows for home use. That does not indicate that we should throw over the other 5-10% -- that is in fact exactly the time when open specs matter *most*. Microsoft understands that. Note how they embraced open specs when Netscape was the market leader (IE4 had better CSS support than did Navigator 4). Further, notice how they stopped developing IE until a credible threat took part of their market share. Now, it's perfectly legitimate to question the idea of asking government to mandate open specs. It's not legitimate to claim that it is not a problem or that it does not matter.
    65. Re:On a general level... by harish.babu · · Score: 1

      What with Apple not opening up the iPhone for third party software, this seems to me like taking the apple from one bully and giving it to another. The proprietary control has moved from one hands to another. But on the positive side, since we get to use some cool phones, what the heck, who cares where the control is!

    66. Re:On a general level... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      My kids are adults, they think I'm a ludite when it comes to phones and they are probably right, but yeah my bill is tiny.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    67. Re:On a general level... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      information stored in your head has the benefit of being available to you any time, anywhere.

      Most of the time.. I was actually a no-show for work when I was in a car wreck. For several hours after the crash, and I literally could not remember my work number, or where my girlfriend worked, or her last name, or any other various details.

      Aside from that, my memory is fairly shoddy to begin with (especially regarding names, numbers, and other details), which is why I store most of my important information in more reliable containers. :)

    68. Re:On a general level... by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but if you can't admit Apple's extensive history of "proprietary for the sake of proprietary" then you have something to learn. Lets see.. Should I start from the beginning and work forward, or now and work backwards?

      For the purposes of argument, I will start with the beginning of OSX and move forward. You can choose to ignore any which you feel "irrelevant" for whatever justification you want to use. You still wind up with an extensive list. And these are just the past few years.

      Quicktime(to this day): Still can't play quicktime files by just downloading an official codec. No, you have to steal a codec replacement from freecodecs.org. If you go legit, you have to install Apple's spyware/bloatware on your system. Even ifyou think quicktime player is the ultimate awesome player, you should still be allowed to use just the codec.

      ADC - proprietary DVI connector which needed a 99$ adapter to go to DVI. DVI was already standard on flat pannel monitors and desktop computers before they invented ADC. They refused to license the ADC connector and only belkin was allowed to make a one way connector for $49.00 (did not work in reverse).

      Superdrives: Up until recently, only apple branded dvd burners would work with iDVD. All it checked for was the apple firmware installed in the drive. Lame.

      iPod/iTunes: this one is obvious and everyone knows it. Even Jobs claims that the lockin is "bad for the customer experience" yet he continues to do it. There is only one reason Fairplay isn't being licensed. And it has nothing to do with the record labels.

      OS X/Intel CPU: Finally, osX working on a standard intel motherboard, chipset, controllers, cpu, and video cards. The same ones that come on most dell and HP systems. Yet the only way for the system to install is if you have a motherboard with the "magic" apple firmware chip soldered on it. And you guessed it: not licensed.

      iPhone/Cingular lockin: Same story over and over again. Only this time, the hardware is tied to the services AND there is a 2 year contract. So they got you locked in two ways. Don't even get me started on the additional lockin crap you haven't been exposed to that will make its showing once the product launches and people start realizing what they can(n't) do with the thing.

      You describe Apple as an open company free from lockins and proprietary bullshit. Yet you sit around and IGNORE blatant (in the case of iTunes/iPod lockin) violations of compatibility and standards. If someone started a company and took Linux and did even ONE of the above things listed and started their own linux platform (say Peach Linux OS) and gained popularity, you would call him the devil. Yet when Apple does it, it is OK, because quite simply, "I don't give a flying fuck about all that bullshit, I just want to use my device"

      Please. Go ahead and keep fooling yourself.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    69. Re:On a general level... by vermontcaveman · · Score: 1

      Imagine if we bought washing machines that were bound by the same terms as cell phone carriers. Monthly load limits would be set with overage fees for extra loads. Times of use could be different rates. Sensors would detect the brand soap you use and additional fees would be assessed for brands not in the contract terms. Tunes to wash laundry by could only be purchased from your machine carrier. Now imagine a toaster with the same cell phone contract model model when it comes to the products you could put in the toaster, the spreads you could use and where you buy the power from to run the toaster. Hooray for Jobs for taking a first step in getting the cell phone market to be like the current washing machine/toaster market!

    70. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats the worst rhyme ive ever heard. are you like piers anthony?

    71. Re:On a general level... by Westacular · · Score: 1

      In addition to the sibling reply to this post, most of the items you cite as examples of Apple's use of open standards are grossly incorrect.

      Unlike Microsoft, Apple supports (and pushes) standard MPEG formats (h264+AAC instead of WMV and WMA).

      Apple supports their implementationof H.264, which is a crappy encoder, and a decoder that does not conform to any proper profile in the standard set. Apple does not publicly acknowledge this problem.

      Their iWork formats are XML.

      Their iWork formats use unpublished, proprietary XML schemas, which they have consistently changed in an ad hoc manner to suit whatever new glitzy features they fancy. Apple does not see this as a problem. (This criticism also applies to Apple's Mail.app, iLife, and iTunes data and database formats.)

      There was a period, circa 2003-2004 when they did use intelligent, open standards for many of these things, but since then Apple turned to the dark side; all of their XML formats have shifted to proprietary, semi-broken schemas built to suit a quick'n'dirty implementation of new features rather than any sort of robustness, stability, or interoperability.

      OSX supports NFS and SMB.

      Their default SMB configuration tends to result in horrible performance when used with WinXP's default SMB settings... which is what the vast majority of OS X users actually use SMB for.

    72. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should actually read the next comment you quote?

    73. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In what way exactly?

      Errrrr right. You do understand that other vendor's can't implement fairplay don't you?
      So?

      It's an artificial barrier to something that should be easy. IE. If you buy music from one source, you should be able to play it everywhere.

      That should be easy what?

      I realise that English is not your native language, so you have a little difficulty following sometimes.

      By "A technological barrier to something that should be easy," I was saying that Apple has an artificial barrier to something that should be easy to do. Ohh, you mean like playing CDs on a tape deck - that kind of easy.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    74. Re:On a general level... by mstone · · Score: 1

      I don't think people should reject all forms of external storage and try to live by memorizing everything. Putting information into the world (to use a term Don Norman explored in The Psychology of Everyday Things [1]) is a Way Good Thing.

      Cellphones and laptops are too fragile to make good storage media, though. It's too easy to put them into a state where you can't get any of the information back out of them. Laminated paper, like the cards I hand out, is far more durable, portable, and reliable. Unfortunately, it's also hard to come by, compared to just saving a number in a cell phone.

      [1] - A great book on design theory and usability. He uses the phrase, "it probably won an award" as a curse, and tells stories like the two guys trying to figure out a new coffee maker: one said, "You'd need an engineering degree from MIT to work this thing," and the other says, "I *have* an engineering degree from MIT."

    75. Re:On a general level... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Most of these are fairly minor relative to what others are doing. I repeat: they are no more proprietary than Windows. They are in fact less so.

      Yes, Apple chooses not to license their technology so that people can make shoddy knock-offs. Still you can install OSX on non-Apple systems-- because their OS is basically open source. People just replace the pieces that require Apple hardware, and bingo, OSX runs on Dells.

      Is the Windows kernel open source? Can Windows XP connect to NFS/AFP shares out of the box? Does Microsoft offer WMA/WMV codecs for other operating systems? Can I run Microsoft's "URGE" software, download songs, and play the DRMed songs in OSX?

      ADC is even arguably a better connector. It allows for a single cable going from the computer to the monitor with no need to run power. Yes, sometimes Apple tries to push an approach they think is better rather than going with "what everyone else is doing". But once DVI really caught on and became common-place, they switched to DVI anyway.

      These things just aren't that bad. No, Apple isn't making completely open-source software, and so they have some restrictions on how you can use it. They have to use DRM because the record industry requires it. All in all, it's still not bad enough to warrant the sort of anger you're displaying.

    76. Re:On a general level... by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      I'd be perfectly happy to pay the same price for a microsoft official Linux DirectX API that I would end up paying for Vista. Selling their API would be a good direction for them. It lets them assert some dominance in the Linux market and they can play all their other properties off on that.

      --
      SRSLY.
    77. Re:On a general level... by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll bite. It's not quite as easy as playing CDs on a tape deck. It's more like a firmware update for my MP3 player that gives it FairPlay capabilities so I can use ITMS with it. So yeah, a little harder than modifying a tape deck to play CDs. Of course, the firmware update is the nontrivial part. So is the licensing from Apple.

      --
      SRSLY.
    78. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      So?

      So, its an artificial barrier to implementation.

      Ohh, you mean like playing CDs on a tape deck - that kind of easy.

      What part of artificial do you not understand?

      The difference between a CD & a tape deck is a technological one.

      The difference between a DRM infested mp4 from itunes and a regular industry standard mp4, is that Apple has created an artificial barrier to playing their mp4 on other hardware.

      Do you get it now? Apple and the cell phone companies use artificial locks on their products to prevent consumers moving to competitors.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    79. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So?

      So, its an artificial barrier to implementation.
      Duh, what would be natural about anything talked about here? Are portable music players not artificial? Is music not artificial? Is Capitalism not artificial?

      Ohh, you mean like playing CDs on a tape deck - that kind of easy.

      What part of artificial do you not understand?

      The difference between a CD & a tape deck is a technological one.

      The difference between a DRM infested mp4 from itunes and a regular industry standard mp4, is that Apple has created an artificial barrier to playing their mp4 on other hardware.

      Do you get it now? Apple and the cell phone companies use artificial locks on their products to prevent consumers moving to competitors. So Apple is forcing others not to bring out regular industry standard mp4? Or isn't it rather the music industry that's forcing them? Can't you understand that? You are barking up the wrong tree, and I guess that's not by mistake.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    80. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      So Apple is forcing others not to bring out regular industry standard mp4? Or isn't it rather the music industry that's forcing them? Can't you understand that? You are barking up the wrong tree, and I guess that's not by mistake.

      You sir, are a fucking idiot.

      There's plenty of other mp4 players out there. It's the fact that Apple create's an artificial barrier (just like the telco companies) to interoprating with those other mp4 players.

      What do you not understand here?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    81. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So Apple is forcing others not to bring out regular industry standard mp4? Or isn't it rather the music industry that's forcing them? Can't you understand that? You are barking up the wrong tree, and I guess that's not by mistake.

      You sir, are a fucking idiot.

      There's plenty of other mp4 players out there. It's the fact that Apple create's an artificial barrier (just like the telco companies) to interoprating with those other mp4 players.

      What do you not understand here? What do you pretend to not understand here? I already showed you that Apple doesn't keep anybody from selling non-DRMed mp4s, that's the music industry. The fact that you keep diverting from that fact shows who you are shilling for. Apple also only "prevents" playing of iTS music on other players the same way sellers of CDs prevent you from playing the music on tape decks or the exact same players.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    82. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MicroSoft isn't at fault for not licensing DirectX, game developers are at fault for CHOOSING to use it over OpenGL. Anyone who chooses a proprietary 'platform' over an open one WHERE NO ADVANTAGE EXISTS is queering the pitch for the rest of us.

      And they are thus cunts.

    83. Re:On a general level... by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      Rights exist naturally: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Rights are not granted by the government; those are privileges. If the government didn't have to grant them, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    84. Re:On a general level... by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      There is no inalienable right to property.

      Glad to hear it. (Pulls out deer rifle) Now, hand me your money. Or do you take the Soviet approach that all property belongs to the state, to be doled out like largesse distributed by a nobleman.

      Seriously, you sound like that dormroom anarchist at Cornell who was going to call the police because I reached out and snagged his car keys.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    85. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are missing it, WMFB. Apple IMPLEMENTS FairPlay, but the record companies MANDATE it. If they didn't mandate it, Apple wouldn't implement it. Apple's choice is iTMS with major record companies content and FairPlay, or no FairPlay and no major label content. Jobs has stated publically that he'd rather be DRM free - FairPlay explicitly ALLOWS the removal of DRM via CDA-burning.

      Why is this so hard to understand for you? The baffling part is that you would favour EXTENDING FairPlay DRM to all devices rather than abandoning it.

    86. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Apple IMPLEMENTS FairPlay, but the record companies MANDATE it.

      Sorry I don't buy it, Apple's turning down artists who want to sell DRM free tunes on ITMS.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    87. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      I already showed you that Apple doesn't keep anybody from selling non-DRMed mp4s, that's the music industry.

      Incorrect. Apple is turning away artists who want to sell DRM free music on ITMS.

      Apple also only "prevents" playing of iTS music on other players the same way sellers of CDs prevent you from playing the music on tape decks or the exact same players.

      No, CDs and Tape Decks have physical differences. The only difference between a normal mp4 and an Apple mp4 is that Apple has crippled it.

      The fact that you keep diverting from that fact shows who you are shilling for.

      *rolls eyes* The fact that you think that I'm shilling for someone shows you only read Apple stories.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    88. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I already showed you that Apple doesn't keep anybody from selling non-DRMed mp4s, that's the music industry.

      Incorrect. Apple is turning away artists who want to sell DRM free music on ITMS.
      Look who's changing the subject again. Not that it helps you in any way. Apple also only "prevents" playing of iTS music on other players the same way sellers of CDs prevent you from playing the music on tape decks or the exact same players.

      No, CDs and Tape Decks have physical differences. The only difference between a normal mp4 and an Apple mp4 is that Apple has crippled it.
      The only thing crippled is your brain. The music on CDs can't be played on a tape deck - period.

      The fact that you keep diverting from that fact shows who you are shilling for.

      *rolls eyes* The fact that you think that I'm shilling for someone shows you only read Apple stories. More easily refutable lies by the troll. Go suck the cock of the music executive who's paying you off.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    89. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      More easily refutable lies by the troll. Go suck the cock of the music executive who's paying you off.

      Hahahahahahaha! Hilarious :-D. You're obviously jealous that I'm the number one mac fanboy - however I will say that you're far, far whinier than I could ever be.

      pple also only "prevents" playing of iTS music on other players the same way sellers of CDs prevent you from playing the music on tape decks or the exact same players.

      Okaaaaaaaaay dude, whatever!

      *Gives LarsT a big sloppy kiss*!

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    90. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      More easily refutable lies by the troll.
      Hahahahahahaha! Hilarious :-D. You're obviously jealous that I'm the number one mac fanboy - however I will say that you're far, far whinier than I could ever be. Funny how you don't even try to defend your lies.

      pple also only "prevents" playing of iTS music on other players the same way sellers of CDs prevent you from playing the music on tape decks or the exact same players.

      Okaaaaaaaaay dude, whatever!

      *Gives LarsT a big sloppy kiss*! So you admit you were wrong.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    91. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In had a client who did EXACTLY that, actually. His complaint was that Apple's cut on iTMS sales was so large he'd hardly make any money - exactly the same shit the record companies have been pulling for decades.

    92. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTunes is merely the PC synching software that comes with the iPod. You are NOT required to buy from the iTMS. I've been using iTunes daily since it was SoundJam MP and I've NEVER purchased from the iTMS. How's that for lock-in?

    93. Re:On a general level... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Quicktime(to this day): Still can't play quicktime files by just downloading an official codec. No, you have to steal a codec replacement from freecodecs.org. If you go legit, you have to install Apple's spyware/bloatware on your system. Even ifyou think quicktime player is the ultimate awesome player, you should still be allowed to use just the codec."

      QuickTime ISN"T A CODEC, numbnuts. Fucking hell, how many times do you idiots need to be told this. QuickTime is an MM framework that suppoorts about 200 different CODECs last time I checked. Christ on a fucking skateboard!

      "ADC - proprietary DVI connector which needed a 99$ adapter to go to DVI. DVI was already standard on flat pannel monitors and desktop computers before they invented ADC. They refused to license the ADC connector and only belkin was allowed to make a one way connector for $49.00 (did not work in reverse)."

      ADC carried power and USB as well as DVI - it was a single cable solution for monitors that Apple abandoned after about 3 years. Shame, it was quite elegant.

      "Superdrives: Up until recently, only apple branded dvd burners would work with iDVD. All it checked for was the apple firmware installed in the drive. Lame."

      That's just plain wrong, you couldn't get iDVD software separately - so what you're saying is that you could use PIRATED iDVD with non-BTO DVD-burners. No fucking kidding.

      "iPod/iTunes: this one is obvious and everyone knows it. Even Jobs claims that the lockin is "bad for the customer experience" yet he continues to do it. There is only one reason Fairplay isn't being licensed. And it has nothing to do with the record labels.

      OS X/Intel CPU: Finally, osX working on a standard intel motherboard, chipset, controllers, cpu, and video cards. The same ones that come on most dell and HP systems. Yet the only way for the system to install is if you have a motherboard with the "magic" apple firmware chip soldered on it. And you guessed it: not licensed."

      Not true AGAIN - the MacPro has significantly better performance than the equivalent HP xw model. Not the same (the Mac is better) hardware, yet the Mac costs less.

      "iPhone/Cingular lockin: Same story over and over again. Only this time, the hardware is tied to the services AND there is a 2 year contract. So they got you locked in two ways. Don't even get me started on the additional lockin crap you haven't been exposed to that will make its showing once the product launches and people start realizing what they can(n't) do with the thing."

      The fucked-up dynamics of the US wireless comms market are not Apple's fault - blame the right people.

    94. Re:On a general level... by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      There is no inalienable right to property. The thing that we called property "rights" is an artificial creation.
      The right to property extends from the right to life (specifically that you own your own body, you therefore own the effects of your body, and you have the right to secure those things necessary to live, e.g., shelter, food, etc. though your industry). If you are claiming that the government actually owns your body, well, perhaps you should be living in a slightly different country from me, thanks!
      --
      -- I speak only for myself
    95. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      So you admit you were wrong.

      Perhaps I just don't think there's any point arguing with someone who describes me as a cocksucking riaa shill?

      You think the DRM on a mp4 is analagous to the change from tape to CD. I think its more analagous to the blocks cell phone companies put on phones to prevent you doing something you otherwise could.

      No real point going round in circles. We obviously disagree. *tickles LarsT*.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    96. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So you admit you were wrong.

      Perhaps I just don't think there's any point arguing with someone who describes me as a cocksucking riaa shill?
      Translation: you don't want to argue with someone who discovered your little secret.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    97. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Translation: you don't want to argue with someone who discovered your little secret.

      Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha!

      That's the way! When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. (I note you didn't touch the substance of my post)

      A clearer ad hominem attack I've never seen.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    98. Re:On a general level... by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      The right to property extends from the right to life I feel some tortured logic approaching.

      specifically that you own your own body Ok, I'm with you, although I would put this under Liberty rather than Life.

      you therefore own the effects of your body So when I exhale, I own that carbon dioxide? It's an effect of my body, right? Then a plant takes in the carbon dioxide. Do I now own part of the plant? The plant emits oxygen. You breathe the oxygen. Do you now claim that I own part of you? After all, you are now partially an effect of the operation of my body.

      Note: this argument is an example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum -- I'm pointing out that your argument doesn't hold by drawing the most ridiculous inference that I can find. Basically, I've established that your first and second statements are contradictory; people can't absolutely own their bodies *and* the results of the operation of their bodies at the same time.

      you have the right to secure those things necessary to live, e.g., shelter, food, etc. though your industry Ok, what if my industry involves hitting you over the head and taking your food? That's ok, right? I need that food to live.

      Inalienable rights are those that do not require a government to enforce. You have them. A government or an individual can act in ways that take away one's inalienable rights

      If you are claiming that the government actually owns your body, well, perhaps you should be living in a slightly different country from me, thanks! Actually, I'm claiming that in a world where we did not accept compromise of the three inalienable rights, there would be no government. After all, without the ability to restrict the three inalienable rights, what power does a government have?

      Of course, if we lived in such a world, people would immediately create government because we value the safety and comfort that government provides more than we value freedom from government. Further, we would create property ownership, because that does in fact encourage people to be industrious and plan for the future. Similarly, I could live in an apartment building where everyone was allowed to make as much noise as they want. I choose to live in an apartment building where the management will evict someone if they continually violate the building's noise rules. For much the same reason, I choose to live in a country where government enforces property ownership. I cede power to the government to do so.
    99. Re:On a general level... by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      Inalienable rights are those that do not require a government to enforce. You have them. A government or an individual can act in ways that take away one's inalienable rights
      No, inalienable rights are those that no legitimate Power can take away. Paraphrasing the US founders, you were given certain natural rights by God, amoung those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and governments are created to secure them, not to create them. Governments may not remove those rights (which is what these founders were claiming the King was doing) without losing the consent of the governed, and thus becoming illegitimate. Or put far better than I ever could:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
      --
      -- I speak only for myself
    100. Re:On a general level... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Translation: you don't want to argue with someone who discovered your little secret.

      Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha!

      That's the way! When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. (I note you didn't touch the substance of my post)

      A clearer ad hominem attack I've never seen. Thanks for admitting to your tactics.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    101. Re:On a general level... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for admitting to your tactics.

      You're welcome sweetheart ;-)

      *Gives Lars T a bigger sloppy kiss*

      We shills have to stick together hey?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  2. Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Mr. Jobs once referred to telecom operators as "orifices" that other companies, including phone makers, must go through to reach consumers.

    Incorrect. The consumers are the orifices in the telco / phone maker / customer relationship. Everyone gets to screw them.

    Anyway, let's hope the iPhone enjoys more success than the last Apple/Cingular deal mentioned in the article:

    But the Motorola ROKR, released in the fall of 2005 and carried exclusively by Cingular, was a huge disappointment for Apple executives. .
    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by avalys · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services.

      When people complain about , I always wonder - why are you buying their products if you hate them so much?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services.

      One word: Monopoly.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    3. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by pdclarry · · Score: 1

      If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services. True, if they can do without a cell phone. All cell phone operators screw their customers, so you either choose the least offensive screwer or you don't get a phone. Apple, while not pristine, is less of a screwer than most other high tech companies.
    4. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've lived 26 years without a cell phone and I don't intend to get one. Most people do not need a cell phone.

    5. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Likely that's true however you do not know if the original poster is one of the people you speak of who don't really "need" a cell phone or not. There are a significant number of people in this world who need a cell phone for reasons other than causing auto accidents and annoying others in their immediate vicinity.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    6. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Veetox · · Score: 1

      Try having them replace a part outside of warranty; it's not exactly a 'petroleum jelly' experience, if you catch my meaning... And, no, I don't throw away and buy new whenever the warranty is up.

    7. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Because they all suck, just in different ways. They are a necessary evil however because people still want to have a cell phone.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    8. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Case in point: I was firmly in the "no cell phone" camp until about 4 years ago when I started my own business. When I was a wage slave, the cell phone would have been an intrusion on my private time and I was wise to avoid it. Now that I'm not, it gives me the freedom to leave the office and yet remain available if something comes up. I'd be a fool not to have it now.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    9. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by anagama · · Score: 1

      Do you mean replace something out of warranty for free or for pay? I could see you complaining if they refused to make a repair that you were willing to pay for, but you know, when something is out of warranty why would you expect it to be fixed free? Not meaning to flame you if are the former, and meaning to flame you if the latter.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most people are of average or lesser intelligence. Most people make far less than the median income. Hell, most people live and die within walking distance of where they were born. But even in third world ghettos, cell phone usage is exploding.

      Your Ludditism and lack of influence are no basis for generalizations about the needs of people who buy cell phones.

    11. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Veetox · · Score: 1

      -meaning to pay. That is to say, I know how much it costs for labor and parts to replace or fix something, and I've found Apple to require a great deal more than what I think is fair. Of course Apple isn't the only company that does this to people, but it's still a reason why I don't consider them some kind of 'savior' for the mobile phone world.

    12. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services.

      Damn right. I'll just carry my laptop around and look for an open Wifi access point so I can use Skype. Way to stick it to the man.

    13. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by DavidShor · · Score: 1, Informative

      tiny nitpick, by definition, 50% of people make less than median income. I think you are confusing median with average.

    14. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Jobs once referred to telecom operators as "orifices" that other companies, including phone makers, must go through to reach consumers.

      Incorrect. Actually, Mr. Jobs is perfectly correct on this one. An asshole is an orifice.
    15. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting
      One word: Monopoly.

      A better word: Cartel.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    16. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      yep, and you think an apple phone monopoly is better why?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    17. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      yep, and you think an apple phone monopoly is better why?

      I don't think an Apple phone monopoly would be better.

      Did you read my comment? I made it quite clear that I think Apple is just going to be just another facet of the current monopoly/cartel.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    18. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by pinkstuff · · Score: 5, Funny

      An even better word: Sex.

    19. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by qzulla · · Score: 1

      Yer right. It's not like there are dozens of alternatives.

      qz

    20. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Cokeisbomb · · Score: 1

      I'm upset you beat me to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

    21. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Tinier nitpick: That's not always true. Take 5 people, with incomes of $10, $30, $30, $30, and $60. Median income is $30, but only 20% of our population makes less than median.

    22. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 3, Funny

      An even better better word: Money
      You can get it by having a monopoly, and after you have, you can have as much Sex as you want.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    23. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by xero314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've lived 26 years without a cell phone and I don't intend to get one. Most people do not need a cell phone. And I have lived 7 years without a POTS line (land line if you prefer). Most people don't need a POTS line.

      Regardless of those facts (since no one even needs a phone) Local TelCos have far more of a monopoly than mobile providers. In my home I have 2 choices in land lines, either the local phone company which has been a monopoly for as long as I can remember, or the local cable company, which is also a monopoly. For mobile service I can chose between a half a dozen providers, though that is shrinking faster than it is growing.
    24. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by nametaken · · Score: 2, Funny

      A more realistic word: Porn.

    25. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by acidrainx · · Score: 1

      And only 20% make more than the median. Which splits it half and half.

    26. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by johncadengo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people are of average or lesser intelligence. Most people make far less than the median income. Hell, most people live and die within walking distance of where they were born. But even in third world ghettos, cell phone usage is exploding.

      Your Ludditism and lack of influence are no basis for generalizations about the needs of people who buy cell phones.


      Talk about generalizations. How about this: most people are of average or higher (a bold word for a bold statement) intelligence (just as true, no?). Better yet, most people, by its very definition, are simply of average intelligence.

      "Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount." According to wikipedia.

      How can "most" people make FAR less than the median, if by definition, it splits the group in half?

      And the last bone to pick: what is this most people live and die within walking distance of where they were born? I'm sure you're making generalizations. Have you even met most people? Do you know where they travel, what they do, how they live? No. I'm sure, almost as sure as you are of these generalizations.

      --
      My page.
    27. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by OBeardedOne · · Score: 1
      "Most people are of average or lesser intelligence."

      Sorry to burst your bubble but a statistically impossible statement like that would surely put you in category B: people of lesser intelligence. Unless of course you are drunk which in that case it's entirely forgivable.

      Be thankful you have someone like me with an IQ of 50 gazillion to correct you and lift the general populations average IQ above single digits.

    28. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by pdclarry · · Score: 1

      -Of course Apple isn't the only company that does this to people, but it's still a reason why I don't consider them some kind of 'savior' for the mobile phone world. We don't know how Apple will handle the repair question yet, but from personal experience cellular carriers will not repair phones out of warranty, and sometimes not even in warranty. I have phones with Verizon and "former AT&T", and both have told me I must buy a new phone to make any changes to my contract. Both phones are working just fine.
    29. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Sorry to burst your bubble but a statistically impossible statement like that would surely put you in category B: people of lesser intelligence.

      So then in a population of 2, 3, and 4, I take it you disagree that more than half the numbers are three or less?

    30. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Maxxwvu · · Score: 1

      Most people make far less than the median income??? I am guessing its about half...

    31. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most people are of average or lesser intelligence"

      Really?
      Which HALF are you in?

    32. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      both have told me I must buy a new phone to make any changes to my contract


      Seriously? Whenever I've talked to Sprint or Verizon they're only too happy to make changes to my plan. Then I ask them if that restarts my contract - funny how they don't mention that up front. Then they always say yes, then I tell them to go screw themselves.
    33. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Most people are of average or lesser intelligence.
      I dunno, I'd say only about half the population has below-average intelligence.
    34. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      The word is: Legs.

      Now spread the word.

    35. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Not such a tiny nitpick. If you are talking about the population of the entire world, it is probably true with probability 99.99999999% or soemthing like that. You can do funny stuff with median in small sample spaces, but when your sample space get very large, you can say things with much more certainty.

    36. Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Fine, make it $10, $30, $30, $35, and $60. Now the median is still $30, but 40% make more, and 20% make less.

  3. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jobs, hard, ball, ....there should be a joke in there somewhere....

  4. Before we over analyze this.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember than no iphones have been sold yet. The analysis needs to wait until some sales figures are available.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Before we over analyze this.... by twostar · · Score: 4, Funny

      but we've already got iPhone Killers out there!

    2. Re:Before we over analyze this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, here in Montreal I can find items from htc, in stock, that do more already.


      http://www.htc.com/

    3. Re:Before we over analyze this.... by Chikenistheman · · Score: 1

      Over analyze on Slashdot? And I thought I was new here.

      --
      If a million people jumped off a cliff, it'd only be a short time until I landed in a nice soft mountain of bodies.
    4. Re:Before we over analyze this.... by bitserf · · Score: 1

      *cough* We use HTC phones here as development platforms for Pocket PC / Windows Mobile applications - All I can say is...Roll on iPhone, the phone's software *sucks*.

      Even if it doesn't support third party development out of the box - HTC phones are in no way realistic competition for the iPhone in terms of UI, not by a long shot.

    5. Re:Before we over analyze this.... by aarku · · Score: 1

      They'd be more like late term iAbortions at this stage.

  5. Hardball??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My god! When will the innovation at Apple stop? Ever? And how long until everyone else in the business world copies Apple and starts playing 'hardball' too?

    At least we Apple users can still be smug and remind everyone that Apple invented playing 'hardball'!

  6. Still Two-Faced by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card, and APPLE would provide simple, regional, downloadable settings (for carrier-based web proxies, etc.)

    Apple doesn't have to sell them through Cingular (AT&T) or anyone else.

    Bucking the system...my shiny metal ass.

    1. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying GSM, which means that you, like me, are European. You have no idea what kind of technological dark age exists here in the US. Basically, here you just pick up whatever someone has packaged for you, and that's it. No questions, no options, no rights. If you stray off the beaten path, you're suddenly swimming upstream, and you run into all kinds of trouble.

    2. Re:Still Two-Faced by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

      You are so right...I was high with anticipation when I first heard of it. When I started looking into it I found it to be crippled. I have a hard time with lock in. I have a hard time with supplier imposed limits. The iPhone is broken and it's not even released yet.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    3. Re:Still Two-Faced by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Unlocked GSM phones work perfectly well on T-Mobile.

    4. Re:Still Two-Faced by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      No the iPhone simply only works as its supposed to because AT&T (Cing) let them do what the others didnt.

      Once it sells like hotcakes you will see the rest of the GSM market bend over backwards to change their systems to allow for the iPhone to work right.

      Its not a distribution issue, its a service issue. Apple wanted it one way and they where the only company to say ok, and even there I bet you they kicked and screemed.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    5. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until Apple gets a foothold and has some leverage in the market. When Cingular needs Apple more than Apple needs Cingular, I bet Apple will move toward an unlocked phone to expand their market.

    6. Re:Still Two-Faced by Angelwrath · · Score: 1

      Oh please... sell an unbranded product? How many cell phone manufacturers do this? Get real.

      As for Apple and GSM - their decision to go US-first represents how poorly they understand the cell phone market. Europe and Asia represent a far larger and more sophisticated market for the iPhone, so the decision to start it in the US was short-sighted and will lead to a less successful product.

    7. Re:Still Two-Faced by Reaperducer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Locked-in? Yes. Crippled? Well, that's just FUD.

      How exactly do you expect Jobs to convince a cell phone company to alter a fundamental feature of its network (voice mail) to support an iPhone-only killer feature (Visual Voice Mail)? In this world you have to give in order to receive. It's why he's a billionaire and you're posting lies on Slashdot.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    8. Re:Still Two-Faced by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the lack of third party software. Why doesn't Jobs understand that hardware is merely an orifice to stick software?

      And the idea that Apple has so much clout is laughable. The carriers will sell whatever Nokia gives them. Apple is just the first willing to accept the risk and expense of reimplementing voicemail, which is why they had no choice but to start with a single carrier.

    9. Re:Still Two-Faced by brarrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude. Chill. Nothing in the press or from Apple indicates that the phones will be locked or that they won't work with another GSM provider's card. That said, the features co-developed (ie visual voicemail) will only work w/ Cingular unless is some standard is determined and enabled by other GSM carriers & apple supports it. Only selling through Cingular? Makes sense to me if they want to have the co-developed features and still prevent leaks. Have to give to get, and they gave exclusivity to cingular. I'm sure Jobs would prefer for it to be sold directly by apple but then they'd be just another cell phone manufacturer that may or may not work. The tight integration is the whole apple hallmark thing. It did buck the system, in a way. Just not the way *you* want. I'd rather have the features work as advertised vs the crap that happens now with every phone I've ever had & differing carrier implementation...

      --
      to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
    10. Re:Still Two-Faced by Tancred · · Score: 1

      What is it you think won't work on another GSM network? I know of one thing - the visual voicemail feature, which requires the operator's involvement. Maybe that'll catch on, but it's a fairly small thing. Got anything else?

    11. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many huge product launches with entrenched monopolies have you done? None?

      When you get this big you have to make some compromises, and Apple has to do this little exclusive carrier tango for the next 2 years to break into the market.

    12. Re:Still Two-Faced by paedobear · · Score: 0, Troll

      Have you considered the idea they knew that such a huge, expensive, closed device that looks like it will make a shit phone (and will be AWFUL for SMS) wouldn't do well in Europe/Asia without momentum? (It was so obvious it would fail in Japan they've not even paid lip service to the idea of launching it there)

    13. Re:Still Two-Faced by gutnor · · Score: 1

      Locked-in? Yes. Crippled? Well, that's just FUD. Locked-in == Crippled.
      I think you have been badly redirected from FreedomIsForTerrorists.gov
      We are on slashdot, a friendly community that value stuff like OpenSource, DRM-Free, Free porn and generally free everything.

      It's why he's a billionaire and you're posting lies on Slashdot. Ah! so you knew ??
      Oh you must be a troll, sorry, keep up the good work.

    14. Re:Still Two-Faced by geekboybt · · Score: 1

      This is true. However, if it were the case that the phones were 100% unlocked, a small sequence of events couldn't have happened: 1) Jobs & co decide they want new features that require carrier support, such as visual voicemail. 2) Jobs & co know their phone will sell just for that single Apple character being on it, so they go to telco X (Cingular this time, whoever else would fit as well) and say "Hey, I'll make you a deal, you help us develop these features and give us more control over the whole process, and we'll make it exclusive to you." 3) Cingular reps, drooling, "SOLD!" If the phones weren't locked to Cingular, or if they were available without any sort of service/contract, the special features like visual voicemail woudln't be possible, and they wouldn't have the control they wanted. It's just another bargaining chip.

    15. Re:Still Two-Faced by Tancred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Visual voicemail a killer feature? You're the first person I've seen get excited about it.

      Getting a cut of monthly revenues...now that's the kind of thing that makes a guy a billionaire.

      (And in reference to your sig, most atheists I know don't get angry about religion until it's used against them.)

    16. Re:Still Two-Faced by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple has said publicly that the phones will be locked, and indeed has described people who unlock phones as "bad guys".

      Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator. Reply to: Re:Still Two-Faced
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    17. Re:Still Two-Faced by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      im sure as hell there is going to be a huge deal with the broadband access (as in no extra plan) TFA basically spelled that one out there that its likely the only thing that will be charged for access is a normal minutes service plan with web being free. And I am sure there are other bells and whistles we havent seen yet.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    18. Re:Still Two-Faced by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You're saying GSM, which means that you, like me, are European. You have no idea what kind of technological dark age exists here in the US. You've got it backwards. GSM isn't technologically superior to CDMA. The advantage of the European networks is that they're all interoperable because of government mandates... but if those governments had waited a few years and mandated CDMA instead of GSM, you'd be even better off than you are now.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    19. Re:Still Two-Faced by Tancred · · Score: 1

      If AT&T is giving away a data plan in addition to sending money to Apple monthly, that's news to me. I didn't see it in the article and it doesn't seem like that would be necessary for it to sell. But anyway, my point remains that it's a GSM phone and will work on other GSM networks without the operator's involvement.

    20. Re:Still Two-Faced by DECS · · Score: 1

      A GSM phone wouldn't be much use in Japan, would it?

      www.roughlydrafted.com

    21. Re:Still Two-Faced by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      plenty of billionares are idiots, the fact that someone is a billionare doesn't impress me or make me think they are intelligent at all.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    22. Re:Still Two-Faced by c_forq · · Score: 1

      It's so great that an unlocked phone works on one provider!

      Seriously, what is the point of an unlocked phone if it only works with one provider?

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    23. Re:Still Two-Faced by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      ...if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card, and APPLE would provide simple, regional, downloadable settings (for carrier-based web proxies, etc.)
      Yeah, that'd sure win them an agreement with the cell carriers in the US. I'm sure Cingular would love to sell an unlocked phone in their stores, just as I'm sure they'd never intentionally screw with their network so said unlocked phone couldn't connect. Over 2 years of development, untold millions of man-hours, who knows how many millions of dollars, 200+ new patents ... That's a lot to put on the line just to appease the sensibilities of a few dozen Linux nerds.

      Just how naïve are you? This is the business world, not some paradise where He With The Most Principles wins. Apple has to deal with these people to get a cell phone to market, and they have certain deal-breakers. That's just life. You don't like it? Then I suggest you start a class-action lawsuit against the mobile phone cartel for their lock-in practices so that vendors like Apple can supply open phones without risking the wrath of the mobile networks and billions of dollars in research and development.

      Apple doesn't have to sell them through Cingular (AT&T) or anyone else.
      No, they would just have to sell them themselves and risk all the networks cutting their phone out of the service. Gee, an iPhone that doesn't work with any networks. Bet that'd sell a ton.
    24. Re:Still Two-Faced by Durandal64 · · Score: 1
      That's a bald-faced lie. Glenn Lurie, Cingular's president of national distribution, is the one who said that.

      From PC Magazine
      But in the end, Apple bent to Cingular with a multi-year, exclusive US contract for an entire line of different iPhone models, Glenn Lurie, Cingular's president of national distribution told journalists at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES 2007) today.
      ...
      While "there are bad guys out there that unlock phones," Lurie said, Apple and Cingular are taking unspecified steps to make the phone more difficult to unlock and use on other GSM carriers in the US.
      Please try and get your facts straight.
    25. Re:Still Two-Faced by encoderer · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Verizon is the only non-GSM american carrier. I could be wrong, but I KNOW that Cingular and T-Mobile are, and I think that Alltel and Sprint are, but I'm not positive.

    26. Re:Still Two-Faced by battery111 · · Score: 1

      The main problem with your theory is this: A cell phone company typically sells the hardware at a loss. Regardless of how ridiculously expensive you may think a particular phone may be, chances are the carrier is losing money on the deal. This is the reason for contracts. A cell phone company DOES make a profit on the service, and the contract is designed to allow that company to make an acceptable profit off of you by the end of your contract to justify the cost of doing business with you. This is why a 1 year contract will net the phone for X amount of money, and a two year contract will get it to you for less. Not saying the company doesn't come out on top in the end, but if you think $499 is expensive, you would probably shit yourself if you saw how much the phone would cost were it simply sold by apple for use on any carrier. I used to work for nextel years back, and saw some of the numbers on what they were paying motorola for phones versus what they were selling them for. It was close to the tune of $300 difference on average. As previously stated, the providers are running a business, and the purpose of that business is to make money. I don't like it much more than anyone else, but I understand it is a necessity in this particular industry.

    27. Re:Still Two-Faced by fishboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh yes, Apple, the multi-billion dollar sales wunderkind, somehow knows less about marketing than you do.

      Indeed, Europe and Asia represent a larger number of mobile users-- but along with that also stiffer competition and greater market saturation. And since when did Apple become a highly successful technology leader by selling the largest numbers of units? They have always had success in selling smaller numbers of units at higher margins with their ability to attract consumers more interested in quality and ease of use.

      Apple also has far greater market penetration (stores, resellers, distribution channels, existing user base) in the United States than anywhere else, and the lack of a sophisticated cell-phone market means there is room to grow, unlike elsewhere. As well, the need for a carrier partner like Cingular that they could leverage to provide a nation-wide 300 million person market is perhaps unique to the U.S. market.

      And, my marketing guru, let us never underestimate the need to actually understand your market, which Apple most certainly understands better in the U.S. than elsewhere, maybe even better than anyone else. Few predicted that the iPod would become the best-selling music player of all time, that the iBook would be the best-selling laptop ever, and that the iMac would become the best-selling desktop. Geez, and they pulled all that off in the stunted American market? Wow, someone should let them know how to run a business.

      Let me know how your new marketing consultancy is (un)going! Enjoy your billions, I know Steve Jobs the marketing drop-out sure does.

    28. Re:Still Two-Faced by encoderer · · Score: 1

      When Cingular needs Apple more than Apple needs Cingular?

      i think you're over-estimating Apples command in this market. Even if they reach iPod-like sales numbers (which that maybe could, but I'm skeptical), they won't have iPod like control in the market. The MP3 player industry basically didn't EXIST until Apple created the iPod. They say that pioneers get the arrows and settlers get the land. Well, Apple was the one big settler in that market. The cell phone market is already very mature. Motorola, for example, has been making them for nearly 30 years. It doesn't mean that it won't be an enormous success, but even then...

      Not to mention, Cingular is the largest cell phone provider. That would be like closing the Apple stores in New York, LA, and Chicago. It wouldn't KILL them, but it would be a disservice to their shareholders to ignore the largest markets.

    29. Re:Still Two-Faced by tiny-e · · Score: 1

      I don't think most carriers would have a problem selling unbranded phones that they can actually unload for at least what they paid for them. I used to work for a cellular carrier, and they took a loss on every phone they sold (hence the contract, cancellation fee, etc.). This was _many_ years ago -- but just for example, the Motorola Star-Tac (original version, 2 line display) COST the company over a grand per unit, and we charged accordingly for it. 5 years later, they were giving them away. Freakin' piggy-back Lithium Ion batteries were up at the $300.00 range at the time as well.....

      I'm sure that since carriers are really the main purchaser of handsets, they dictate to the manufacturers exactly what features they want enabled, what the icons look like, how many corporate logos you see when the phone boots, shuts down, etc. Which I'm sure they see as only fair as they are subsidizing the cost of the phone.

      I think Apple needed to pair up with a large GSM carrier to ensure the broadest customer base available to them. Cingular is huge (especially now). Even netting a small percentage of their existing customers will be a financial success for Apple -- and it won't hurt Cingular when a customer that's 1 year into their 2 year contract wants the new phone, because the customer is paying for the cost of the equipment (and re-upping for 2 more years).

      As a side note, I'm sure it won't be long before someone is able to hack into the phone and muck around in there... I'm hoping for the day that there's a VOIP/Skype application for it.

    30. Re:Still Two-Faced by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Worked great for me. I brought my Sony Ericsson K800i to the US with me. :) Made all the phone reps go "Ooh, ahh, holy hell, 3.2mp camera?!".

    31. Re:Still Two-Faced by hunterkll · · Score: 1

      Tell that to my alltel firmware on my CDMA RAZR V3m (Hurrah verizon service with uncrippled phone! OBEX oh my stick it to verizon and actually play mp3s off the Transflash card instead of WMA?! I have a mac?!)

    32. Re:Still Two-Faced by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Whilst your point about who said what is valid, guess what? Actions speak louder than words. Just because Mr Turtleneck left the carrier to say that (because everyone hates them already), let's try another play at emphasis:

      While "there are bad guys out there that unlock phones," Lurie said, Apple and Cingular are taking unspecified steps to make the phone more difficult to unlock and use on other GSM carriers in the US.

      I love the Apple spinsters. Most of the time the company should love you for the free marketing. The rest of the time you look like drooling zombie-like masses who've drunk the koolaid a long long time ago.

    33. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that Verizon is the only non-GSM american carrier. I could be wrong, but I KNOW that Cingular and T-Mobile are, and I think that Alltel and Sprint are, but I'm not positive.
      Sprint is not GSM. They seem to offer some dual-mode handsets for those travelling to GSM countries.
    34. Re:Still Two-Faced by arodland · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work with one provider, it works with hundreds, dozens of which are in the US (but only two of which have national scope)

    35. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you get this big you have to make some compromises, and Apple has to do this little exclusive carrier tango for the next 2 years to break into the market.

      Which is fine and all, but you have to expect people to call them out on it when they go and claim otherwise (kind of like Steve Jobs' essay about DRM, actually).

    36. Re:Still Two-Faced by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      You do realize that every cell phone maker on the planet sells unlocked phones as well as vendor-locked phones, right? Apple could very easily sell an unlocked version of their phone, they're just banking on ignorant sluts who think otherwise.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    37. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are so many athiests so angry and intolerant, especially at the mere mention of religion?

      Probably for the same reason that so many Christians get so angry and intolerant when you suggest that their security blanket of a deity may not exist.

    38. Re:Still Two-Faced by tsa · · Score: 1

      What's so special about that? I live in Europe and am constantly amazed by the retardedness of the American mobile phone services. You Americans always go on about how you have a free country, and how unregulated capitalism is good. And yet you have to put up with, amongst others, the crappiest mobile phone services in the world. Here in Europe we have organizations that have the power to make sure the playing field stays more or less level. I can buy a Nokia as Nokia intended the phone to be, with Nokia software on it, unlocked and without a subscription. I can then get a SIM-only subscription with the carrier of my choice. It doesn't really matter which one I take, they're all good because they have to compete in the same area.
      And it's not only mobiles: the EU is also working on breaking the MS monopoly. They already fined MS for quite a large sum of money, instead of telling them to 'not do it again'. New regulations for CO2 exhaust will force manufacturers to make better cars, creating jobs in the process. And I could go on for some time. What I want to say is: regulating the marketplace is not always bad for competition and the economy.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    39. Re:Still Two-Faced by eison · · Score: 1

      This stuff is easy to check with Google. Sprint is PCS. PCS isn't GSM. Their official solution for travelling to Europe is renting a GSM phone from them. Alltell gained some GSM in an aquisition, but doesn't actively sell it to customers; they are CDMA.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    40. Re:Still Two-Faced by paedobear · · Score: 1

      No, but a GSM phone that costs THAT MUCH is unlikely to do too well in Europe or Asia either. If Apple don't have a 3G phone coming in the very near future, they've fucked up.

    41. Re:Still Two-Faced by eison · · Score: 1

      Hm. Appears that PCS can be GSM, but in Sprint's case, it isn't - they run CDMA. PCS is specifically the frequency, 1900mhz, not the communication method used on the frequency. Doh. Anyway, original point remains - Cingular or T-mobile for GSM in America.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    42. Re:Still Two-Faced by demongp · · Score: 1

      The correct spelling is "Atheist".

    43. Re:Still Two-Faced by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "I love the Apple spinsters."

      Someone claimed that it was Apple who said that those who unlock are "bad guys". He was corrected with quotes which clearly show that it was not Apple who said it, but Cingular. Your response? "I love Apple spinsters". Huh? Fact is that the claim that Apple called phone-unlockers "bad guys" is 100% false, since it was Cingular that said it. There is no spin here.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    44. Re:Still Two-Faced by paedobear · · Score: 1

      How in the hell was that a troll post? It's expensive AND large for a phone, it's apparently closed, and SMS is the main application for mobile telephony in most of the world. As for the reaction to the iPhone announcement in Japan, it was stunning in it's absence.

    45. Re:Still Two-Faced by paedobear · · Score: 1

      Argh - forgot to mention. The US has a tiny tiny fraction of the global market for smartphones (or even just high-end phones) which should mean there's less customer buy-in to overcome. It's much easier and cheaper to enter a new market than a (somewhat) mature one.

    46. Re:Still Two-Faced by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      How did I "spin" anything? He said that Apple said something they didn't. People spin something when they want to duck the facts, and that's precisely what you're doing here.

    47. Re:Still Two-Faced by clonmult · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that Visual Voicemail wasn't a unique feature - theres a product doing the same job, with the same name, available for internal corporate voicemail systems, its not new in any way, other than Apple "convincing" the operators that its worthwhile.

      And it must have taken a fair bit of work - it will possibly cut revenue gained from having to repeatedly listen through all of your voicemail.

    48. Re:Still Two-Faced by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'm sure Apple could get Cingular to modify their network for something like random-access voicemail by selling an unlocked phone. Apple signed an exclusive contract. Cingular wasn't looking for "exclusive yet still able to be bypassed".

    49. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, we had both GSM and CDMA here in Australia, and CDMA is so much better than GSM that Telstra is _shutting down_ it's CDMA network.

      GSM is still going strong. Is CDMA better than GSM like inches are better than centimetres?

    50. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GSM is still going strong. Is CDMA better than GSM like inches are better than centimetres? No, more like the Zen M is better than the iPod. There are plenty of good reasons to use GSM, but technical superiority isn't one of them.
    51. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card, and APPLE would provide simple, regional, downloadable settings (for carrier-based web proxies, etc.)

      And it would dispense ice cream and print winning lottery tickets and turn into a flying car. Hell, if the damn thing can make phone calls, that's a victory over the US telecom industry...

    52. Re:Still Two-Faced by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      ...if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card, and APPLE would provide simple, regional, downloadable settings (for carrier-based web proxies, etc.)
      And what your iPhone can actually do then is up to the provider you use.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    53. Re:Still Two-Faced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we can call U.S. cell phones and not get raped on charges as the caller.

    54. Re:Still Two-Faced by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Visual voicemail a killer feature? You're the first person I've seen get excited about it.

      Must not know many people who get a lot of voicemail then.

    55. Re:Still Two-Faced by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      unless the services used by the phone require the operators participation. No one is saying that it wont work per say, just that your a moron to spend 500 dollars and miss out on a lot of the benifits of the phone like data and visual voicemail

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    56. Re:Still Two-Faced by Scudsucker · · Score: 1
      And the idea that Apple has so much clout is laughable.

      "The idea of the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series is laughable"

      0xdeadbeef on October 28th, 2004
      In case you aren't a baseball fan, the Sox won the series on October 27th, 2004. The point is that Apple has already proven their clout by getting Cingular to change their network (visual voicemail) and change the business method that every carrier in the U.S. runs under: disabling features built into the phone so they can nickel and dime their customers to death.
    57. Re:Still Two-Faced by DECS · · Score: 1

      By "costs that much" you mean the same price as the HTC TyTN, the LG Prada, and the Samsun F700, the phones compared to the iPhone in features?

      Or do you mean the miserable Motorola Q, that can't sell in quantity at a $99 price, can't do anything useful, and runs the miserable failure of WinCE?

      Pick and choose desperate/disparate facts and try to make the case that the iPhone won't blow away existing smartphones, then complain that Apple has a "monopoly" afterward. It worked so well for Paul Thurrott on the iPod.

      Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage

    58. Re:Still Two-Faced by Tancred · · Score: 1

      You're right, I don't. A simple missed call indicator is all that's needed most of the time. SMS is more common than VM and email will overtake them both.

      Still nice, but far from a killer feature. To be clear, I meant it to mean a prime motivator for a significant number of buyers. I wonder if anyone took a survey of people asking if they were excited about the iPhone and if so, what about it excited them. I doubt more than a few percent would have said visual voicemail.

    59. Re:Still Two-Faced by Tancred · · Score: 1

      But that's my point - Apple does not need the operator's involvement for any of their announced features except visual voicemail. I've taken my current phone to 3 continents and everything just works - voice and data. That's what worldwide standards like GSM, GPRS and UMTS are for. Have a data connection and lots of things are possible without any further involvement from the operator (like one of my favorites, Google Maps). Same thing at home - you don't need your ISP to "enable" each new application you want to use. Mobile operators are trying to keep control of all that to maximize their revenues, but as far as I know have used mostly marketing tactics so far (control over the phones they themselves sell), as opposed technical restrictions.

    60. Re:Still Two-Faced by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      the data uses Cingulars edge data network, so if you moved the phone to another service, it wont work.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    61. Re:Still Two-Faced by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Still nice, but far from a killer feature. To be clear, I meant it to mean a prime motivator for a significant number of buyers. I wonder if anyone took a survey of people asking if they were excited about the iPhone and if so, what about it excited them. I doubt more than a few percent would have said visual voicemail.

      Even if you get a normal amount of messages, I suspect visual voicemail is going to be one of those features that once you get used to, you never want to go back. Sort of like how your 15" monitor was just fine in 2002, but now that you have a 24" widescreen lcd you couldn't imagine going back. Or if you live in a cold climate and get used to having an auto-start in your car....

    62. Re:Still Two-Faced by Tancred · · Score: 1

      No, EDGE is a standard and it'll work wherever EDGE is available if implemented properly. Get an account from T-Mobile, they'll give you a SIM and your phone will use their EDGE network. Or keep your AT&T SIM and if the operators have a roaming agreement, it will also work (but cost you). Go check out a small mobile shop sometime and you'll find lots of phones from Europe and Asia and you can pop your AT&T or T-Mobile SIM in and it'll work.

      So something just occurred to me - since it's their first phone, maybe Apple didn't feel confident of implementing the standards without the IOT (inter-operability testing) labs of a big operator. That peace of mind would be worth something.

  7. Good guys bad guys? by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

    I guess the tone would indicate we are supposed to demonize Jobs for wanting control of his product rather than letting the Telecoms dictate what he could build. Point he was talking about a tiny market share so none of them had a gun to their heads. Cingular decided to play ball but they could have said no. Microsoft could have just as easily come in and said we're throwing ten billion at this the first year and expect in three years to have 10% to 25% of the market share. Play ball or we'll run you out of business. Asking for conditions to make a deal is called negoiations. Neither party was required to say yes and the final deal was mutually benificial. Where's the harm?

    1. Re:Good guys bad guys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point he was talking about a tiny market share so none of them had a gun to their heads. The question isn't market domination - it's market shaping.

      In some industries, like cell phone handsets and computer hardware, 5% of the market is huge because there are so many competitors.

      Other industries, like the MP3 marketplace, is unbalanced with a clear market leader. Obviously, Apple is able to use it's momentum in the MP3 market, to the point where Microsoft is having a very hard time making the grade.

      Now the wild card in the handset market is Apple. Apple has proven their abilities in the MP3 market, and partnered with Cingular, the largest cell phone service provider in the US. Verizon, on the other hand, has decided to continue with their current handset business model, which they find extremely profitable - at the expense of offering cutting edge technologies to their customers.

      Obviously, Cingular and Apple are the risk takers here. It is a high profile move, and the market will decide over the next 3-5 years if it was a good move. In the end, this will be good for Verizon customers, as Verizon customers will not let Verizon get any further behind on handset tech.
  8. Nah, they copied Microsoft by User+956 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    At least we Apple users can still be smug and remind everyone that Apple invented playing 'hardball'!

    What, throwing chairs isn't hardball?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Nah, they copied Microsoft by Svippy · · Score: 0

      Wait... I thought the throwing chairs episode didn't actually work out.

      But you might be write, given how they copied... and made it better.

      --
      Clicked pie.
  9. "wresting control away?" really? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    IIRC the messages at launch placed cingular as THE monopoly carrier for these phones, with no other options.

    You have to sign multiyear contracts to boot.

    I think they maintain not only control, but an iron grip on these phones.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  10. Power by nighty5 · · Score: 1

    Love the telco's or hate them, Jobs only "got away" with his demands purely because he has a rock solid "PR" product which will certainly sell by the litre. Regardless if the product is a stinker it will sell well, because its Apple.

    If anybody has half a brain they will stay away from this product for at least 1 revision - like most products, especially Apple.
    And yes I own lots of expensive Apple gear.

    It seems the Americans are getting screwed still on the contract, so Jobs didn't get all he wanted. The product launches back in Australia next year but it seems Telstra don't want a bar of it, will be interesting to see if it sells without a contract, I'd say it changes are high it won't.

    1. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth clarifying for anyone who may have read the parent the wrong way: the reason someone should stay away from a generation 1 Apple product is not because of contracts, or lock in, or unenlightened behavior, it's because first generation Apple products tend to be a bit buggy. Things are usually pretty solid if you wait three to six months before picking one up. (And yes, I've also purchased rather a lot of Apple equipment over the years, and repaired several thousand units on top of the several dozen I've purchased.)

      Changing subject back to the iPhone, it looks like it does very well what it was intended to do. I think it's a mistake to try to prevent people from installing 3rd party software on it. I hope someone finds a work around pretty quickly because, although it looks like an entirely fine phone & photo album, there's a hell of lot more I'd like to do with something in that form factor. Maybe Apple could at least provide a way to install widget-like (if you're a Windows Vista user, "widget" = "gadget") webkit based Javascript programs...hell, there isn't much reason it couldn't run most widgets directly. That would be a reasonable first step because it would give me a way to do 9/10 of the things I'd like to do, without sending Cingular in to catatonic shock at the prospect of people installing VoIP applications to use at a free wireless access point...which does scare the big wireless carriers witless.

    2. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to stay away from the iPhone for at least a few revisions, because the current one is ugly as sin. When the price comes down, it is made available for more carriers, and they figure out how to make it look like a phone I might look into it.

    3. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you stay away from the original Mac, too, because it didn't look like (what you thought) a computer should look like?

  11. Apple wants to screw us instead by _merlin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm a Mac user, and I'll say it straight up: Apple only wants to stop the carriers from screwing customers with the iPhone so that Apple can screw customers harder with it instead. So it doesn't have AT&T ringtone, messaging, and pr0n software. You're locked in with Apple software instead. They've already confirmed that you can't install your own apps. The phones are network locked, too, so I don't see how they're stopping the carriers from screwing customers, anyway.

    A carrier doesn't screw you too badly. I have a Hutch3 branded Nokia 6280. It was a lot cheaper than the unbranded version. It's network locked and has branded firmware and has a Hutch3 logo on the case. However, it can be unlocked and have the firmware replaced. Hutch3 will do this for me for free one year after I bought the phone. Also, I can install any Java MIDP application I write or download.

    The iPhone will be a joke until:

    • You can install your own apps on it
    • It supports UMTS/HSDPA 3G
    • It supports live video calls
    • It supports MMS
    1. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by JPMaximilian · · Score: 1

      As I recall Apple said that they don't want to bring down cingular's network because Joe Enduser installed a custom application. I don't understand why that would be an issue personally.

      --
      "I'll see you next time." - LeVar Burton
    2. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by _merlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I recall Apple said that they don't want to bring down cingular's network because Joe Enduser installed a custom application. I don't understand why that would be an issue personally.

      That's just Apple FUD. I have never had an app bring down any of my Java MIDP handsets (NEC e606, NEC e616, Sony Ericsson Z800i, Nokia 6280). The systems are designed very carefully to avoid the possibility of apps bringing down the RF stack or screwing with basic phone functionality. Maybe the iPhone OS is just poorly designed and it's easy for bad apps to bring down the phone.

    3. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      The iPhone will be a joke until:
      * You can install your own apps on it
      I see your point here. But I also understand the value of the controlled ecosystem which has been the hallmark of the Apple experience for years.

      * It supports UMTS/HSDPA 3G
      Already announced. Where have you been?

      * It supports live video calls
      That would be cool. Maybe with the already announced 3G version.

      * It supports MMS
      Do you have some kind of insider information that states that the iPhone won't support MMS? Every GSM phone I've owned back to 2000 has supported MMS. Why would the iPhone be any different? Or are you just trying to imply things that aren't true?
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    4. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by qzulla · · Score: 1

      OH MY GAWDZ! My JAVA app KILLED Cingulars network!

      Maybe they should work on that.

      qz

    5. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And that's just your phone, let alone a cellular base station, let alone the network. Jobs just wants you to feel and warm and fuzzy that you're getting the experience that Apple deigns to be "right" for you.

    6. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by paracha3 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I totally agree with your point of being able to "You can install your own apps on it". I am big fan of smartphones but despite liking iPhone i will NOT buy it because you can not run any software on it. Only apple made software or Mac softwares can be installed. Usually those softwares will be very few in the begining and the ones that are available will be expensive (live everything from apple). I can not imagine buying a phone, on which i can not run Opera Mini or many other Java MIDP softwares i used for productivity and connectivity. Nokia was my choice and will still be my choice until i can install commonly available softwares on iPhone. Waiting for Nokia N95! Paracha

    7. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      That's just Apple FUD. I have never had an app bring down any of my Java MIDP handsets


      I think what really keeps Mr. Jobs awake at night is that someone might port BitTorrent to the iPhone.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    8. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by namdanog · · Score: 1

      Who the hell uses MMS anyway? Like Jobs said - the killer app is the ability to make CALLS.

    9. Re:Apple wants to screw us instead by clonmult · · Score: 1

      I guess thats where Symbian has a major one up on every other mobile platform at the moment - there is a port of Bit Torrent available, so if you get yourself a Nokia N80, or any other WiFi enabled S60 handset, find yourself a hotspot and start downloading from p2p with your mobile phone.

  12. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by bwalling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like. Apple are the masters of the UI, and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI. 3G or not 3G, I'd like to have a phone that doesn't suck to use. At this point, I'd toss out all the current crap and go back to my Nokia 6160 - it did what I needed and stayed out of the way. While I like getting email, Blackberry and Windows have a long way to go before they get away from sucking. I hope Apple's UI is a step forward. I could give a crap which 'G' my phone uses, so long as I like using my phone.

  13. I'm fairly interested in how this turns out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work at Motorola and saw how much the handset makers really bend over backwards and do whatever the cell phone carriers want. I couldn't understand it. I thought that they should have been selling unlocked phones off their website, but they were too afraid to do so. Their employees-only section of the online store had unlocked phones every once in a while, but they usually disappeared quickly.

    I am encouraged by Nokia's flagship stores in the US. The phones you buy there are unlocked, but nobody is advertising this fact - not even Nokia. It's like an open secret or something. Apple's insistence on selling this independent of Cingular is a step in the right direction even though the phones are still locked. If this works out well, some of the big guys might start demanding these contract terms and then, hopefully, they will start selling them unlocked and tell the carriers to screw off if they don't like it. I think the key is Apple doing all the hard work convincing the American public to buy phones for full retail price.

    On another note, I saw the Motorola iPod phone while it was still a secret. Motorola tests their phones by giving them to employees that put their name into a hat and agree to write up a daily report for a couple months. You then use it as your main daily phone. The iPod phone was developed at a Motorola facility in a whole other city from us and we had very limited contact with those devs. All the secrecy involved made it seem, to us, that Apple was forcing Motorola to use that phone platform as a test platform to throw off anyone that managed to catch a glimpse of the phone when the testers used it in public. It was highly unusual to be "testing" a phone platform that had been on sale for a year. And at the same time there were other people testing the Moto SLVR and those people had been told that the phone hardware was designed with the iTunes software in mind (if I remember correctly, iPod phone version 2 was on the SLVR platform but was pretty much stillborn due to the poor showing of version 1).

    All in all, everyone I knew that had any sort of knowledge was puzzled by the way Motorola acted and chalked it up to Apple running the dev show. I really think that Apple intentionally crippled the phone from the start, but I have no proof or anything. Perhaps Jobs wanted to get us back for all the pain we caused Apple when our CEO forgot that we also had a semiconductor business.

  14. Ignores carrier upgrades by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card....

    And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network.

    What Apple gets by partnering is concessions in network development they would never get if they stood along against all other phone companies. That is the value that Apple brings to the table, making complex things easier and stuff like network improvements to handle random access voice mail are part and parcel of that. If the iPhone were just like any other MVNO phone, it would lose a lot of potential for true innovation in phone development.

    What will be really interesting to see is how the open Linux phones proceed, or if they run into roadblocks.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network.

      Of course Apple can support it on an unlocked phone.

      Believe it or not, there are many de-facto standards in the mobile phone industry. One of the most famous is the voice mail icon. GSM doesn't really standardize it. There are multiple ways to implement it. Most cellphones support most ways of implementing the VM icon. On some, if you buy an unlocked phone, you have to configure a hack or two to get it to work with some networks (I had to use a SEEM editor with my Motorola V635 to get voicemail icons working on T-Mobile USA.)

      Making an unlocked phone doesn't mean being forced to limit yourself to the documented features of GSM. You can implement whatever the hell you want, and let the carriers decide what they're going to implement.

      I'm fed up of hearing this bullshit argument. As if "Visual Voicemail" is worth the pain of locked phones in the first place. I'm not seeing how it's so "must have" that I'd be willing to buy a phone for $500 I'd have to throw away when I switch carrier.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by JakiChan · · Score: 0, Troll

      And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network. So Apple is embracing and extending voice mail and it's ok? Cuz when Microsoft does it y'all piss your panties in frustration.
      --
      "Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
    3. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card....

      And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network.

      Are there any other features that require Cingular on the iPhone? I hate to think we're justifying the decision to lock the iPhone on a single feature most people could care less about.

      What Apple gets by partnering is concessions in network development they would never get if they stood along against all other phone companies. That is the value that Apple brings to the table, making complex things easier and stuff like network improvements to handle random access voice mail are part and parcel of that.

      Voicemail is a very small part of the phone user's experience. The interface itself is a far larger one, and Apple went a long way for that by not letting Cingular add some garish orange and blue logoed interface to their phone. I have an unlocked Cingular phone I'm using on another network, and I've talked to my carrier and it seems there is no way to reload the phone with a generic or even T-Mobile branded version of the interface. I'll always have "Jack" bid me goodbye when I switch off my phone, as well as have "Cingular marketplace" ect icons that do nothing on my menus.

      If the iPhone were just like any other MVNO phone, it would lose a lot of potential for true innovation in phone development.

      The iPhone doesn't have to be part of a MVNO-initiative by Apple, they should just be selling it as a phone you plug your own SIM into. Ringtones, ect can be downloaded from Apple or anywhere else like people do now.
    4. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There's a HUGE difference between a feature not being enabled and a feature not being implemented. You honestly think that your SEEM edit amounted to you writing a machine-level implementation of the communications protocol between the phone and the voicemail server? There are entirely new kinds of data being represented in visual voicemail. In order for it to work, the voicemail system HAS to be able to let you GET the information visual voicemail requires. Heck, not even all voicemail systems record the caller's phone number, let alone communicate it to phone devices.

      If all you've done is SEEM editing, and you've never implemented a brand new application-layer protocol, then STFU. There are LOTS of things you have to take into account, foresight you have to use for later expandability (proposed future features: Notifications that a message is short with little noise or little hesitation, indicating either a hangup or a short "Hey it's John Smith, call me back" message; "urgent" message marking; hell, even some point in the future after processors get fast enough and sadhi processing gets good enough, a Gmail-like preview of the first sentence...). Some of these would either require that your first implementation be really well-thought-out and well-implemented, or that you replace the first system entirely.

    5. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      You can implement whatever the hell you want, and let the carriers decide what they're going to implement.

      And if none of them implement your features you've just designed a failure. By partnering with a carrier, they don't have to beg and plead for carriers to implement those features. A few years and a few million units later, it will be the odd carrier that doesn't support visual voicemail.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    6. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Microsoft, or Apple, or anyone else wants to take a sucky sucky system that's sucked as much as anything can suck for years, and make it better then I'm all for it.

      It's not like "voice mail" is some sort of open standard that anyone can implement and achieve interoperability with everyone else. That's what pissed off people when MS did it. They were poisoning something good. Current mobile voice mail systems are entirely crap, and Apple has convinced Cingular to help them build a better system.

      MS changed the way video game consoles work (Xbox Live, Harddrives) in order to make a better product. That's completely different from when they leave their CSS rendering buggy and screwed up for years in order to break cross-browser compatibility.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    7. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by Builder · · Score: 1

      Could care less
      vs
      Couldn't care less

      Which one of those did you really mean ?

    8. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network.
      I'd accept that loss. Visual Voice Mail isn't a killer feature to me... I'd much rather be able to buy an unlocked GSM phone and shop around for a carrier to use it on. Plus Apple's decision not to support 3G on a device so heavily geared towards Internet access is a horrible mistake. Jobs will be lucky if he sells 100,000 iPhones to extreme Mac loyalists, but the majority of people will continue to buy more cost effective smartphones like the Motorola Q or the Samsung Blackjack that give you essentially the same features without all the hype.
    9. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network. Can anyone explain why this has to be so? Why can't the phone automatically pick up the message, cache it to disk (along with caller id) instead of using the carrier's voicemail features, and then hang up when done? It could then be displayed like regular email. What am I not getting?

    10. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'd accept that loss. Visual Voice Mail isn't a killer feature to me... I'd much rather be able to buy an unlocked GSM phone and shop around for a carrier to use it on.

      Then buy one of the many other phones that support 3G and offer nothing special in the way of features. It sounds like the iPhone is not right for you.

      Plus Apple's decision not to support 3G on a device so heavily geared towards Internet access is a horrible mistake. Jobs will be lucky if he sells 100,000 iPhones to extreme Mac loyalists, but the majority of people will continue to buy more cost effective smartphones like the Motorola Q or the Samsung Blackjack that give you essentially the same features without all the hype.

      I'll just bookmark that comment for future reference...

      The iPhone has WiFi, otherwise it wouldn't be very useful for internet access, just as 3G wouldn't be very useful for more than the handful of the populace who currently has 3G access. That, and having a real browser, will be the reason people will be snapping them up quickly. You have no idea how much pent up demand there is for this phone, and not by Mac people either - by a world of people who have tried Treos and Windows Mobile devices and found them all lacking... very lacking.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    11. Re:Ignores carrier upgrades by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. In fact, Apple could make even more bucks by selling the service platform to other carriers. I don't buy the "completely reworked network" line. OK, maybe they had to upgrade their voicemail service platform. I'm sure TMO would be happy to do so too.

      IMO Cingular let Apple bitch-slap them around because Cingular wants their hands on a Sidekick-killer and they think the high-ticket iPhone will be it.

      --
      Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  15. iPhone by BGatesFan · · Score: 2, Funny

    The iPhone is a joke until it runs Windows Vista Mobile Premium, with Aero enabled holographic projector with 3D holo-conferencing. I'll hold out for the dellPhone.

    1. Re:iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL thats funny

  16. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like. Apple are the masters of the UI, and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI.

    I'll second that motion. The most common features I need are gazillion menus down in my Motorola phone. People keep talking about how iphone "lacks features", but feature O.D. is a Microsoft trait, not an Apple one. If you want quantities of features, regardless of how easy it is to use them, then Apple products are probably not for you.

  17. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by kosmosik · · Score: 0

    > Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like.

    So till it happens I will happly use my current smartphone, and then another, and then another... Speaking by myself I don't see *any* reason for me to want the iPhone.

    > Apple are the masters of the UI,

    I use Macs daily. Please don't BS me.

    > and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI.

    But you *belive* iPhone will have better?

    > 3G or not 3G, I'd like to have a phone that doesn't suck
    > to use.

    Today I did like lots of videocalls. I think it is very nice to see the other person while talking. Now can you do this with iPhone? Of course you can't since:

    1. It does not do 3G.
    2. It does not exist on market.

    So how we can *even* speak about 1 million (opposed to hundreds of millions of phones sold annually) some retarded phones that do not even exist revoluionizing cellphone market? Now this is disortion.

    Steve does get it with some devices but he totally misses it when it comes to a phone. I don't need my phone to be iPhoto or iTunes. My phone is fucking communication device. So first of all I need it to do all current stuff (like calls, videocalls, data transfer) robustly - iPhone does not do that. Secondly I want it to be easy to use and I don't really have problem with using my Nokia. Seriously.

  18. I knew it! by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Steve Jobs really is a badass! I played hardball once in high school; broke my leg, three ribs, and four fingers. I hope the engineers weren't too severly hurt...

    --
    The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
    1. Re:I knew it! by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Steve Jobs really is a badass! I played hardball once in high school; broke my leg, three ribs, and four fingers. I hope the engineers weren't too severly hurt...


      Yeah, but can he throw furniture?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  19. Part of the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Jobs has clearly established his pattern over the last couple of decades:

    Marketing.

    He plays fast and loose with the truth, and establishes a cult of personality surrounding extravagant claims which are largely repeated parrot-fashion by his groupies. Even people who like his style talk about the Reality Distortion Field (as if it's a good thing, no less).

    I have a mac. I run OS X. I've administered many macs, both pre-X and post-X. I've also widely used windows, linux, xBSD and many commercial unices (some of which you may not know of). It's just not that damn special.

    I also have worked quite a lot in the telco industry. While the industry leaders are usually a bunch of crooked backscratchers, the engineering side of the industry works under threat of substantial fines if they get it wrong, and high standards for success. If your solution isn't five nines, it isn't a solution. Steve Jobbie (for those of you who understand Glaswegian) can posture all he likes, and protest about the ignorance of others concerning the web, but when it actually came time to bring his own vision of technology to the forefront, what was it?

    A slick front end on top of an OS model which was outmoded by the mid-eighties.

    Underwhelmed doesn't begin to describe my reaction. The telco rajahs may be corrupt fatcats, and should probably be forced to remove consumer lock-in if you think that monopolies are a bad thing, but mister close-the-code telling the Baby Bells, who know plenty about how to interoperate on the strength of existing standards, that they don't understand the web is such pitifully weak flimflam that I can only blame them for falling for his snakecharmer act.

    If Steve Jobs came to me tomorrow, in person, complete with jeans and turtleneck, and told me that he had the hundred-dollar solution to all my future computing needs, I would demand to see it in writing, with a very hefty penalty clause written in. The only reason that I think Cingular bothered to cooperate with him was the hope that they might get a little marketing zip, and the knowledge that they have lots of other handsets to sell.

    Apple and Sony are looking more and more alike: overpriced producers of crippled but marketable crap for those who know no better.

    P.S. I think that a fair explanation of Steve Jobs's frantically hysterical assaults on the market is competition with Bill the Gates. He wants to be a bigger liar, and better marketer. It's like the clash of the titans. They make the last four US presidents look like honest men.

    1. Re:Part of the problem here by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      A slick front end on top of an OS model which was outmoded by the mid-eighties.

      One could say the same about Unix derivatives. New == Good is a fallacy.

      P.S. I think that a fair explanation of Steve Jobs's frantically hysterical assaults on the market is competition with Bill the Gates. He wants to be a bigger liar, and better marketer. It's like the clash of the titans. They make the last four US presidents look like honest men.

      Better to have 2 aholes who compete against each other than one ahole with a monopoly. They will each tend to catch each other's lies.

    2. Re:Part of the problem here by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      One could say the same about Unix derivatives. New == Good is a fallacy. I thought he was talking about Unix derivatives. OS X being the slick new interface.
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Part of the problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I was.

      Look at all the work that had been done in OSes by the time NeXT was even around. VMS clustering. Multics security model. Various IBM works in reliability, virtualisation, parallelisation. If you want to look at OS X, add Plan 9, Amoeba, grasshopper and more.

      Did they make anything new, wonderful and revolutionary?

      No, they put new lipstick on an old whore and pushed her out to shake her moneymaker for Pimp Daddy Jobs.

      Now, granted, unix isn't ALL bad. Its security model sucks, its hardware failure model sucks, but its API and networking both have earned credible praise. Jobs just didn't know any better.

      And then he told the world how awesome it was, and they sucked on the teat like good little cultists.

      Call me when he takes open source Plan 9 and gives that a beautiful and usable interface. If it's a natively programmable interface (the way bash, ksh and so on are), all the better.

      I would do it myself if I didn't think I'd fall foul of someone's patent-library-o-doom.

  20. Here we go again by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Cue the endless stream of orifice jokes... now!

    1. Re:Here we go again by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's nothing funny about it. Jobs was simply pointing out a hole in their business plan. Cingular was flexing its ring muscle and Jobs rectified the situation. Although I think he was being too anal about removing the logo, market penetration is key. He wants this product to succeed not only in the US, but in Europe and across the entire Pacific rim.

  21. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by avalys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.

    That is what will sell the iPhone. For every geek who looks at the iPhone and says "Bah! My free-as-in-speech, open-source, ugly orange phone with the stupid name (OpenMoko) will do all that and more! The iPhone is crap!", there will be 100 normal users who try it out and say "Goddamn, this phone is so much easier to use than the POS I have now. I'm buying one."

    I am by no means technically illiterate - I'm a computer science major at MIT. But I have long since lost my patience for fighting with badly-designed, badly-engineered, badly-implemented consumer electronics. I will be buying an iPhone when it comes out, because like all of Apple's recent products, it will 'Just Work'.

    It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices. As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  22. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah I agree, I'm on my third motorola flip-top and while each new version does get slimmer and smaller, it seems there's always compromises. E.g., on my newest one, its too easy for the quick buttons on the side to change the ringer type while the phone is in my pocket. Not to mention the fact that T-mobile puts their "download ringtones" links first in the sounds menu and there's no way to delete them... It annoys me because the phone has bluetooth so I just upload my own mp3s; I'm not buy any of their crap.

    If anybody can fix the UI disaster, its Apple. Sure it won't be perfect, but my guess is that it will be an improvement (if you want to pay for it). This whole situation reminds me of the way Apple dealt with the music companies, and we all know the DRM is a mixed bag, but it sure beats the competition for most people.

    Strangely enough, I'm a bit proponent of the "do one thing and do it well philosophy", but after seeing the keynote, I am impressed. A good UI makes the extra features useful, a bad one makes them annoying.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  23. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Reaperducer · · Score: 4, Informative

    It does not even do 3G. I know in US it is not much of a problem but here in Europe 3G is happening right now and don't even think about Asia.
    Well, Europe doesn't even get a chance to try it out until the end of 2007, and Jobs has already stated in front of thousands of people that a 3G version is coming. So.... what's your complaint again?
    --
    -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  24. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by bwalling · · Score: 1

    I use Macs daily. Please don't BS me.
    IMO, it beats Windows & Linux pretty easily. Also, compare iTunes/iPod to the rest of that market. The rest of that market is a joke, and for the most part, phones suck. The last phone I liked had a black & white interface and it didn't do anything more than make phone calls (the 6160). The rest of the phones have just been a mess. I've tried both Treos and Blackberries, and they make things too hard (yes, I can figure them out, but it should be easy - quit making things so annoying).

    Today I did like lots of videocalls. I think it is very nice to see the other person while talking.

    I'd prefer the person on the other end not know that I'm taking a dump while talking to them!
  25. why they sell through Cingular by MikeMo · · Score: 1

    It's been stated pretty clearly: implementing some of the things Apple wanted is a lot of work for the carrier. I think the "visual voice mail" is one of the bigger ones. Someone has to pay that freight, and a good way to do that is to offer a time-limited lock-in to the carrier, allowing them to recoup their investment and make a profit as well. Verizon turned Apple down, so we get Cingular.

    1. Re:why they sell through Cingular by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Don't let Jobs' hype fool you - "visual voice mail" is the only thing that required operator involvement. The rest is standard GSM functionality, spin notwithstanding.

  26. What does Apple get? by Tancred · · Score: 1

    I'd been wondering exactly what Apple got out of the deal. The only previous item I'd heard was the visual voicemail. And I don't consider the marketing and retail channel to be big gains for Apple against the exclusivity limitation they're giving AT&T. But monthly revenue sharing could make sense for Apple. I would guess that Jobs made it clear they could go operator-less if they didn't get a good deal.

    1. Re:What does Apple get? by torrentami · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that Apple created iTunes so they could sell iPods. The network, service, etc... is just a necessary part of selling these devices.

    2. Re:What does Apple get? by Tancred · · Score: 1

      My point is that the operator is not needed to sell the devices. Apple has the marketing and retail power to do it on their own. Motorola, Nokia and Samsung do not.

  27. Looking forward to no more crappy software by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am looking forward to trying the iPhone. In particular I'm looking formward to being free of the god-awful software that comes with most phones.

    Just this weekend I decided to check an ebay auction on my samsung phone. I noticed that Sprint offers a "ebay premium" program for download. Guess what? It's FIVE dollars a month. WHAT? I already pay for internet access on my phone, why should I pay another dime to get a better view of my ebay account? If the phones came with capable browsers then this nickel and diming wouldn't be possible because the phone would have desktop-similar browsing capability. I think the iPhone is going to go a long way to helping consumers.

    1. Re:Looking forward to no more crappy software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America you get screwed because the service providers cripple the phones you get. The rest of the world doesn't. I can view ebay just fine on the stock web browser on my phone. Blame Sprint, not the phone manufacturers.

    2. Re:Looking forward to no more crappy software by proxy318 · · Score: 1

      I just cancelled my unlimited internet access plan on my phone, because I rarely used it and because the internet on a cell phone SUCKS. From what I can tell of the iPhone, it's not going to be much better. They've got a 3.5" screen on it, but it's only 320x480? Yeah, that will be super for web display. A huge chunk of the web is designed to be viewed at 800x600. Nokia has the right idea with it's internet tablets - 800x480 in the same 3.5". Yeah, you'll still have to scroll down more than a computer, but at least for most sites, you won't have to scroll to the side as well. How obnoxious would that be? They could have at least licensed some small screen rendering tech from Opera, or figured it out themselves, but if you look at the demo on the iphone site, it's very clear that they haven't. And touchscreen keyboards blow. So yeah, I'm sure this will sell well, and there'll be a lot of people sporting these things, but if you're expecting some awesome internet experience from this thing, prepare to be disappointed.

      --
      Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
    3. Re:Looking forward to no more crappy software by nikster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Me too. I have a Nokia N73 - it has an excellent web browser, first time I have seen that. It also has a large and pretty screen. However, in all other regards, this phone has the same usability as the 4 or 5 year old 6600 I had before. Progress? We've heard of it. There's a long delay for bringing up most functions, Symbian/60 interface is clunky to say the least.

      I paid over $500 for this phone and it's a huge disappointment as a smart phone. As soon as I can get my hands on an iPhone it's a goner.

      The positive aspect is that it will hopefully wake Nokia et al from their slumber and do some real user interface research. Make it work, and make it fast. The basic Nokias of old were excellent in terms of user interface - much simpler of course. But symbian is a usability disaster. And may in fact be the reason Apple is doing the iPhone in the first place. Windows Mobile is equally bad but then no one expected any different.

    4. Re:Looking forward to no more crappy software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you try wap.ebay.com? I haven't really, but it appears to provide at least the basic functions, accesible even to very lmited phones.

  28. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's *all* very *interesting*, *Sir*

  29. lawyers at dawn by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And now the countdown starts on the two other phones cited in the WSJ article. It didn't fly under my radar the "boy have we patented it" line at the expo - and for those who want the recast, on the (free) download at iTunes of the keynote - at 1:30 (remaining) comes the clarifier of over 200 patents filed on the iPhone.

    Looking at the slightest cause for a lawsuit - "trade dress" it seems the other manufacturers are playing with fire already.

    For a fan of corporate porn (me), it's going to be fun watching the legal fallout from the clones (remember all the imac clones that emachine tried to sell within a year - that's absolutely nothing compared to the design theft that happens in cellphones all the time). The LG and the Samsung weren't mentioned to have touch-screen but - boy - the LG is really looking to open it's legal doors in "creating consumer confusion from trade dress" bigtime.

    Anyone want to place bets on when the first lawsuits from Apple start? I'm guessing August by the latest.

    1. Re:lawyers at dawn by clonmult · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, what grounds could Apple have for action against LG? The Prada phone will hit the market before the iPhone, will be available in more markets, and doesn't support multi-touch.

      If Apple do take legal action, then they're just getting engaged in a stupid pissing contest, it would be mildly ridiculous.

      For me, the LG looks massively better than the iPhone, I love the slick white on black UI, it just oozes so much more design cool than the iPhone could ever do.

      I'd love to know the patents that Apple actually holds though - I can't see how they can hold a patent on multi-touch, as its been around one way or other for a good number of years. Having said that, prior art seems to have very little influence on the issuing of patents.

    2. Re:lawyers at dawn by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      The more markets will probably prevent the other phones from being sold globally, but if they establish a not-for-sale suit in the US, that's one major market they could knock off the map. But of course they're pissing contests. But putting out the image of defending vigerously is something many companies are known for regardless of whether it's warrated. It's similar to trademarks where if you don't protect at all - you basically give up the trademarks by proxy. I don't think Apple's going to sit around and wait for their intellectual property (regardless of merit) to be invalidated by default.

      I errored on the time reference btw - the 200 patent speal happens at 1 hour 30 minutes elapsed, not remaining.

  30. Re:"wresting control away?" really? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Well, there is now a DMCA exemption to unlock your cell phone to connect to another carrier (assuming you have an open account with said carrier). Not having an iPhone myself (I like cell phones that let me talk to people, and not much else), I don't know the answer to this question: How long before another carrier reverse engineers whatever service is being provided, so that you can buy an iPhone and subscribe to another carrier's service?

  31. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMO, it beats Windows & Linux pretty easily.
    Like you said, this is your opinion and nothing more. I, and lots of other people, respectfully disagree.
  32. iHardball (TM) by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    Write me a check Apple!

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  33. innovation by fermion · · Score: 1
    It seems to me the difference is competition and the benefits of competition. Apple has been forced to innovate and pass the benefits and savings onto the customers. OTOH, the old AT&T justifiable charged customer for innovative service, but never seemed to pass savings onto the customer, and always seemed to be more concerned with charging for the privilege to make a call rather than charging for service rendered. For instance, even though addtional phones in a house incurred no additional load on the line, AT&T wanted the consumer to pay for the privilege to have a second phone, and I do not mean a second phone line.

    We see the same thing here. Instead of just treating data like voice, and charging a fix amount for fixed amount of data, the phone companies want to further monitized data, not in any way that beneficial to the customer, but merely to generate additional revenue, often at the expense of the customer. It is like MS, forcing everyone to MSN just for the privilege of using a browser that is already paid for through the acquisition of the OS.

    But Apple is really doing no different. Safari and iTunes is a brand that Apple needs to build, and if the mobile standard is Safari, then that will be a great feather in the Apple hat, and a great defeat for MS. The thing is, that this is healthy competition. Just like the AT&T breakup let us have more than one phone in our house, and brought long distance rate to criminally low levels, something like this, along with carry along phone numbers, could allow to buy phones, and then choose a carrier. Wow.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  34. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 0

    Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.


    Well, a 'good' user interface is very subjective, and even OSX has many carry over design flaws that were good in the 80s but are quite outdated today, yet Apple still sells the concepts as 'easy' or the 'best'. Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications.

    You also seem to have left out Windows Mobile in your list of companies that you seem to think don't know how to make a user interface. People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use.

    Oh, and Windows Mobile has been around for quite a while now, and with 6.0 pushes the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity far beyond anything Apple has promised for the iPhone.

    It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices. As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately

    It is people like you that forget the rest of us have been using Windows Mobile and even Motorola 'user interfaces' on our phones for SEVERAL years, playing our music, using our bluetooth, playing our movies, and also accessing the internet at near DSL speeds, with the latter being something the iPhone can't even do.

    If you are a CS major at MIT, then my faith in the next generation has been destroyed.

    If Apple is the God of user interfaces, then why do they continue to copy good ideas and try to promote them as their own, you know like the iPod?

    If Apple is the God of user interfaces and that is what you see as them doing well, why don't they actually create a new user interface paradigm, yet the new concepts for UI come from the OSS world and even MS. Remember this the next time you drag and drop text in a document, MS did it first.

  35. You can Expect Apple Education Orders to fall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Steve Job's open attack against the teacher's union,
    you can expect Apple education orders to dry up very quickly.

    Not to mention a Linux built PC classroom lab would cost half what an iMac lab would cost,
    and cost much less than a Windows 'Vista Ready' classroom filled with Vista Ultimate top-of-the-line machines.

    Open Source is the way to go for public education,
    any Non-Open source software is a waste of public education funds.

    The iPhone is typical Apple, big on flashy, big price tag,
    and outdone by a dozen Asian companies in less than 3 months. Meh.
    Cell Phone land is different than computer land, Apple will need a new model
    every 6 months just to keep up with what the competition will be producing.

    Attacking the teachers' union, one of Apple's largest customers. Brilliant!

    Big talk coming from a guy who never ran a school.

    Jobs should open his own school, if he thinks he can do better.
    Deliver results, not excuses.

    Steve - Put up, or Shut up.

  36. so if the companies are orifices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if the cell phone carriers are orifices, then the iPhone must be the phallus. Then what does that makes the consumer, the ovaries...or perhaps the eggs? Also, what thing or things represents spooge in all of this?

  37. Oh, sounds great... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 0

    So after the industry realizes the iPhone doesn't do anything that hasn't been done for years on other phones, and people realize they can't even develop for it, the new marketing hype is that Jobs has made it great because of the deal he made with Cingular?

    This sums up how I feel about it...
    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37 710

    The iPhone just gets better and better via the Marketing machine, maybe someday Apple will get back to actually creating something 'new', right now their best 'new' thing is an OS based on 1989 Next concepts. And the UI paradigm from the 1989 Next still outclasses OSX.

    So I guess Apple is radical and innovative if you date everything back 18 years.

    1. Re:Oh, sounds great... by seadoo2006 · · Score: 1

      woh, woh, woh....

      I know I haven't looked that closely at the iPhone, but it really doesn't have a user-replaceable battery????? Holy crap. Unless Apple devised some super-ultimate doesn't die quickly Li-Ion battery, I call waste of time and money. First, who here has actually held on to a cell phone for over 2 years, and secondly, who hasn't had a cell phone battery die and them and need to be replaced. If Apple seriously wants me to spend upwards of $500-600 on a cell phone, I better have some insane guarantee that the damn thing will last me at least 2 years, considering that is the contract's length. Otherwise, Apple or AT&T better have some amazing return policy for all the phones that only last an hour 18 month's in to the contract.

      I am not a Mac hater, quite the contrary to be exact. I am a videographer and photographer that uses his Mac G5 for hours on end. Great product for what I need and there is no comparison out there.

    2. Re:Oh, sounds great... by qzulla · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Linux.

      qa

    3. Re:Oh, sounds great... by DustyDervish · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Huh? Since when have we had an operating system with that type of functionality in that size of a package? The iPhone is NOT a cell phone. It is an operating system that includes cellular networks as a source for its network data requirements. The iPhone will host the first OS that places a brilliant interface on just another input/output stream called voice data. It's radical because Apple actually seems to be placing hardware innovation first. Your right, this tech has been around for years. Why is it that no tech company until now has bothered to try and do it right? They just do it well enough to get you to fork over your hard earned cash. Because of this we've spent the last few years with no innovation whatsoever. When companies place profit first and become monopolistic, they don't have to make anything better because they have already latched their parasitic teeth into your wallet. Now that Apple is in the game, they will HAVE to make their products better and cheaper, or Apple will put them out of business. Intel sat on it's ass until AMD started whipping them, now that they've seen the writing on the wall, we are back to getting some of the best processors ever out of them. The same thing will now happen to the cell phone business. If they don't get off their collective butts, Apple will run off with their cash cow. Just like the record companies, the cell networks are relics. It's about time somebody started taking advantage of, and making a profit out of, these outdated modes of business. Good for Apple. Good for us. Long live the new flesh.

    4. Re:Oh, sounds great... by cuzco · · Score: 1
      Maybe someday Apple will get back to actually creating something 'new'

      By this logic:
      - When are cellphone companies going to come up with something "new." Walkie talkies were invented in the 30's. Cellphones are just glorified walkie talkies with a longer range. What's up with that?
      - And what's all the marketing hype over phones that show video? TV technology has been around since the 40's. You'd think they could think of something "new" instead of copying a 60 year old idea.
      - And what about Intel and AMD and those transistor thingies. They were invented in the 40's. When are they going to actually "invent" something?

      Point being. There are very few radically new ideas almost everything is a refinement or combining of things that already exist.

      right now their best 'new' thing is an OS based on 1989 Next concepts.

      Lets see.
      - Steve Jobs started Apple (With the very important technical contributions of Steve Wozniak)
      - Steve Jobs gets kicked out of Apple, goes on to Start Next Computer.
      - Apple buys OpenStep (all that remains of Next) right around the time Steve Jobs returns to Apple.
      Seems more like the continuation of a vision rather than "stealing" the ideas from Next.

      Face it. Jobs really is an innovator. He was the key to both companies. If you live to be 500 you'll never have anywhere near the impact on the world that Jobs has.

      And the UI paradigm from the 1989 Next still outclasses OSX.
      Heh.

    5. Re:Oh, sounds great... by Grail · · Score: 1

      maybe someday Apple will get back to actually creating something 'new'
      Maybe Red Hat could do something 'new' too, instead of continually releasing a warmed-over corpse of an operating system that is almost 40 years old? Maybe Slashdot could do something 'new' instead of just doing the same thing day in day out. This reporting of stories gag is getting a little old after a couple of hundred years. Everyone's done it to death already. I guess there's no room in your world for refining an existing idea. or even combining a few good ideas and implementations into one package. As for the article you reference:

      According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he said that Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and ZTE and others will be coming out with devices that have similar functionality to the iPhone. Winn said that although the iPhone had a touchscreen, he did not believe it made the device revolutionary.
      That's like saying, "I think that Mac OS X is doomed, because Microsoft will be coming out with an operating system that has a windowed interface which users interact with using a mouse. Just because Mac OS X has a clean, elegant interface doesn't make it revolutionary." I'll have one serve of totally missing the point, to go!
    6. Re:Oh, sounds great... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      The iPhone is NOT a cell phone. It is an operating system that includes cellular networks as a source for its network data requirements. The iPhone will host the first OS that places a brilliant interface on just another input/output stream called voice data. It's radical because Apple actually seems to be placing hardware innovation first.

      Ok, you do realize that that iPhone is NOT a high speed device, and DOES NOT support high speed network access like 3G phones from other companies have for SEVERAL years in the US alone?

      If it is truly the 'network' device you describe, would you care explaining why it will barely do better than dial-up speeds? Especially when other phones have been streaming movies, are used to VPN into their office computers, and even getting Live TV and XM radio on them for several years now.

      (And this isn't even including the cell phones that do VoIP over a real high-speed network and bypass cell charges because they pay a flat data rate price for their near DSL speeds. People are using freaking things like Skype on cell phones, you do know this right?)

      My freaking Kyocera phone from 2002 had faster data rates than the iPhone, and yet you are arguing the iPhone is a divine network device?

      Are you kidding?

      PS, Paragraphs are your friend...

    7. Re:Oh, sounds great... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      rather than "stealing" the ideas from Next

      I NEVER said they were stolen, they were as far as I know, ALWAYS Job's ideas. I give him full credit for Apple and Next.

      The point I was making is that even some of the 'good' UI concepts and development concepts from Next are STILL not even used in OSX, and Jobs or his peeps had these ideas back in 1989.

      And many of the things that people think are cool ideas in OSX are from the 1989 Next as well, not something I would call modern or new or the cutting edge.

      I think the reason Mac users find them cool is they never had a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS before that could even handle RAM properly, with a good graphics subsystem until OSX, so sure a lot of OSX is really cool and new 'to them'.

      However, these concepts are VERY old to the rest of the computer users of the world.

  38. Food for Thought by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

    Apple decided to not take cash directly from Cingular, hence the lack of a Cingular logo on the phone. The phone is locked, so Apple has don't nothing for consumer. Yes, you should be able to get an iPhone out of contract and that means a cheaper monthly for the consumer (in theory). Is Apple the good guy? Not really.

    --
    - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
  39. Why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You actually do have them a bit worried. For the moment it is "Too hard" for the average person, but so were cell phones 15 or so years back.

    You might also want to consider Skype over an "all you can eat" data connection, especially if you make a lot of calls. Quite likely your terms and conditions forbid that, but if they get sticky a VPN client will stop them seeing what you are up to.

    Yeah, the cell phone business as we know it is doomed. It is only a matter of time.

  40. Alert the internet! by Trespass · · Score: 1

    Apple selling your dissent back to you at twice the price! Film at 11!

  41. Re:"wresting control away?" really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are perhaps from Europe somewhere, and are thus unaware as to how the open American cellular marketplace operates, so let me enlighten you:

    $0.10/ text message
    $0.99/ qvga-resolution "walpaper"
    $1.99 per 20 sec "ringtone", each
    $2.00 per 500 kB data transfer

    all this on a basic voice plan at $40/month x 24 month +activation fee +cancellation fee +credit reporting fee +tax fee +NSA wiretap fee

    In this regard, whatever Jobs offers is lightyears away of the competition. (oh yeah, and shut the hell up about how you get "Free Long Distance!!!11!!1" when you pay up $79.00 x 12 per year)

  42. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

    How nice your comment will look in 2-3 years when iPhone would prove very popular, maybe it will be just as funny as "no bluetoth, less space then a Nomad... lame"

    --
    "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  43. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by wanorris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    like all of Apple's recent products, it will 'Just Work'.

    You mean like the ROKR? Apple fans are always quick to disavow that one as though Apple had never touched it.

    It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices.

    Wouldn't a lack of 3G be a sacrifice in functionality?

    As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately.

    Well, you can buy a Pocket PC phone for $2-300 and drop in an SD card to hold music and movies, so I'm not sure what a Nano would bring to the party.

  44. Telstra (Australia) was recently on record ... by RonGHolmes · · Score: 1

    saying they don't think the iPhone is that great and probably won't sell that well. I think this is perhaps the Telstra exec being a little miffed at being treated differently and taking the fight public. I'll bet someone like Vodafone or Three will be the exclusive carrier in Australia. They can see the value of products like the iphone in getting more subscribers away from Telstra.

    1. Re:Telstra (Australia) was recently on record ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPhone doesn't do 3G in any form. So it would be pretty useless on Telstra's shiny new HSDPA 3G network. It also won't work on Three's network, so they won't be too interested either.

    2. Re:Telstra (Australia) was recently on record ... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Nor Vodafone's 3G network for that matter. Nor Optus's. EDGE was still born in Australia, rapidly usurped by EVDO and now by HSDPA.

    3. Re:Telstra (Australia) was recently on record ... by RonGHolmes · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression the underlying comms was able to be modified to suit the market it was going for. I'd heard that Steve Jobs already mentioned that compatibility was not an issue. The fact that Cingular only supports one form of technology is the only thing holding the iphone back in the US.

  45. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not. Actually, LG interfaces are pretty good. I've owned two LG phones and I'm getting another in a couple weeks. No complaints.
    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  46. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you'd bought the full, unlocked, version of the phone you have, you'd still have paid considerably less than the $500 needed for the Apple phone - and the T-Mobile branding, locked-out features, etc, would be gone.

  47. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by avalys · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "You also seem to have left out Windows Mobile in your list of companies that you seem to think don't know how to make a user interface. People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use."

    That's why Vista's UI is so great, right? I've seen it on several machines now, and it's a freaking mess.

    "It is people like you that forget the rest of us have been using Windows Mobile and even Motorola 'user interfaces' on our phones for SEVERAL years, playing our music, using our bluetooth, playing our movies, and also accessing the internet at near DSL speeds, with the latter being something the iPhone can't even do."

    Did you completely miss my point? I realize that these things are all technically possible on Windows Mobile and Motorola devices - the point is that the interfaces are lousy. I guess it's a matter of opinion - but I know a lot of people share mine.

    "If Apple is the God of user interfaces, then why do they continue to copy good ideas and try to promote them as their own, you know like the iPod?"
    Again, you're missing the point. What did the iPod copy, other than the idea of an MP3 player? The iPod was a success because of the user interface, and solid design that felt good in your hand. People like to whine about the marketing and 'cool' factor, but the iPod was popular long before the ads, and long before it became a fashion accessory, because of how good the UI was.

    "
    If Apple is the God of user interfaces and that is what you see as them doing well, why don't they actually create a new user interface paradigm, yet the new concepts for UI come from the OSS world and even MS. Remember this the next time you drag and drop text in a document, MS did it first."

    So, that's the best Microsoft UI innovation you could think of?

    And you don't think that the iPhone represents a new user-interface paradigm, with the multi-touch screen and all?

    "Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications."
    Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen. Compare this to windows, where you have to hit a target of about 20 pixels or so to select a menu. I suppose it might not be completely intuitive, but in the long term it is a much better solution.

    "If you are a CS major at MIT, then my faith in the next generation has been destroyed."
    I'm crushed.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  48. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    I know in US it is not much of a problem but here in Europe 3G is happening right now and don't even think about Asia. Oh, it's happening in the US too. Verizon has a lot of happy customers now that their EVDO rollout has made it out of the huge cities.

    It just isn't happening with Cingular or T-Mobile, which could explain Apple's problem. If they want to release a 3G phone in the US, it'd only make sense to release a CDMA phone, but then they wouldn't be able to sell it in Europe. This way, they can sell it to a bunch of Americans out of the gate who don't know any better, and then sell it in Europe once they have 3G support ready.
    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  49. Jobs to Cingular: Stick to your knitting! by Namarrgon · · Score: 2, Funny

    "You phone companies don't know nuthin' about proper phones, not like Apple does."

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  50. Understand the term by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Believe it or not, there are many de-facto standards in the mobile phone industry. One of the most famous is the voice mail icon.

    Your whole rant makes it apparent you don't understand what visual voice mail is. It's not iBiff. It's, well, voicemail that is visual - as in, you get to see a list of all voice mails you have currently waiting, and then you can choose to listen to any one you like, in any order.

    Now of course this is not a new thing to phones, IP phones in particualr. But the cell phone industry? They support nothing like it today. To actually be able to randomly access voice mail is, in 2006, apparently a startling concept to cell phone network providers.

    Making an unlocked phone doesn't mean being forced to limit yourself to the documented features of GSM. You can implement whatever the hell you want, and let the carriers decide what they're going to implement.

    And the carriers can laugh at you, and the feature is useless. Apple cannot realistically build a phone, and then release it "hoping" that all (or any) of the ideas they have get implemented. They have to make a polished device first, so that people wll actually want to buy one. If they did not the cell industry would seek to kill it fearing Apple would gain too much power. Far easier to play to the greed of a single carrier and get them to do what is needed.

    The Linux phone is basically taking the path you advocate. But I really do not think it would ever be in a position to dictate new network features the way Apple currently is by basically taking hold of a carrier and shaking some sense into a very stagnant industry who really doesn't understand device development. I say that as a user of various cell phones for years, which are uniformly horrible in day to day use. The Linux phone would eventually be better but it would always be limited in potential by what the carriers allowed. I am thinking the Linux phone will eventually be able to make use of the same features that are being added for the iPhone.

    Also Apple is not just supporting visual voice mail, but also push email from Yahoo and perhaps other things we have not heard of yet. Allowing Apple to help design user-oriented improvements to the network is something that eventually will improve all phones, not just the iPhone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Understand the term by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

      you don't understand what visual voice mail is. It's not iBiff. It's, well, voicemail that is visual - as in, you get to see a list of all voice mails you have currently waiting, and then you can choose to listen to any one you like,

      Most of the ideas that will sell the iPhone are device-side: the interface, the display, iPod compatibility, Safari -- to name the ones that are actually novel with the iPhone. The only novel network-side one I can see is Visual Voicemail. And what does that do? Feed you the CID and audio data stored on the voicemail service. Big whoop; today's PBX systems can do the same thing. It's only novel in the wireless realm, which is ever behind the curve in communications feature set, but gets away with it because it's mobile and portable.

      This has nothing to do with lock-in, except in that the wireless carriers love the idea so much that new paradigms often can't get introduced into their lumbering, telco-bred systems without it.

      Jobs is right about cellular not understanding modern communications. They understand traditional communications and only recently have realized that modern communications involves expanding beyond the realtime spoken word. They still don't grasp it, which is a big part of why they are behind the curve. And when they do implement it, it's usually with serious lack of foresight -- SMS, WAP, and MMS to name a few examples.

      Heh. Apple or someone should start a wireless company. I know it's probably been done before (i.e. a carrier that is tech-based rather than telco-based), but the market is ripe now. The wireless carriers -- at least in the US, for some stupid reason -- can't roll out the services people get from other channels (TV, broadband speed, PTT, etc.), because they have cycles that are far too long and bureaucracies that are far too thick.

      > You can implement whatever the hell you want, and let the carriers decide what they're going to implement.
      And the carriers can laugh at you, and the feature is useless.


      And that's again because the carriers are technologically aloof. But if you unlocked the iPhone, and TMO users started getting it, and realized that VVM didn't work, that would put pressure on TMO to buy the platform from Apple and support the feature. Which does a lot more in the name of improving cellular technology than lock-in ever will.

      --
      Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
    2. Re:Understand the term by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Yeah, and if a single largest browser developer could force the changes they want for shiny new features onto HTTP and HTML at their will, Internet would be sooo much better...

      Somehow, this reminds me of the old argument by Microsoft that not letting them excercise their monopoly limits their ability to "innovate".

  51. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by solevita · · Score: 1

    Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.

    You need to start using some better phones. I've had a lot of mobile phones (as we call them in the UK) but a landmark was the Ericsson T68 that I bought back in 2002. The user interface was awesome and remains to this day on the SonyEricsson phones I've been buying ever since. The UI honestly couldn't be any easier to use.

    I think the OP was trying to make was that this sort of phone won't be popular in Europe or the East because, although it looks nice, it's expensive and lacking features. It's also been mentioned that we won't be getting it for a long time - so it'll be even more out of date by the time it arrives.

    On the 12 month contract I've got with Vodafone at the moment, I was presented with a wide range of free, or very nearly free, handsets that all have wonderful UIs, all had 3G (this is important to me - I do a lot of mobile data), all had good cameras (taking pictures can be fun), all had bluetooth 2.0 (a novelty I'm told in the US) and many had WiFi.

    The competition's hot here - when I renew my contract people are keen that I don't go elsewhere - I often pay less than the advertised price for handsets, I often get a bunch of free accessories and additions to my monthly call/text/data quotas, there's often a load of half price stuff too. And the UIs are always great.

    It's cheap, it's good; there's a healthy competition in the European market place, my phone is very easy to use, even if I've drunk far too much. Why would I want to spend a lot of money, and be tied into a 2 year contract, on an iPhone? For a good UI? Errm... The world looks much better without Steve Job's cock in your mouth.
  52. They said you can buy apps by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jobs himself said, shortly after the iPhone launch, that you can buy applications for the iPhone - they will just be tightly controlled by Apple, probably similar to the games for the iPod today (and there is speculation games on the iPod were actually a was to test delivery of software via iTunes which is how the iPhone is updated as well).

    Frankly I also think users will be able to move Dashcode creations onto the iPhone, I would be very surprised if that was not the case. For me that eliminates a lot of the need for custom applications.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  53. Soft Underbelly by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    I think Jobs figured he could best manipulate the loosened moving ground under the feet of Cingular. With AT&T swallowing them, it seems like managment might have had a "nothing to lose" frame of mind when they agreed to Jobs' terms. I'm sure the tone amongst the execs at Cingular and AT&T was not too unlike an episode of "Survivor" where alliances and rivalries can make or break your chance to stay when it comes time to let people go.

    Say what you want about Jobs—but he's no dummy. I'm pretty sure he was eyeballing the players and muttering to himself like that kicker in Waterboy:
    "Who's it gonna be? Who's it gonna be? Who's it gonna be? [Chuckling] 0h, yeah. There's my bitch."

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
    1. Re:Soft Underbelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs figured he could best manipulate the loosened moving ground under the feet of Cingular. With AT&T swallowing them Cingular's parent bought AT&T, and are merely switching their name because the AT&T name has more name recognition than Cingular.

      There have been no notable rumors of management shake-up or operational changes at Cingular.
    2. Re:Soft Underbelly by catdevnull · · Score: 1

      Well, confused as I am about the details about who swallow who, I'm certain that in these types of mergers/acquisitions, everybody is nervous about their jobs--rumor or not.

      I still think Jobs took advantage of the internal shiftings and was able to get his way.

      --

      I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  54. Odd by king-manic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ken Kutaragi: Our product is so good we want the whole industry to bend over backwards, kiss our ass, then take a good old anal reaming and for our customers to pay $600 for our product.
    Slashdot: Arrogant asshole.

    Steve Jobs: Our product is so good we want the whole industry to bend over backwards, kiss our ass, then take a good old anal reaming and for our customers to pay $600 for our product.
    Slashdot: OMG!!1! you are such a massive visionary. please come here and ream me right now.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    1. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the turtleneck. Gotta be the turtleneck.

    2. Re:Odd by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      The difference is, only one of those two executives actually has a product that good.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    3. Re:Odd by Grail · · Score: 1

      Me too!

      Ken's product: yet another games console that hosts a range of titles such as driving games, golf games, shoot'em-up games... you know, same thing just more pixels.

      Steve's product: a well-presented mobile phone/wireless communicator that actually makes it easy to place phone calls and use the features that the phone network provides (eg: conference calls, no more accidentally hanging up on your customer when you want to talk to the product manager).

      Yes, the iPhone is (going to be) that good.

      Mind you, I'm in the "I'll wait for $400, and no reaming thanks" crowd. I will be holding out on buying a new phone or PDA until the iPhone (or similar device) is available in Australia.

    4. Re:Odd by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

      Very funny. Although let me point out the difference in case people take you seriously. Consumers were happy with the old video game system before microtransactions and crap became commonplace. Cell phones currently have the microtransaction bs, and consumers are not happy with the current industry.

    5. Re:Odd by nikster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a sligtht difference in the products though.

      PS3: Thinly veiled attempt to shove BluRay down the masses' throat. Would be $300 cheaper otherwise.

      iPhone: Phone people actually want to use. First innovative phone since the color screen. Same price as other smart phones.

    6. Re:Odd by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Yeah, try replacing "the whole industry" in Ken Kutaragi statement with "the consumer".

      Or perhaps you can tell us how Ken is trying to change the whole industry?

    7. Re:Odd by Cederic · · Score: 1


      iPhone : A fucking telephone. Forgive me for having a phone with more features in my pocket right now.

      It's got shitty resolution for its size, touch-screens on phones are prone to accidental button presses (so you will hang up by accident), it lacks any sort of keyboard (good luck sending text messages at any speed, let alone using it as a PDA - ok, many PDAs also lack keyboards; I hate those too) and it's fucking expensive.

      If it succeeds then it's a triumph of marketing and hype. Frankly I don't care - just another idiot tax.

    8. Re:Odd by king-manic · · Score: 1

      The guy who is #1 can charge higher licence fees and they demand that developers learn to program for the cell. As for the consumer, you get what you pay for in general. Blu-Ray is an attractive feature to people like me with excess cash and a HDTV without a cable provider with HD content.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    9. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...touch-screens on phones are prone to accidental button presses (so you will hang up by accident)..."

      Perhaps you missed the part where it has several sensors to detect things like your face to prevent this exact problem from occuring.

      "...it lacks any sort of keyboard (good luck sending text messages at any speed..."

      It's got a software keyboard with predictive text and programed with the ability to guess double key presses, so it will be MUCH faster than typing with the number pad of most phones, and easier to hit the software "keys" than plastic buttons. "Keys" will be physically larger than those tiny plastic keyboards that come with e-mail phones and more easily configureable for other languages and uses than those static plastic keyboards found on other devices.

      Also, The cost of this device is right in the balpark for other devices that have "similar capability" (on paper) but far less usability in reality.

      If this device succeeds, it will because it provides features that are easier to use (empowers the user) and provides more desktop like web browsing expierence (also better for the consumer) at a competitive price which equals more value for the money to the end user. Perhaps not a bad deal after all.

    10. Re:Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And which product is actually for sale, which one is vaporware?

    11. Re:Odd by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Personally, I've never had a problem with the sentiment, "We want to make our product so good that $600 will seem cheap." That's great. As a matter of fact, I can afford to blow more than $600 in a year for some gadget, and the real question is, "Will it be worth it?"

      The problem I have with the PS3 isn't necessarily the $600 price tag, nor is it the attitude that Sony *wanted* to make the product so good that I would rush out to spend $600 on it. The problem that I, personally, have with the PS3 is that I haven't seen anything so far that would make it worth $600. My impression so far is that the Wii is more fun to play for much less money.

      On the other hand, if I could buy an 8GB flash iPod with a built in phone and the ability to fetch my e-mail, would that be worth $600? Sure.

      See, $600 isn't, in itself, "too much money". It depends on what product you're talking about. $600 for a mansion in NYC would be cheap, while $600 for a stick of gum is expensive.

    12. Re:Odd by king-manic · · Score: 1

      My Motorola Q does the majority of the things the Iphone does. with the exception of having a touch screen. perhaps the iphone will render web pages better or let me do play lists more easily but Q was $299 CND with a 3yr. The Iphone is ~$650 CND with a 3yr if it ever comes to canada. For a PS3 I get a PS2 replacement, a blu-ray player, a console that plays my favorite franchises (MGS, FF, ect..), and a mini media center for $650 CND. It is also ~$650 CND for the Iphone. Again the Wii does some of what the ps3 does for less. IT's got good franchises (metroid, mario, zelda) but lacks some of the functions(blu ray, media center, PS2 BC, MGS, FF etc..). And while the Wii is a fun party machine. The games so far have all been rather hsallow for me. Fun when you have non gamers but it doen't hold me on my own. I still play way more ps2 games like disgea 2. the Wii may get these eventually but right now the PS3 has more value to me. And my Q has enough functionality that upgrading to an Iphone is it not een a thought.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    13. Re:Odd by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's not terribly relevant, but I've used a Motorola Q. And various Palm Treo models, lots of different Blackberries, and other assorted smart phones. They're all terrible. The interface is bad, and unresponsive, too. Trying to use them as MP3 players is absurd.

      You can like it, though. I'm not claiming to know that those devices are bad for you, for your purposes. I'm just saying that I've tried to use them and found them to be utterly unacceptable. I'm guessing that Apple will do a better job.

      As far as the PS3, I just haven't seen anything so far that makes it worth the money (for me). For a couple hundred dollars less, I could get a 360 and have very similar capabilities to the PS3. I can get the Wii for less than half the price, and though I acknowledge that it's not quite the same thing, it will keep me entertained with fun games.

      I guess my point is just that value is relative to what you need and what you get. If you really want a blu-ray DVD player and high-end graphics, a Wii won't be worth much. If you just want to play some fun games, the PS3 will seem like a rip-off. Likewise, if you want Exchange connectivity and Windows Mobile applications, the iPhone will look like a hunk of junk to you. If you want your iPod/phone/e-mail in a small, easy to use device, I suspect the iPhone will be very satisfying.

    14. Re:Odd by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Again it is personal preference. Wii games are short term fun. I need some more depth. 360 doesn't offer the game styles I like. The GBA/DS and PS2 do. If the Ps3 follows in the same foot steps as the ps2 it will justify my purchase. The Iphone if a non product until it comes into my area. My Q does the things I need and it is responsive enough(and for me free with a $0 month plan). The 360 and xbox have 4 games between them that has ever even remotely interested me. the Wii is my #2 system after my Ps2 then Ps3 once I finally go down and get one. My ps2 is startign to stutter (first run, almost 6 years old) and I still have about a dozen games still in the plastic. So the PS3 is a natural upgrade. The BC locks me in. Ditto with the DS.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    15. Re:Odd by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      There are actual working iPhones in existence right now (Steve Jobs' personal cell phone being one of them), so it's not quite vaporware.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    16. Re:Odd by Grail · · Score: 1

      Shitty resolution for its size, even though it's using the highest resolution LCD available on the market at the moment? Prone to accidental button presses despite the proximity sensor technology and other measures taken in the UI design? Lacks any sort of keyboard even though it turns the whole screen into a keyboard when you need it?

      Yes, it's just another idiot tax, but you've apparently already paid your idiot tax - you have a mobile phone, don't you?

  55. You can install third party software via Apple by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Jobs did not say you could not install any software. Jobs said that he thought you'd be able to buy software for the iPhone but it would be tightly controlled, probably to a very select few third parties.

    However, look at what software people usually buy. The smart phone owners I know are mostly buying software to replace the software that comes with the phone! Apple has a good track record of actually bundling software you would want to use instead of replace.

    Add on top of that constant web availability and I'm not sure custom apps are as mandatory a feature as they once were.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. When have poor products ever done well? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regardless if the product is a stinker it will sell well, because its Apple.

    The Cube?

    Case closed, on your argument.

    People buy Apple products when they work well. Over the past few years Apple has done a good job at producing products that work well for people. It's amazng how sales follow when you build something that works.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:When have poor products ever done well? by nighty5 · · Score: 1

      Its not case closed, maybe I should rephrase to say:

      Regardless if the product is a stinker it will sell well, because its Apple and because it appeals to a wider audience

      The reason why iPod has been so successful is because they brought out a good feature product that everybody wanted. I'm not going to tell you how many technical issues iPod have because there is MANY. Google for them. But people still buy them.

      The iPhone will hit a consumer market with great depth, and being because its Apple it will do well.

      What I am excited most about this phone is that it will incorporate most of the services and features present in my iPod, and fundamentally will provide updated bug fixes online seamlessly which no other serious phone manufacturer has done so far. My Motorola phone has so many bugs, and I'm running the latest rom which is now hit unmaintained status. This is definitely something that appeals to me for Apple's PDA.

  57. Can't remember the last time I switched carrier! by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    Making an unlocked phone doesn't mean being forced to limit yourself to the documented features of GSM. You can implement whatever the hell you want, and let the carriers decide what they're going to implement.

    The general way of making a deal with another partner is "you do this for me, and I'll do that for you". Apple got a percentage of the monthly profits, complete say over the look-and-feel of the phone, goodies like the 'visual voicemail' you deride, the most-widespread cellular operator, and for that, they had to tie the phone to the network and give 5 years exclusivity for that model.

    I also think you're missing the point of the visual voicemail - you can't just implement it on the *phone*... you need carrier-support to do this, or you'd have to download every message and store locally - yuk.

    And the idea of "configuring a hack" isn't something that sits well with Apple DNA - the phone will "just work". That's pretty much one of the selling points for the vast majority of people who don't know how to apply a "hack" to a phone, and don't want to know, for that matter.

    In any event, from your comments, it looks as though an iPhone isn't for you. So don't buy one - I just don't get why you're so upset over it. You're obviously not the target market... I do wonder if every time an advert comes on TV for something you don't want, you go on such an invective-fuelled rant though. Must be fun around your house!

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  58. 3G is not good for the US by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Edge was a way better choice than 3G for the iPhone - in the US.

    Here most people would be using the more data intensive features around WiFi connections which will be way faster than 3G.

    For the rest of the time, you need a decent level of connectivity that will work in as many places as possible. 3G is still not deployed in a number of major metropolitan areas of the US. I can't get 3G where I live, but I can get Edge, and there are a lot of people who can say that.

    Apple also said already they would consider different needs for other markets. So for europe, 3G support makes far more sense and will probably replace Edge.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:3G is not good for the US by clonmult · · Score: 1

      Still not necessarily a good choice though, why not hedge their bets and just come straight out with GPRS/EDGE/3G support, and swap between them as appropriate.

      My N73 seems to cope quite nicely - 3G works well in the major cities (I work in London) and quite well in outlying areas, and it drops to EDGE, and then GPRS when required.

      Having said that, EDGE really doesn't seem that good, especially when you're used to 3G data speeds. WiFi support would be nice though, but I've got my PSP for that ;)

  59. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by naspime · · Score: 1

    People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use. Please don't try and defend the Windows Mobile interface as being "easy to use". Sure it works and can do some powerful things...but it's not very intuitive, it's cluttered, and a pain to use for the average user.

    --
    Spam is the essence of evil.
  60. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

    _Mediocre_ as compared to what? Show some stats and pricing. You clod, what's your story? Apple crapped out a black box overnight and picked a price from a hat? Why don't you look at the damned features and compare to similar smart phones in the same price range.

    Look at a N73 MSRP $699.
    Or a N80, MSRP $799

    Now look back at the iPhone expected MSRP $499 & $599

    MEDIOCRE?

    I'm sure they're all fine phones, but FFS show some respect, the iPhone as it is now is a pretty good damned shot at the competition.

  61. Rumours by hack++slash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it true that the iPhone will only have 1 button?

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Rumours by mkiwi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides the touch-screen controls, the iPhone should at least have 2 buttons- the wake/sleep button on top and the home button on the bottom. I can't remember exactly, but there also may be controls for volume.

    2. Re:Rumours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and it's to bang your head against for being stupid enough to spend $500 for a phone.

    3. Re:Rumours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse than that. No buttons! (imagine using this touch screen for email 5 times a day >>)

      I hope Apple isn't so stubborn they refuse to add a thumb keyboard on a later version, because other than it not being usable as a business device, it sure looks cool.

  62. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, a 'good' user interface is very subjective, and even OSX has many carry over design flaws that were good in the 80s but are quite outdated today, yet Apple still sells the concepts as 'easy' or the 'best'. Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications.

    Translation -" I know nothing about UI design, and are pleased to advertised the level of my ignorance."

    You also seem to have left out Windows Mobile in your list of companies that you seem to think don't know how to make a user interface. People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use.

    Translaton - " I have no imaginaton that an interface could actually be better than Windows crammed into a tiny screen. "It was good enough for granpa, it's good enough for me!""

    Oh, and Windows Mobile has been around for quite a while now, and with 6.0 pushes the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity far beyond anything Apple has promised for the iPhone.

    Translation - "6.0 offers a lot of cool advanced features, which people have already been using for some time via third party add-ons because it takes so long for Microsoft to design a good UI. I will acknowledge Visual Voicemail as a cool feature when Microsoft supports it in Windows Mobile 9.0"

    It is people like you that forget the rest of us have been using Windows Mobile and even Motorola 'user interfaces' on our phones for SEVERAL years, playing our music, using our bluetooth, playing our movies, and also accessing the internet at near DSL speeds, with the latter being something the iPhone can't even do.

    Translation - "The "Rest of Us" is .03% of the whole phone market, but we are so uber cool because we know how to pair devices that no-one else matters and therefore do not exist"

    If Apple is the God of user interfaces, then why do they continue to copy good ideas and try to promote them as their own, you know like the iPod?

    Translation - "I did not realize the iPhone had a totally different interface than the iPhone, and to me multi-touch is what I do at home in bed with my Windows Mobile device".

    If Apple is the God of user interfaces and that is what you see as them doing well, why don't they actually create a new user interface paradigm, yet the new concepts for UI come from the OSS world and even MS. Remember this the next time you drag and drop text in a document, MS did it first.

    Translation - "I am annoyed that Apple not only copies UI elements but improves on them, so I will prtend they are UI pirates and bring nothing to the table."

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  63. The evolution of approach by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean like the ROKR? Apple fans are always quick to disavow that one as though Apple had never touched it.

    Oh, Apple touched it - and found out what happens when you let tradition cell-phone design take place. Not even Apple can come up with a usable device through the process. This of course dispells the notion that people buy things just because APple is involved with them - people buy Apple devices when the work well, not when they suck.

    Notice they were able to learn from thier mistake, which is what the article is really about.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The evolution of approach by clonmult · · Score: 1

      The ROKR was NOT a bad phone, and its main handicap (100 songs) was set by Apple, not Motorola.

      The E398 that the ROKR was based on still has some of the best loudspeakers of any phone out there, and overall sound quality is still on par with the best (decent, solid bass, which seems to be lacking on almost every other phone I've tried).

      It was a good phone, and even though the UI was confusing, it still has the best shortcut system of any phone out there. Heck, thinking about it, I may drag the old E398 out of the drawer and bring it back into use. Its battery life was pretty good too ....

  64. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

    how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications.

    Do tell us, how many?

  65. Re:"wresting control away?" really? by qzulla · · Score: 1

    And how long before the law suits start?

    3...2...1...

    qz

  66. Unlocked Phones -- Nearly EVERY Maker Does... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Who makes unlocked unbranded versions of nearly all of their phones? Well, Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, Siemens, Sony Ericsson, Panasonic, HTC and Palm...off the top of my head. But, they're only like 95% of the market, so, who knows.

    Sure. Some of their phones are only available branded. If you want a Blackjack or a Dash -- you're going to have to get a Cingular branded or TMobile branded phone. If you want an unbranded Samsung i607, or 320n instead of a "Blackjack" then get one. Same goes for any HTC Excalibur that someone rebadged and sold carrier specific.

    www.myworldphone.com -- if you want one of a hundred resellers of unbranded unlocked phones.

    1. Re:Unlocked Phones -- Nearly EVERY Maker Does... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Who makes unlocked unbranded versions of nearly all of their phones? Well, Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, Siemens, Sony Ericsson, Panasonic, HTC and Palm...off the top of my head. But, they're only like 95% of the market, so, who knows."

      Huh? I have NEVER seen an unbranded Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Siemens, Sony Ericsson etc. Every single one of them are clearly branded by the maker of the phone. Every single Nokia-phone I have seen has had "Nokia" written clearly on it. So what on EARTH are you blathering about "everybody makes unbranded phones"? Are you talking about branding by the operator? Well, iPhone is not branded in such way either, so what are you talking about? Seriously? Only thing iPhone has is the Apple-logo in the back of the phone, so it's in fact LESS branded than Nokias and the like. Nokia and other advertize the maker of the phone right in front of the phone, whereas Apple does it in the back of the phone.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:Unlocked Phones -- Nearly EVERY Maker Does... by sevenofnine · · Score: 1

      i don't think you mean branded like everyone else in this place :p

    3. Re:Unlocked Phones -- Nearly EVERY Maker Does... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      So, what DO they mean by "branding"? I know what branding means, and if someone has some weird definition for the word, maybe they should share it with the rest of us?

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:Unlocked Phones -- Nearly EVERY Maker Does... by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      At the risk of stating the obvious, "branding" = "phone service provider has customised the phone". this can range from a simple logo silkscreened on the casing, to a fairly extensive customisation of menus, adding logos to the phone's OS, and/or removing certain features (such as the ability to play MP3 ringtones, transfer files via bluetooth, etc).
      All handset manufacturers make "unbranded", vanilla handsets. You can buy them - they're just not cheap or common as the market would prefer to buy branded, discounted handsets.
      In the UK you can get unbranded phones without a contract from lots of sources such as http://www.expansys.com/ - but check the non-discounted prices versus what you'll see in the highstreet.
      There's a thriving backstreet industry in debranding phones in the UK - for Windows Mobile devices there are communities that provide "clean" ROMs that are faster, have better GSM performance and add features - see http://www.xda-developers.com/ for details.
      Oh, and for those pesky silkscreened operator logos on the casing, rubbing it with a sugarcube will remove them without scratching the phone - mask off holes in the casing first with sticky tape!

    5. Re:Unlocked Phones -- Nearly EVERY Maker Does... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "At the risk of stating the obvious, "branding" = "phone service provider has customised the phone"."

      That's what I thought it means. and iPhone has none of that branding. So I fail to see what the fuzz is about.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  67. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    Well, a 'good' user interface is very subjective, and even OSX has many carry over design flaws that were good in the 80s but are quite outdated today, yet Apple still sells the concepts as 'easy' or the 'best'. Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications.


    Contrary to popular opinion, "Good User interface" does not mean "Identical to what Windows users are accustomed to." Dissociating windows and applications makes as much sense today as it did in the '80s. Mimicking the MS Windows paradigm is not a path to superior user experience.

    People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use.
    TheNetAvenger is making a ridiculous assertion. Cancel or Allow?

    If Apple is the God of user interfaces and that is what you see as them doing well, why don't they actually create a new user interface paradigm, yet the new concepts for UI come from the OSS world and even MS. Remember this the next time you drag and drop text in a document, MS did it first.Yup. If they did it first....I guess that would mean NeXT did it zeroth. Sure.
    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  68. Re:"wresting control away?" really? by qzulla · · Score: 1

    Sorry. I just did a search for cell and/or phone(s) in the DMCA. No mention. Please quote your sources.

    qz

  69. My Dream Cell Phone... by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would have 12 buttons, and make phone calls... and would be waterproof, have a huge freakin battery, and survive a fall from a low flying airplane. Why are no companies making the kind of cell phone I want? No MP3 player, no alarm clock, no text messaging, but broadcast a signal strong enough to stop your grandpa's pace maker, and heavy enough to be used as a meelee weapon in a bar fight!

    I want the civilian version of this:
    http://home.att.net/~wd0giv/Phones/ta838.jpg

    1. Re:My Dream Cell Phone... by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you're looking for is a Motorola i560. "The i560 meets rigorous US Mil Specs for dust, shock, vibration, high and low temperature, low pressure and solar radiation." There's a "Maximum Capacity Battery" option with 5 hours of talk time or 130 hours of standby.

      It's available for Nextel.

    2. Re:My Dream Cell Phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are either too young or have a faulty memory. The old bag phones had a
      3 watt transceiver with a huge battery. Now they were analog and the towers
      were none too frequent so driving up I405 in SoCal meant you were guaranteed
      to have to redial every two to three minutes - but it sure had big buttons to
      dial with - or were they rotary dials ??

    3. Re:My Dream Cell Phone... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I want the civilian version of this:

      Back in the days of analogue mobile phones one of the DEC field service engineers who used to come to our site rigged up a bag phone out of a car phone and a 12v gel cell. It worked pretty well but I wouldn't expect it to be dropable.

      There might be a market for tough cases for COTS phones. Heavily padded. Extra charge for kevlar.

    4. Re:My Dream Cell Phone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ill tell you why. You and the other person are the ONLY ones who want a phone that only makes calls. EVERYONE else wants a camera phone that does 50 bazillion things.

  70. If he takes a page from Japan... by mattr · · Score: 1

    Then the high speed access or HDSPA if they have it will only work with iTunes...
    That is how it seems to be happening in Japan. Ultra high speed but all you want plans only work if you access through iMode (pay services) and high speed access is marketed as the way to get music and video. (well in addition to digital terrestrial broadcast, though from what I've seen it's not so impressive content-wise).
    If you want to access an arbitrary Internet site you are going to the poorhouse. I want to get an HDSPA card for a new mac laptop but it might just be too expensive.

    A nice choice is the little PHS Willcom WinCE phone with real pushbuttons. Not as big a keyboard as other models in the line and the screen is tiny, but it has a GUI and apparently you can add arbitrary apps. PHS network is cheaper too.

    Call me when the iPhone comes with an all you can eat IP connectivity plan at hdspa speeds and embed a limited range airport in it (say within 10 feet) and give me real pushbuttons, and I'm there!

  71. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    The iphone is $499 and $599 with a 2 year plan that likely needs a high cost data plan. The other phones do not need a plan at the price.

  72. Re:Can't remember the last time I switched carrier by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    or you'd have to download every message and store locally

    Not optimal, but hardly painful. Using today's codecs, I could get several minutes of VM (which is far more than you're likely to get) into under 100kb. Even on an EDGE network, that data transfer could be as little as four seconds. Less, when you factor in that unless it's due to non-connectivity (ie if you go silent in a meeting, etc), it's going to flow in as received, not as a batch.

    100kb? So? My last two phones came factory (not provider) bundled with 512mb of memory.

  73. Re:"wresting control away?" really? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
    AC, you're getting fucked by your cell co if you pay some of those rates. But I suspect you know that.

    I pay $19.95 for unlimited data. And I use multiple megabytes a day.

    My partner and I pay $20 for unlimited text messaging (for each of us).

  74. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    "Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications."
    Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen. Compare this to windows, where you have to hit a target of about 20 pixels or so to select a menu. I suppose it might not be completely intuitive, but in the long term it is a much better solution.

    You did an amazing job of missing his point. The comment had zero to do with "being able to hit the menu bar", it had to do with the one menu bar changing "context" based on the application. It's actually quite an odd concept to grasp... you're working away on an app, you change focus, you see the app window come to fore, so there's a change there - that's noticeable. Nothing has really changed (especially with commonality of many application's menus, made even worse by 'cohesive UI guidelines') on the menu, so you don't immediately notice that the menu has changed.

  75. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
    What crackpipe did you smoke?

    Translation - "The "Rest of Us" is .03% of the whole phone market, but we are so uber cool because we know how to pair devices that no-one else matters and therefore do not exist"

    Hint: most phones these days come with at least 512mb of memory. Sure, not iPod sized, but expandable to 2GB+. Sony has the W810, a pretty accomplished "walkman" phone. Nokia has the N91, with 4GB of drive space, a neat interface, and a 3G phone. And so on, and so on and so on. That's not to mention the global PDA market.

    Another hint: most people know how to connect their phone to their PC. It's called mini USB. Know how I know they know how to do this? It's the same method as an iPod.

    By Steve's own estimations of "1 million phones sold in a year" (which is a stretch, I think), the phone that'll have .03% of the phone market is the iPhone, not the rest of us who *gasp* have phones that can do everything the iPhone can (yeah yeah visual voicemail *yawn*), and in many cases, have had for quite a while (N91 came out a year ago, W810 more than).

  76. If you want evidence to bolster Steve Jobs' claim by mcg1969 · · Score: 1

    then watch the Steve Jobs keynote at MacWorld. Or more specifically, fast forward to 1:34:35 and watch Stan Sigman, the CEO of Cingular Wireless. Two things struck me. The first was his admission that they entered into the contract with Apple without ever seeing the device. I mean, damn, that's a sales job. And the second was my general expression that he just seemed like such a fish out of water at MacWorld. The way he consulted his note cards, his stilted delivery, his tilt towards marketing over technology, and so forth. Mr. Sigman is an old-time phone company wonk, and it showed.

  77. uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For what it's worth.. I can text message my carrier, and get a text message back that is a list of all voice mails I've got, date+time, number, etc. All I -then- have to do is text back whether I want to listen to the voicemail (their machine will dial me and play it back), delete it, etc.

    Now - granted - it's not in a fancy interface. That said.. it's text messages. It's a very basic operation. This can easily be done through a front-end that -does- implement a fancy interface.

    It's not new, and definitely doesn't require some major change to the networks. It'll be more efficient that way, for sure, but that's about the extent of it.

    Of course, even better is that I can just GPRS onto the web, log into my carrier's website, and manage my voicemails from there. Now all of a sudden I can do it from my phone, from the library, from my home... anywhere.

    visual voice mail... *yawn*

    1. Re:uh... by AlgoRhythm · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a gigantic pain in the ass to me. Maybe if I were receiving dozens of voicemails per day it would be useful, but it would take me longer to text than it would to just call and listen through the handful I have. I think it is safe to say that looking at a list of them and clicking is far simpler and more intuitive than texting back and forth.

      And I don't know what GPRS web service you are using, but I haven't found it particularly tolerable in terms of speed.

      These are better than nothing, but I don't think that they are comparable to the demo of the iPhone's voicemail system

  78. Switching masters is not freedom. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    ...and replacing them with a different proprietor? That's, at best, just switching masters, not freedom.

  79. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    I think you read that John Gruber post a few too many times ;)

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  80. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
    Oh, speaking of priceless, this is fucking priceless!

    Comparing the unlocked Nokia equipment to the heavily operator subsidised and rebated iPhone! Oh, so funny! What do you think Cingular gave in order for that exclusivity deal? Hint: a little more than "visual voice mail". Let's hunt for some subsidised Nokia prices, shall we: Hey look, Cingular sells the E62. Price: $349. Do you pay $349? Fuck me! You don't! You pay $99!

    Face it, you screwed up here. Thinking that there is not going to be some visible or invisible carrier rebate, as there is on every single other phone on the market because it's the all-holy iPhone is laughable is bad enough. Using that to try to deride other phones as being more expensive than the iPhone when you deliberately quote the unlocked, unbranded MSRP is even worse.

  81. Math error in post. by ucblockhead · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Exactly half of people make less than the median income (by definition) and since intelligence is on a bell curve, exactly half of people have average intelligence or less.

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:Math error in post. by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Exactly. :-)

    2. Re:Math error in post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Exactly half of people make less than the median income (by definition) and since intelligence is on a bell curve, exactly half of people have average intelligence or less.

      Alice has an IQ of 120 and earns $10
      Bob's is 100 and $12
      Cindy's is 80 and $8

      More than half have the median income or less, and more than half are of average intelligence or less.

    3. Re:Math error in post. by dwpro · · Score: 1

      not necessarily.

      consider 3 numbers
      2,3,4.
      what is the median?
      3
      how many have average or less?
      2
      how many have average or more?
      2
      who is more pedantic?
      me.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
  82. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by avalys · · Score: 1

    I understood his point just fine - my point was the usability (as opposed to intuitiveness) benefits of placing the menubar at the top of the screen make up for the slight chance of confusing new users.

    OS X makes his point a little less valid as well, since every application's name appears as the first item in the menubar.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  83. Re:If you want evidence to bolster Steve Jobs' cla by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because it's strictly inconceivable that he might say such a thing, knowing that it might impress the Appleheads into saying "wow! i gotta have one!" (even more so), meaning more customers for Stan. No! He wouldn't do such a thing! Hint: MacWorld, and most other corporate presentations, are heavily scripted, not the place where a candid "admission" is made by a CEO that his publicly-listed company entered into a multi-billion contract without being very sure of every last detail of the transaction.

  84. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by avalys · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another hint: most people know how to connect their phone to their PC. It's called mini USB. Know how I know they know how to do this? It's the same method as an iPod.

    Yes, and how do you transfer files to it? Either you drag files manually into weirdly laid-out folders, or you have to use some kind of flaky, slow, ugly application the manufacturer had some moron throw together, with bitmapped graphics all over the place.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  85. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by avalys · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me say this again - it doesn't matter that your phones could technically do everything the iPhone can. The point is that the iPhone will make it simple, straightforward and easy.

    It's like you're saying that all cars are the same because they can all get you to your destination, will keep you hot or cold, and will let you play the radio. Never mind how fast they accelerate, what the fuel mileage is, how well the AC works, how good the speaker system is, how reliable it is. A Kia Rio and a BMW 335i _technically_ have many of the same features - why would anyone buy the BMW?

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  86. Re:"wresting control away?" really? by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  87. People who believe Jobs are idots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that is happening is going from carriers that lock down your phone to Apple doing it. Any one who believes otherwise is an Apple fanboi that has his head too far up Steve Jobs' orifice.

  88. Steve Jobs is a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why people even still talk about him amazes me. He is basically an emotionally unstable and fiscally irresponsible version of Bill Gates. Steve Jobs is responsible.. for the fact that Apple will never regain the foothold it once had in computing. The guy has made nothing but negative contributions to Apple including driving away key employees and getting himself fired in the process.

    So when the man speaks.. the world need not listen. Lets just see what iPhone can do. I'm very confident it will not do well it's first or 2nd generation. Like MS's first xbox Apple will have to use their money and industry leverage in other areas to keep the product alive until it can really be profitable. The big challenge here is simply keeping up with the cell phone market, which has to be one of the faster moving tech markets out there, especially from a global perspective.

    Is the iPhone really a good enough phone to justify it's costs. Set aside all the fancy extras, because that's what they are, extras. Do people really want a simplified PDA for more than the cost of a PDA? Why didn't apple go right for the Pocket PC market instead of constantly selling their platform as a closed appliance. What the fuck are they doing anyway? Since Tiger and the Ipod Apple has done shit and this is probably their biggest opportunity since before Windows 3.1 was released. The video Ipod and the newer Ipods are all more or less dying markets. Trendy and effective gadgets yes, but a reasonable additions to a persons life.. not really. Plus they offer little to no quality features, but rather rely on the idea that everyone wants a all in one super gadgets that performs at less quality than competing solutions and costs more.

    Face it a portable DVD player is where the smart money is. And.. while the iPod is a nice self contained device. An audio player that plays mp3z on DVD is more practical an probably will last longer. The iPod is a trick. It should be emulating a media type, but instead it IS a media type. I do like the Zune's sharing feature much better because of this proble. While it's 'kewl' to have a 30 gig iPod, most people don't have music collections that large and if you want video get a DVD player with a MUCH larger screen for far less money.

    Unless your gadget must be as small as possible the iPod is a bad choice as are any devices that store music on proprietary media and/or formats. Something like a mini HD DVD player would be far better for the market because you could pop it out and load in another 20 gigs in a second or share the discs with your friends easily without tedious data transfers and such. Plus then instead of having retarded ideas like stereos that iPods plug into thereby using the finite lifetime of your overpriced portable gadget as a replacement for swappable media driven stereo. This might not matter if iPods were known for their longevity, but more realistically they are known for their recalls and Apple's strategy of denial when it comes to fulfilling warranty support.

    Songs on discs always made more sense. Thats why I bought a walkman style cd player that simple reads mp3z. It cost 20-30 bucks at walmart and I use it just as much as my GF uses her iPod but it costs like 1/10 the price and my music is organized better since it's by CD and her is always being reshuffled.

    Basically I've come the conclusion that for value and practical use iPods are really only a smart buy when they are absolutely necessary such as for someone who must listen to music while jogging or working out at the gym where you can't have a normal stereo and/or the walkman is too bulky since your moving around a lot.

    However if you recall back in the caveman days we all used to deal with those massive walkmans by slipping them into a pocket or such. Sure maybe you can't slip the walkman into your belt, but thats not safe for the iPod and you look like a total dork anyway.
    Most people I've seen who get ipods.. mostly kids stop using them after a couple months or maybe a year or two. In todays work

  89. Extend with nothing to embrace by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So Apple is embracing and extending voice mail and it's ok? Cuz when Microsoft does it y'all piss your panties in frustration.

    The difference is that Microsoft takes an exsting working standard, and adds a proprietary microsoft bit to it to make it slightly different and slightly incompatible. It's usually not a great advance over what exists already, it's just enough to provide lockin.

    Whereas what Apple is doing is overhauling voice mail. There's nothing there to extend really. And when they are done the carrier will have an ability implemented that OTHER phones will be able to make use of, rather the exact opposite of lockin.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  90. Possibly... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Are there any other features that require Cingular on the iPhone? I hate to think we're justifying the decision to lock the iPhone on a single feature most people could care less about.

    i would bet that there are - I'm not sure but the Yahoo push-mail may be one of them as well. I am also thinking if there are not others already there will be as Apple comes up with other ideas to make phone use easier.

    Lockin was a sad nessecity to allow innovation to proceed at a reasonable pace in the cell phone carrier market we have today.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Possibly... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      i would bet that there are - I'm not sure but the Yahoo push-mail may be one of them as well. I am also thinking if there are not others already there will be as Apple comes up with other ideas to make phone use easier.
      Lockin was a sad nessecity to allow innovation to proceed at a reasonable pace in the cell phone carrier market we have today.

      Ah, I had forgotten about that. Yahoo-specific push mail might involve a business partnership between Apple, Cingular, and Yahoo. But push mail itself can be done other ways, Blackberry service runs over Cingular networks. The iPhone has IMAP access abilities, this would be a great time for Apple to begin supporting idle state on their .Mac mail service.

      The question is, is the iPhone an attractive device without features that require Cingulars network? Internet access, Multitouch, Google Maps, integrated Video iPod, these are all features people would love that would work equally well on any high-speed date network. There is no reason the iPhone couldn't be available to all, with some special features requiring Cingular's network.

      Apple didn't take things as far as they could here.
  91. Expandible vs. usable by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes phones today come with lots of expansion capability - that only the most technical users make use of.

    They also can sync via USB or even bluetooth to computers. Yet people hardly sync anything over this connection. The more advanced among us actually make use of address books and contact lists.

    But wouldn't it be great if many more people could make use of a lot of storage and computer syncing through an interface they use today? iTunes phone syncing means that a lot more people will be able to access features that really only the most technically inclined people use today.

    Now here's the real aspect of the phone that will propel popularity, yet is hardly mentioned - the dock. In a world rife with iPod friendly accessories, no one feature of the iPhone is quite as immediatleey useful as the standard iPod dock connector it sports. It will be able to charge in the car with chargers people already own. If that isn't a first for amobile phone, I don't know what is.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Expandible vs. usable by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 0

      Yes phones today come with lots of expansion capability - that only the most technical users make use of.

      They also can sync via USB or even bluetooth to computers. Yet people hardly sync anything over this connection. The more advanced among us actually make use of address books and contact lists.

      But wouldn't it be great if many more people could make use of a lot of storage and computer syncing through an interface they use today? iTunes phone syncing means that a lot more people will be able to access features that really only the most technically inclined people use today.


      Considering that both my non-tech aunt and mom have Motorola phones with TransFlash cards and they are always putting new music on their phones and even video clips.

      It is as simple as dragging the song to the card and dropping it. My mom even knows how to hit the 'Send to Bluetooth' and hit accept on her phone to copy songs.

      And people act like it takes special software or a degree in engineering to do simple crap like this? No wonder two buttons on a Mouse confused so many Mac Users. OMG.

  92. Well.. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I will admit that was a source of inspiration for the whole reply.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  93. Do you see that post? by mp3phish · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It is the look of a mac fanboy rationalizing getting himself raped in the ass by his idol. Everyone look, isn't it sad how they live?

    --
    Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
  94. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by kisielk · · Score: 1

    You also seem to have left out Windows Mobile in your list of companies that you seem to think don't know how to make a user interface. People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use.

    Oh, and Windows Mobile has been around for quite a while now, and with 6.0 pushes the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity far beyond anything Apple has promised for the iPhone. As someone who's developed on a product that used Windows Mobile (and still owns a few units...) I can't help but laugh at this. Windows Mobile is anything BUT easy to use. "Pushing the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity", yes, perhaps the envelope of poor design and badly implemented functionality...
  95. Still things are worse in the US by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    Most of europe had gone to an all digital network in the early 90s - I believe you can still find areas of the US that still only have analog service. Nationwide 3G is still a pipe dream.

    The US services do seem considerably cheaper. We pay about US $90/mo for two lines, 1000 "any-network" minutes, free calls to other T-Mo subscribers, unlimited edge data, unlimited hotspot access and subsidizied phones. Each of our phone numbers is also a local number which is free for any local landline to call.

    When i last lived in the UK the per-minute costs were stifiling (particularly to other cell networks) and data was pretty expensive too.

    1. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "The US services do seem considerably cheaper."

      I don't think so. US seem to be about those deals where you get certain amount of minutes for fixed amount of money. And on the surface they might seem "cheap". But what if you use more minutes than there are on your plan? Those extra minutes cost quite a bit, no? So the price goes up. And what if you use less minutes? You still pay the agreed sum, so the price per used minute can get very high.

      So those package-deals might be "cheap" only if you use exactly the amount of minutes that are included in the plan. Use less or more, and the price goes up. And are incoming calls still counted against your plan? I honestly don't know.

      Granted, all package-deals suffer from this problem, not just the ones in USA. Which is why I really prefer per-minute deals.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Most of europe had gone to an all digital network in the early 90s - I believe you can still find areas of the US that still only have analog service. Nationwide 3G is still a pipe dream. The only areas you might only find analog-only service are remote forests, etc. - the kind of place where I doubt you'd be able to get service in Europe at all. The existing digital service can't reach because of power or timing issues, but it doesn't make sense to build extra towers where they'll hardly ever get any use.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      US seem to be about those deals where you get certain amount of minutes for fixed amount of money. And on the surface they might seem "cheap". But what if you use more minutes than there are on your plan? Those extra minutes cost quite a bit, no? So the price goes up. And what if you use less minutes? You still pay the agreed sum, so the price per used minute can get very high. Yeah... but there's something to be said for knowing that you can talk for an extra hour and it won't cost you any more, and being able to budget for your phone usage. Most of those plans give you free airtime at night and on weekends and holidays, too. My bill usually comes out to around 9 cents per minute overall, which seems reasonable (certainly cheaper than any prepaid plan I've seen), and I only use 1/2 to 3/4 of my plan minutes.

      So those package-deals might be "cheap" only if you use exactly the amount of minutes that are included in the plan. Use less or more, and the price goes up. And are incoming calls still counted against your plan? I honestly don't know. Yes, airtime is counted whether the call is incoming or outgoing, but the flip side of that is all outgoing calls cost the same. Someone has to pay for airtime - European carriers just charge your callers instead of you. You make the purchasing decision, but you aren't the one who has to pay, which probably means your friends are overcharged when they call you (and vice versa).
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    4. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Yes, airtime is counted whether the call is incoming or outgoing"

      Well, that fact makes cell-phone usage VERY expensive in the USA, when compared to Europe. In Europe, you only pay for outgoing calls. Even if you had a plan that costs 40 dollars/month for X minutes, whereas in Europe it would cost 50 dollars/month for X minutes, it would still be chaper in Europe, since that X minutes only includes outgoing calls, whereas in USA both outgoing and incoming calls are counted in that X minutes.

      "Someone has to pay for airtime - European carriers just charge your callers instead of you."

      And in USA they charge both the caller and the receiver? So how exactly is that cheaper? In Europe, only the caller pays. You make the call, you pay for the call. Someone does pay: the caller. You might try to rationalize paying for incoming calls, but fact is that you are getting ripped off. Big time.

      "You make the purchasing decision, but you aren't the one who has to pay, which probably means your friends are overcharged when they call you (and vice versa)."

      I make the purchasing-decision, but I do not force my friends to call me. I pay for my own calls, why should I pay for phone-calls my friends make on their own phones? they make the decision to call me, they should pay for it. You make it sound like I'm leeching off my friends when I don't pay one dime when they call me. Why should I? It's their phone and their service-operator and their decision, why should I pay for it? The fact that you are actually defending the scheme of paying for incoming calls is.... well, retarded. Do you WANT to pay more? Seriously?

      And no, they are not overcharged. Prices are quite cheap in fact. You just assume that "since you do not pay for incoming calls, callers are overcharged". Well, that is not the case. Only one being overcharged, is you. You are paying double, and you seem to gladly accept it. You said that you pay around 9 cents for your call, outgoing and incoming included. The usual price here is aroung 6.9 euro-cents, for outgoing calls only. Incoming calls are free.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    5. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      And in USA they charge both the caller and the receiver? So how exactly is that cheaper? In the USA, the caller pays according to his plan, and the receiver pays according to his own. If the caller is using a landline, and your number is local to him, he pays nothing for the call - local landline service is almost always unmetered. If he's on a cell phone, he uses his own minutes. If he's at a pay phone, he pays the same 50 cents he'd pay to call anyone else, and so on.

      In Europe, only the caller pays. You make the call, you pay for the call. Someone does pay: the caller. You might try to rationalize paying for incoming calls, but fact is that you are getting ripped off. Big time. Not really. The caller in Europe is paying twice as much, because he has to cover both ends of the call. If you call someone whose carrier has decided to charge $1/minute for incoming calls, you're stuck with that, right? You have to pay according to the plan your friend chose, instead of the one you chose yourself.

      I pay for my own calls, why should I pay for phone-calls my friends make on their own phones? they make the decision to call me, they should pay for it. They're making the call on your phone too. You're the one who decided to get a cell phone - why shouldn't you pay for the convenience of receiving calls wherever you are? Why should your friends have to pay more because of a choice you made?

      It's their phone and their service-operator and their decision, why should I pay for it? You shouldn't. That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't pay for other people's phone usage, I pay for my own. No one forces me to answer calls or even to get a cell phone in the first place. If I want to do those things, I pay for it.

      The usual price here is aroung 6.9 euro-cents, for outgoing calls only. Incoming calls are free. You pay the same rate no matter who you call? Perhaps something has been explained incorrectly to me in the past.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    6. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      The caller in Europe is paying twice as much, because he has to cover both ends of the call.


      No, they don't. The cost is quite comparable to the cost in USA (if not cheaper), apart from the fact that people only pay for outgoing calls.

      If you call someone whose carrier has decided to charge $1/minute for incoming calls, you're stuck with that, right? You have to pay according to the plan your friend chose, instead of the one you chose yourself.


      Um, what?!? The plan of the receiver has nothing to do with it. If the receiver has a plan that charges 1e/minute, and the caller has a plan that charges 1c/minute, then the caller gets charged 1c/minute, while the receiver is charged nothing. And no operator charges for incoming calls, so your whole question is meaningless. They only charge for outgoing calls, period. I do not have to worry about how much money my friends operator charges, all I have to care for is how much my operator charges. When I call my friend, I get charged at the rates my operator charges. Rates of my friends operator are 100% irrelevant.

      You're the one who decided to get a cell phone - why shouldn't you pay for the convenience of receiving calls wherever you are? Why should your friends have to pay more because of a choice you made?


      What choice? _They_ made the choice of calling me. No-one forced them to initiate that call. They decided to call you, they should pay for it. Or do you pay for your friends broadband-connection when they send you email?

      Yes, I made the choice of buying a cell-phone. But I'm not forcing anyone to call me. If they want to call me, they should pay for it. It seems to me that your mindset is one that feels that cell-phones are a luxury, whereas landline is the standard. Things are not like that here. cell-phones have practically replaced landlines. Do you pay for incoming calls on landline? If you do not, why should you pay for incoming calls on a cell-phone? Because cell-phones are more "convenient"? More convenient than what? Landlines? And landlines are mor conveneint than telegram, surely you should pay for the "convenience" of receiving calls right at your home?

      You shouldn't. That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't pay for other people's phone usage, I pay for my own. No one forces me to answer calls or even to get a cell phone in the first place. If I want to do those things, I pay for it.


      I'm sorry, but that is truly retarded. It really is. If some operator here said that people should pay for incoming calls, they would be laughed at. Seriously. And you are actually defending that scheme! Unbelievable. "I can always choose not to answer the calls...". Unbelievable.

      You pay the same rate no matter who you call? Perhaps something has been explained incorrectly to me in the past.


      Depends on the plan, but yes, 6.9c/minute is quite common price. And that includes calls to ALL operators. And incoming calls are not included in the plan, only the calls you make are the ones that matter. And that is true no matter is it per-minute plan (the 6.9c I quoted is from per-minute plan), or package-plan where you pay a fixed sum for fixed amount of minutes (like you do in USA). Incoming calls are 100% free, period.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    7. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Do you pay for incoming calls on landline? If you do not, why should you pay for incoming calls on a cell-phone? I don't pay for any calls on a landline; a flat monthly fee covers everything. (Well, I don't actually have one myself, but that's how they work.) Does that mean I should expect not to pay for any calls on a cell phone?

      Depends on the plan, but yes, 6.9c/minute is quite common price. And that includes calls to ALL operators. Interesting. Well, that's cool. I guess we are paying a lot.

      One more thing - how does roaming work? Do you just keep the same SIM in your phone and use it in any country, paying the same rate as you would at home, or does something change when you travel?
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    8. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      I don't pay for any calls on a landline; a flat monthly fee covers everything. (Well, I don't actually have one myself, but that's how they work.) Does that mean I should expect not to pay for any calls on a cell phone?


      Well, you already kinda have that with cell-phones. You pay a fixed amoutn for certain amount of minutes. But for some reason incoming calls are treated differently, why?

      One more thing - how does roaming work? Do you just keep the same SIM in your phone and use it in any country, paying the same rate as you would at home, or does something change when you travel?


      Roaming is quite complex... You just keep the SIM in the phone, and it will change operators automatically. Receiving calls when roaming does cost money for some reason. I believe the reason is that the caller has no way of knowing if the receiver is abroad (since the number he's calling does not change). So the caller pays whatever he normally pays for his call, and the receiver pays on top of that.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    9. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Well, you already kinda have that with cell-phones. You pay a fixed amoutn for certain amount of minutes. But for some reason incoming calls are treated differently, why? They're not treated any differently. When I'm talking on the phone, I'm charged for airtime, regardless of why I happen to be talking on it.

      Receiving calls when roaming does cost money for some reason. [...] So the caller pays whatever he normally pays for his call, and the receiver pays on top of that. Aha. Here, I can take my phone anywhere in the US--covering the area of several European countries--and it works the same as when I'm at home, for everyone involved.

      The carriers used to offer regional and local plans, where you'd get a lot more minutes for the same monthly price, but have to pay roaming when you left your region (e.g. Washington, Oregon, and Idaho). They don't seem to exist anymore, though, except for things like Cricket and MetroPCS, where you get unlimited airtime as long as you stay within about 40 miles of home.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    10. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "They're not treated any differently. When I'm talking on the phone, I'm charged for airtime, regardless of why I happen to be talking on it."

      But you just said that you are not charged when you talk on a landline. And you said that if you call from a payphone to a landline, you pay for it. Why doesn't the receiver pay for it? But if you happen to be calling a cell-phone, you both pay for it. Cell-phones are clearly treated differently to other phones.

      "Aha. Here, I can take my phone anywhere in the US--covering the area of several European countries--and it works the same as when I'm at home, for everyone involved."

      But it's still one country. The geographical size of that country is 100% irrelevant. There really is no difference if you go from one end of USA to the other end of USA, as opposed of me going from one end of Finland to the other end of Finland. What you are now trying to do is to compare apples to oranges. As in: moving inside one country as opposed to roaming in different countries. You can't do that. And no, the sizes of the things you are comparing (some country in Europe and USA) do not matter one bit. If you want to do comparisons, how about comparing apples to apples? Either compare the situation inside one country, or compare roaming. But you can't compare moving around in one country to moving around in several different countries.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    11. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      But you just said that you are not charged when you talk on a landline. And you said that if you call from a payphone to a landline, you pay for it. Why doesn't the receiver pay for it? Because you never pay for any calls on a landline, incoming or outgoing. Talking on a landline is free; talking on a cell phone is not free. (Pay phones are the exception: incoming calls are free when they're available at all.)

      Actually, there are some unfortunate parts of the country where landlines are billed per minute - and the receiver does pay for incoming calls there.

      But it's still one country. The geographical size of that country is 100% irrelevant. There really is no difference if you go from one end of USA to the other end of USA, as opposed of me going from one end of Finland to the other end of Finland. The geographical size is relevant to the extent that it means most of our travel is done inside the country. If you go on vacation to Italy, and I go to Florida, you're paying roaming charges but I'm not.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    12. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Because you never pay for any calls on a landline, incoming or outgoing. Talking on a landline is free; talking on a cell phone is not free. (Pay phones are the exception: incoming calls are free when they're available at all.)"

      I bet that landlines are not 100% free. You do pay a monthly fee or something, right? And in payphones the caller pays, while the receiver does not. Yet with cell-phones it's suddenly different. I really don't buy the "you pay extra for convenience"-argument. You are getting ripped off, that's what's happening.

      And, fact remains that you are paying twice. You pay if you call, and you pay if you are called. The per-minute charges (or package-deals) are more or less same in USA and Europe, but difference is that in USA you are charged whether you call or receive a call, wheres in here you only pay if you initiate the call. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that cell-phone service is about twice as expensive in USA than it is over here. No amount of spin changes that fact.

      "The geographical size is relevant to the extent that it means most of our travel is done inside the country."

      Most of our travel is done inside the country as well, so what's your point?

      "If you go on vacation to Italy, and I go to Florida, you're paying roaming charges but I'm not."

      And if I go to vacation in Lapland while you go for a vacation in Thailand, you're paying roaming-charges while I'm not. So what's your point? Again: the geographical size is irrelevant. I don't think the point of vacation is to get physically as far as possible from home as possible.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    13. Re:Still things are worse in the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not really. The caller in Europe is paying twice as much, because he has to cover both ends of the call. If you call someone whose carrier has decided to charge $1/minute for incoming calls, you're stuck with that, right? You have to pay according to the plan your friend chose, instead of the one you chose yourself.
      I'm not sure how it works in Europe proper, but in Russia, which introduced this sort of thing recently (caller pays), the whole point of doing it on government level is that telcos cannot charge anything for incoming calls. They have to somehow figure it out between themselves in such a way that, as a caller, I pay the same to call a cellphone of any other operator. So yes, you pay for both ends if you are the caller (which kinda makes sense since you initiate the call, the other side has no opportunity to decide), but the price you pay for the other end is always the same.
    14. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      I bet that landlines are not 100% free. You do pay a monthly fee or something, right? Right. Like I said, though, there's no per-minute charge (for most of us): you pay the monthly fee and then talk as much or as little as you want. In the few areas where there is a per-minute charge, you pay for incoming and outgoing calls, just like with a cell phone - because you're paying for the use of the phone network, not for the privilege of taking an active role in the caller-callee relationship.

      And, fact remains that you are paying twice. You pay if you call, and you pay if you are called. I just don't see what's so unreasonable about paying for the resources I actually use.

      Sure, it'd be nice to get free incoming calls (Sprint tried it a few years ago), and maybe it'd be a standard part of the contract if we had a more competitive market, but it's not like these charges are baseless. My phone is, in fact, putting the same load on Verizon's network whether the call is incoming or outgoing, and if the person calling me is using a cell phone, he's also putting a load on his carrier's network.

      Unless you're suggesting that the load simply doesn't need to be paid for, then it doesn't matter who pays for what. The total usage of Verizon's network is the same either way, which means the costs to run the network are the same, and since Verizon can only collect money from their own customers, those customers will be paying the same total amount either way. If the company didn't charge for incoming calls, they'd have to charge more for outgoing calls, because that money isn't just going to appear out of nowhere.

      Most of our travel is done inside the country as well, so what's your point? I would wager that Europeans do a lot more international travel, and roaming, than Americans.

      I don't think the point of vacation is to get physically as far as possible from home as possible. One of the points of vacationing is to visit a different setting or climate. If you wanted to take a trip to a desert or tropical beach, for example, you'd probably have to leave Finland.

      It's not just about vacations; business is affected too. A company with branches in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York is not equivalent to a company with three branches in Finland - if you work for the European equivalent of that company, a trip from one branch to another will mean international travel.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    15. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "In the few areas where there is a per-minute charge, you pay for incoming and outgoing calls, just like with a cell phone"

      Damn, that IS retarded.... When someone sends me a postcard, I do not have to pay to receive it. I don't pay for my friends net-connection when they email me. I do not have to pay when someone decides to call me.

      "I just don't see what's so unreasonable about paying for the resources I actually use."

      Well, if you don't mind paying double for the service, then go right ahead. I guess you also pay for your friends net-connection when you receiving IM or emails from him? Seriously, and I say this with all due respect, it seems to me that the operator-propaganda is working. They are double-charging you, and you actually like it. If you were given the choice of paying X dollars when you call someone, or paying X dollars when calling or receiving a call, you would actually choose the latter. It just boggles the mind. You get no benefit, you just get charged double.

      "I would wager that Europeans do a lot more international travel, and roaming, than Americans."

      Maybe. So? 99% of the time we are not roaming. Businesspeople might roam quite a bit, but they have cell-phones that are paid by their employers. And you are still comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about cell-phone service here, and then you start bringing in totally unrelated things, like geographical sizes of countries. You do not pay double because USA is a big country. And besides, since coverage is so poor in USA, it might be that your hypothetical scenario of going from California to Florida would actually mean no cell-phone service at all. I actually checked coverage-maps of USA last month, and it seems that even the best networks only cover fraction of the country.

      And even in worse-case scenario, when we are roaming, we have similar situation to USA where we pay for incoming calls. 99% of the time that is not the case, so I fail to see how you can bring up that 1% of cases and use it to prove something.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    16. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      When someone sends me a postcard, I do not have to pay to receive it. That's because people don't mind paying variable postage when they send a letter. They expect it to cost more to send a letter overseas than down the street, so it's feasible to charge the sender for postage for the entire trip.

      In the US, we don't expect to pay more to call a cell phone than to call a landline, but if the caller paid for everything, that's what would have to happen. There'd be an outrage. If I used my Verizon phone to call a Cingular customer, I'd have to pay for the usage of bandwidth on both networks, or the person I'm calling would have to pay twice as much for his own outgoing calls to make up for it - Cingular still has to pay for the upkeep of their network, and that money doesn't just come out of nowhere.

      (If I'm only calling other Verizon customers, I already get those calls for free.)

      I don't pay for my friends net-connection when they email me. Exactly! You pay for your own internet usage - sending and receiving. You can't receive emails or IMs without paying for internet access, can you?

      If you have a metered internet connection, you don't get to receive packets for free and only pay for the packets you send. It isn't "double charging" when you pay to receive a packet even though the sender already paid to send it to you; it's the reality of how networks operate. That packet is putting a load on the sender's network as well as on yours, so he pays for his end and you pay for your end, and if your network is more efficient than his, you get a better deal.

      Similarly, when my phone is connected to my carrier's network, using my carrier's bandwidth, I'm charged for it. I'm still using the same amount of bandwidth whether I placed or received the call, so why is it unfair to charge me in both cases? Someone has to pay for it, and I'm the one who chose my carrier.

      They are double-charging you, and you actually like it. If you were given the choice of paying X dollars when you call someone, or paying X dollars when calling or receiving a call, you would actually choose the latter. No, of course I wouldn't. I'd love to get incoming calls for free, just like I'd love to pay $20 a month instead of $60 a month for the same service - or even better, unlimited usage for free! But I don't expect those things to happen just because they'd be nice.

      And you are still comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about cell-phone service here, and then you start bringing in totally unrelated things, like geographical sizes of countries. You do not pay double because USA is a big country. No, but I do save money on roaming. I travel about 700 miles from home on a pretty regular basis, and I pay exactly the same amount for calls over there as I do at home.

      And besides, since coverage is so poor in USA, it might be that your hypothetical scenario of going from California to Florida would actually mean no cell-phone service at all. I actually checked coverage-maps of USA last month, and it seems that even the best networks only cover fraction of the country. It might seem that way, but try comparing those maps to a population density map - no one lives in the uncovered areas. You can get a signal in any city, any airport, and on any freeway. I can't think of the last time I had no service.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    17. Re:Still things are worse in the US by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      In practise the coverage is pretty good in the US now.

      In the UK it was very frustrating because if you signed up with one network, your phone wouldn't automatically start roaming until you left the country. If you were in an area where T-Mobile didn't have service then you were SOL, even if Orange and Vodaphone had excellent coverage there.

      In the US I can roam onto dozens of different GSM networks and still get the minutes and data included in my original plan. T-Mobile's coverage sucks in the areas of Kansas that my wife's family live, but i end up some unknown network called USA 590.

      And FWIW using your logic I do "pay double" for my internet connection. When someone emails or IMs me then it uses the bandwidth that I've paid for. I don't get some free extra bandwidth to cover people calling me.

      Are there other countries in the world where local landline calls are free? I remember growing up in Scotland I was very envious of the fact that people could dial onto the internet and stay connected day and night because it didn't cost them a penny.

      Many people here don't even carry long distance service on their landlines. There is no way they can pay per minute for any call that they make. So either the cellphone companies had to (1) create cellphones that a segment of the population can't call or (2) make them work the same way as land lines and have the cell subscriber bear the cost.

    18. Re:Still things are worse in the US by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "No, of course I wouldn't."

      Yet you are rationalising and defending such a scheme? Instead of defending it, you should be up in arms and complaining to the opterators about it.

      "It might seem that way, but try comparing those maps to a population density map - no one lives in the uncovered areas."

      Northern Finland is practically frozen wasteland, yet the cell-phone coverage is for all intents and purposes 100% over there. And the population-density overall is very low in Finland, yet we have total coverage (USA has 29.77 people/square kilometer, Finland has 16.89 people/square kilometer).

      For comparison:

      Cingular's coverage in USA.
      Sonera's coverage in Finland

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    19. Re:Still things are worse in the US by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Yet you are rationalising and defending such a scheme? Instead of defending it, you should be up in arms and complaining to the opterators about it. Um.. right. Demanding that they stop charging for incoming calls, without increasing their outgoing rates to make up for it, is equivalent to demanding they cut their prices in half. While we'd all like to pay half as much for phone service, it isn't going to happen just because people want it. They aren't going to operate at a loss just to make us happy.

      I don't know what's going on with the Cingular coverage map you linked, but it isn't accurate... try this one instead. And here's Verizon's coverage map.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  96. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or you're a Verizon customer, you pay them 25 cents to put it on a web page, which you then screenscrape.

  97. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
    I don't know what decrepit phone you've been using (though I'll admit that your latter example does sound more than a little like Sony's older efforts), but when I plug my phone in, I get:

    • Root:
      • Camera
      • Documents
      • Images
      • Music
      • Software
      • Video

    Maybe just me, but I'm failing to see what's so weirdly laid-out about this...

  98. from bad to worse by oohshiny · · Score: 1

    Apple could have made the iPhone into the perfect unlocked, carrier-independent phone. They could have created a platform on which people can install OS X "light" software. They could have provided carrier-dependent software like "visual voice mail" as small, add-on applications (preinstalled if you buy the phone from your carrier).

    Instead, it looks like you won't be able to buy an unlocked iPhone at all, or even use it with different carriers. And you can't install anything on it. Given its price, that's really an outrage.

    I don't want Jobs controlling what my phone does or how it does it anymore than Cingular.

    1. Re:from bad to worse by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      "I don't want Jobs controlling what my phone does or how it does it anymore than Cingular."

      Well golly gee willikers, don't buy one then!

      Did you actually understand the gist of the article, how difficult it is to get through the "orifices" to get to the customers? The carriers are (except Cingular when it came to Jobs apparently) in total control of the delivery system, and can demand anything they want from phone manufacturers. So you don't want Jobs controlling your phone -- do you feel better letting some other faceless corporation control it, seemingly in cahoots with every other carrier so they can all make the same rules and charge basically the same price?

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  99. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and you could ONLY buy a phone from one of their special stores, and you had to have a credit reference just to get started (which was a lot harder back then). Your choice of phones was limited too.

    And let's not forget that we wouldn't have broadband. The Carriers fought DSL tooth-and-nail just to protect their absurd pricing on their T1 lines. You'd be lucky to have ISDN by now.

    Suddenly, it doesn't look so peachy anymore, does it?

    You remind me of the old folks in Russia who still long for Stalin and the other leaders of Communism.

  100. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen. Compare this to windows, where you have to hit a target of about 20 pixels or so to select a menu. I suppose it might not be completely intuitive, but in the long term it is a much better solution. ...
    That's why Vista's UI is so great, right? I've seen it on several machines now, and it's a freaking mess.


    So if hitting the menu on an appliation is too hard and you need the edge of the screen to find it, then maybe you should try Vista, it is virtually menu free, a paradigm even easier than the dated menu concepts still in use on OSX. Or even really blow your mind, try Office 2007, again no menu and a nice large ribbon to find (that can auto-hide if it gets in your way). (And being Menu-free or using a Ribbon are neither MS nor Apple innovations.)

    I can't believe you actually had the guts to defend the Apple menu bar that is carried over from 'UI Innovations' of 1983 in an argument about how Apple's UI is always better and 'more' innovative. Either it is guts or you just don't get it.

    Did you completely miss my point? I realize that these things are all technically possible on Windows Mobile and Motorola devices - the point is that the interfaces are lousy. I guess it's a matter of opinion - but I know a lot of people share mine

    I actually didn't. There are lot of people that actually do like the UIs on some of these devices and is also a reason for their success, even the Motoral Razr has nice easy interface with voice activated dialing that is a great selling point for users.

    So Windows Mobile 6.0 is a lousy interface? That is YOUR opinion, and considering it hasn't even been released, I kind of doubt you have used it.

    Even PalmOS has some 'innovative' ideas that made it a success and a success on Phones years ago.

    Oh, and there is the fact people can develop applications for not only the dated PalmOS, but Windows Mobile and even JAVA or Brew applications for MOST phones, again something the iPhone won't be able to do.

    Considering I have been using 3G and other high speed cellular techology from my phone for OVER 3 years now, it is frankly SCARY that Apple thinks its users will want to try to browse the web, download songs or do anything on their phone at barely better than dial up speeds.

    So when you are using your shiny iPhone, and notice the guy in the corner of Starbucks watching TV or streaming a movie on their cellphone, don't be jealous. Just remind yourself that Apple is so innovative, they know better than the other companies and you can remind yourself you didn't want TV or Movies because Apple told you so.

    So, that's the best Microsoft UI innovation you could think of?

    Ya, that is only one I could think of, what a great counter-argument.

    Oh wait there is also the concept of select and modify, so next time you highlight some text and then change the Font/Color/Size/etc, think of MS, again they did it first.

    Do you think it is just possible that I might be using rather simplistic examples of 'innovative' concepts in UI usage that is littered THROUGHOUT any modern GUI based OS?

    Geesh...

  101. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    Please don't try and defend the Windows Mobile interface as being "easy to use". Sure it works and can do some powerful things...but it's not very intuitive, it's cluttered, and a pain to use for the average user.


    A. That is your opinion
    B. Since we haven't seen Apple's ideas, they could be far worse.
    C. There is also the new Windows Mobile 6.0 and I doubt you have used it.

    However, I am not here to tell everyone how great Windows Mobile is.

    I would just as easily defend the UI on a Motorola Razr or V710 or V815, they are all easy to use, can watch movies, play MP3s, and have voice recognition so you NEVER EVEN NEED TO TOUCH the keypad of the phone. Oh, and you can also stream Movies and Live TV on them too, something again iPhone won't be able to do.

    And THESE are all examples of fairly OLD PHONEs and old UIs in terms of when they were released.

    Innovation is more than a patented 'multi-touch' display. Apple is good at some things but UI innovation has NOT been their bag for a LONG LONG time.

  102. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    Translation -" I know nothing about UI design, and are pleased to advertised the level of my ignorance."

    Odd, when Netscape wanted to hire me in 1999 to be a lead on their UI team, they seemed to think my knowledge was pretty good.

    Although I do admit I'm glad I didn't move to take the job.

    This is one of the times that your assumptions about people are about as far off as you could get. Go look up a couple of projects called X11 and Motif, you will find my name in the documentation.

  103. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    Contrary to popular opinion, "Good User interface" does not mean "Identical to what Windows users are accustomed to." Dissociating windows and applications makes as much sense today as it did in the '80s. Mimicking the MS Windows paradigm is not a path to superior user experience.

    Wow, you nailed that out of the park. That is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. (gag)

    This is about Apple, I never said MS or Windows were the holy grail of UI, nor did I imply that they were even great.

    So do you assume when someone talks about an OS paradigm that doesn't have a locked single menu bar at the top, they COULD ONLY be talking about Windows?

    I think you need to look around at other OSes, you just might be surprised that most DO NOT use the OLD SINGLE MENU metaphor, and many are even getting away from Menus all together.

  104. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    As someone who's developed on a product that used Windows Mobile (and still owns a few units...) I can't help but laugh at this. Windows Mobile is anything BUT easy to use. "Pushing the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity", yes, perhaps the envelope of poor design and badly implemented functionality...

    As for pushing the envelope, I was specifically talking abot Windows Mobile 6.0, and if you have ALREADY developed a product for it or even used it, I will be a bit shocked, because that means you work at MS since it is NOT Released yet.

    Besides Windows Mobile is just one example of the point I was trying to make, and also note that you 'did' develop an application on Windows Mobile (if you really did), since this is not something anyone will be 'allowed' to on the iPhone as it might destroy all the cell networks in the world accroding to Jobs. Geesh.

  105. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    Yes, and how do you transfer files to it? Either you drag files manually into weirdly laid-out folders, or you have to use some kind of flaky, slow, ugly application the manufacturer had some moron throw together, with bitmapped graphics all over the place.


    Well on my phone, lets see how hard... I find the song or movie on my computer click on it and then select "Send to Bluetooth Device". I then have to hit the accept button on my phone.

    Wow, that is wicked hard, let me see if there is another way.

    Oh ya, I can yank the transflash card, I put it in my computer, the window for it pops up, and I just drag my songs and movies to the card.

    Ya, the last one is much easier and faster too.

    Of course this is an OLD phone from 2004, I'm sure it is probably easier on 'modern' phones. Geesh...

    The word of the day for your post is 'daft', you win a prize.

  106. sex ? You must be new here ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    ... this is a word almost non existant to much /. readers here ; give a better word which has more functionality please ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  107. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    Translation - "The "Rest of Us" is .03% of the whole phone market, but we are so uber cool because we know how to pair devices that no-one else matters and therefore do not exist"


    So dragging a file to the device, the transflash card, or hitting send to bluetooth device is that complicated for the rest of the market?

    I will be happy to inform my non-techie aunt that she is a super tech genius in the top .03% because she can put music on her phone.

    Of course she only as a 2GB card, so she isn't quite as hip or a tech genius as my mom with her 8gb transflash device on her phone.

    iPhone nerds act like this is the first freaking device to offer storage or music and other COMBINED features with a freaking phone. There IS a reason Windows Media PLAYS on Windows Mobile phones, people actually use it. There is a reason my work cell is a Windows Mobile, so I can use Remote desktop and actually operate my computer at my office from my car if I need to. These are NOT new concepts, in fact, freaking OLD ONES, and it scares me that people like you don't realize this.

    PS, This is not an 'ad' for Windows Mobile, my aunt and Mom have Motorola phones and are quite happy with the UI, voice dialing, and playing music on them, my second cell phone is also a Motorola Razr.

  108. Bundling phones with service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, nobody gets to screw the customer. You can always choose not to buy their crap, if it's that bad.

    However, I wonder why Steve calls the network providers orifices. In Germany you can simply buy a phone (why wouldn't you be able to?), or you can get a phone with a phone service contract, and get a rebate on the price (but then you get stupid branding etc.). Or you can get a contract without a phone, but then the contract is a lot cheaper (so you have to see what the price difference between subsidized phone and the phone's market value, say on ebay, is).

    With US phone providers, can't you bring your own (old) phone, and is there really no way to buy a cellphone without a service contract? I know you can get non-cell-phones without an AT&T contract for $10 in stores, so why not cellphones?

    At least those phone makers who don't have the privilege of being featured in the Cingular subsidized-phone-list should WANT to sell you phones without a contract. On the free market (yes, outlandish concept that one).

    1. Re:Bundling phones with service? by tchuladdiass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you can buy an unlocked phone, but you'd have to make sure it works with the carrier you'd want to use it on. This works best with GSM phones cause of the sim card (the carrier is not involved with you switching phones). However, non-gsm carriers have to be involved to activate your phone, and ones like Sprint won't turn on any phone that wasn't sold through them.

      Also, unless you get an expensive pre-paid phone service, you are still stuck with a 2 year contract. And you don't get a discount on the contract if you bring your own phone, so you might as well get their "free" phone.

  109. But it doesn't have social networking integration by Animats · · Score: 1

    Apple's "iPhone" is really an old-style content delivery device. The new frontier is social networking. Check out Helio. Helio integrates Myspace, GPS, and mapping. BuddyBeacon shows where your friends are, on Yahoo maps. Apple has nothing like that.

    Helio is a 3G device, too. Music, videos, fast web browsing, and more. Plus stereo Bluetooth - no more dweebish white wires.

  110. Re:If you want evidence to bolster Steve Jobs' cla by mcg1969 · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't know. If I were gonna lie, I'd make up a better one than that.

  111. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    "Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen."

    I actually like the MacOS menubar, but it does have it's ahare of problems:

    - As screen-resolutions increase, the distance between the app-window and the menubar increases
    - Related to the point above: multi-monitor setups. I'm working on a window on the secondary monitor. I need to do something with the menu's, what do I do? I need to move the cursor to the top of the primary monitor in order to access the menu.

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  112. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by kosmosik · · Score: 1

    You are comparing prices of handsets without contracts (the nokias) with iPhone (including 2 yr. contract). I can get Nokia N70 for ~$100 with one year contract.

  113. Siemens M35i by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    It would have 12 buttons, and make phone calls... and would be waterproof, have a huge freakin battery, and survive a fall from a low flying airplane. Why are no companies making the kind of cell phone I want?

    Siemens M35i
    12 Buttons? ... 17 Buttons. (you'll hardly find any less)
    Waterproof? ... Extremly spraywater resistant.
    Survives fall from low flying airplane? ... Check.
    Huge freakin' battery? ... Check.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  114. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by clonmult · · Score: 1

    Have you actually used any recent Nokias or SE phones? From your comments, I somehow doubt it.

    The current range of S40 Nokia handsets have one of the easiest user interfaces on the planet, its no surprise that the range is the best selling around. Any idiot can figure out how to use it.

    I'll admit that S60 isn't quite as intuitive, but its still not exactly rocket science to work around. I'm using a Nokia N73, and the UI has hardly changed since the 7650 made its appearance, not necessarily a bad thing, but there are still some config elements in strange places.

    However, the king of UI design on mobiles has to be SE. For the last few years their user interface has been slick, consistent, incredibly easy to use, and generally about the most intuitive UI around.

    I think you'll find that a lot of people are just happy with a phone that they can call people on, can send text messages on, and has a decent battery life - the last one is an absolute killer for the iPhone, no-one in their right mind would say that a day or twos battery life is usable. Heck, my N73 can just about stretch to 3 days at a push, I do miss my old SE W550, as that was an easy 5-7 days out of a charge, and that was with an hours music, a few text messages/calls per day.

  115. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by clonmult · · Score: 1

    The iPhone prices are NOT subsidised, the 499/599 prices are apparently without any rebates, which does seem a little bizarre, and its not something that I can see happening over in the UK/Europe.

  116. apart from visual voicemail by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    the phone itself will work on any network, but apple have apparently insulted cingular into making a few changes to their network to allow stunt features like visual voicemail to work. no biggie: how many voicemails do you tend to have to deal with at a time?

  117. Obligatory... by srussia · · Score: 1

    Tony Montana (heavy Cuban accent): This country first you gotta get the money, then you get the power and when you got the power, then you get the women.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  118. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by wintermute000 · · Score: 1

    Actually, I have a Nokia N73 that does my ipod/cell phone/PDA functionality all fine and dandy. Plus:

    It also runs Tom Tom so quadruples as a GPS unit.
    It also handles 3G.
    It also syncs nicely with outlook via bluetooth.
    Its also got a 3MP camera.

    + it takes a horde of 3rd party symbian apps (some great, some not so good...)

    Point being: OK the UI ain't as flash, but I'm used to it now and it doesn't slow me down too much. Sure touch screen would be nice but I'm not taking a cute interface over real functionality.

    Since carrying it around I've never looked back, sure it ain't as great an mp3 player as a dedicated player, the camera pics are distinctly iffy compared to a real camera (but blows chunks out of most camera phones mind you, and perfectly adequate for happy snaps). This is the target Apple should be aiming for. There are lots of phones out there that are quite decent MP3 players when u throw in a memory card.

    Of course, I'm missing the point as this will not matter one iota to the average non tech user but what the hey, here's one geek whose not buying the hype.

  119. Shameless repost of Jobs joke.... by ashwinds · · Score: 1

    Why he does not wear a shirt... ...... the man hates buttons!!!! :-)

  120. Not the first... by IANAAC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The iPhone (though I refuse to admit it is a good deal, or worth anything close to $500) is the first step in finally commoditizing wireless telephone service. Not allowing the carriers to screw up the phone's firmware is what companies like Nokia and Motorola should have done a decade ago.

    RIM, with their Blackberries, were really the first ones to not allow carriers to screw up their firmware. It's really quite trivial as a normal user to do pretty much whatever you want with a Blackberry (provided you have a data plan).

    1. Re:Not the first... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's quite trivial to do anything you want with a Motorola phone too, at least GSM ones. You can SEEM hack to change all kinds of settings, unlock things, etc. You can edit the menu files to put things back into the menus that were removed by or for the provider. For instance my V3i came with a one minute video recording length limit. Now it's something like two hours at a stretch (I've never shot a single video longer than 30 minutes, but I HAVE done that, twice.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  121. FWIW... by encoderer · · Score: 1

    I am _positive_ that Nextel ran a GSM network, as my phone from a previous employer had a sim in it. So, at the very minimum, Sprint (which, of course, owns Nextel now) runs a dual mode network.

    That isn't unheard of: Cingular operates both networks, as well, due to their AT&T Acquisition. They are, however, phasing out the CDMA network.

    1. Re:FWIW... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am _positive_ that Nextel ran a GSM network, as my phone from a previous employer had a sim in it.

      Nope, Nextel used iDEN, not GSM.

    2. Re:FWIW... by encoderer · · Score: 1

      Technically speaking I misspoke. They _do_ sell GSM phones. This I am positive about. I _had_ one.

    3. Re:FWIW... by eison · · Score: 1

      Nextel sold a dual iDEN/GSM phone for travellers (i930). They also sold some GSM-only phones for international use, but those wouldn't work on the nextel U.S. network (v505, v180). But, they had no GSM network in America. http://www.nextel.com/en/support/faq/worldwide.sht ml#worldwide_q3

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
  122. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by jaysones · · Score: 1

    Are you claiming that there will be no TV or movies on the iPhone? Or are you saying that streaming shows over a cell connection is better than loading up from the iTunes store?

  123. I wasn't clear enough, I guess by oohshiny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did you actually understand the gist of the article, how difficult it is to get through the "orifices" to get to the customers? The carriers are (except Cingular when it came to Jobs apparently) in total control of the delivery system, and can demand anything they want from phone manufacturers.

    Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My point is that these assertions are total bullshit. I've been using unlocked phones on Cingular for many years, and I am using three different unlocked, fully programmable phones right now. Not only do they work on Cingular, they also work in other countries on other carriers with other SIM cards when I travel. And I can (and do) load many different applications on them. And when you buy a locked Cingular phone, you can easily have it unlocked.

    I think Verizon and Sprint try to exercise more control, but it's not right to lump Cingular in there.

    So, Jobs didn't free users from carrier control, he is trying to establish control over users, with a totally overpriced and feature-deprived phone.

    Well golly gee willikers, don't buy one then!

    I won't. And I'm trying to convince others not to buy the iPhone either, since I think Apple's behavior should be discouraged and punished by the market. Once they come out with an unlocked, programmable iPhone, then it's maybe worth looking at it again.

    1. Re:I wasn't clear enough, I guess by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      "Once they come out with an unlocked, programmable iPhone, then it's maybe worth looking at it again."

      Remember, this is the very first iteration of the iPhone. Expect many more models to follow, just as Apple has done with the iPod. You may very well get your wish eventually. I got the impression from the article that Jobs negotiated (he didn't get everything he wanted, which is why he had to negotiate in the first place, and why you shouldn't place all the blame on him) and got as much as he possibly could from the deal. Remember that he was turned down from the other carriers. He made a deal. Robust sales will give him the negotiating power he needs to break the back of the carrier cartel and produce a phone that is unlocked, cheaper, and maybe programmable to some degree.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    2. Re:I wasn't clear enough, I guess by oohshiny · · Score: 1

      expect many more models to follow, just as Apple has done with the iPod.

      The iPod is still a closed, proprietary platform.

      Robust sales will give him the negotiating power he needs to break the back of the carrier cartel

      There's no such thing. Carriers are competitive, and many of them support a thriving market of programmable, open phone platforms. Apple apparently wants to take us back to the bad old days in which we only could get locked phones that worked with only one carrier.

      Robust sales would give Jobs the negotiating power to do with the iPhone what he already has done with the iPod, and that is definitely not good for the rest of us.

      The bad guys here are not the carries, the bad guy here is Jobs and only Jobs.

    3. Re:I wasn't clear enough, I guess by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      You sound as if you're a carrier, and have an axe to grind with Apple. I wonder why all the carriers charge basically the same price for monthly service. That's not much competition. And if they are all so competitive it makes me wonder why only ONE would even break with tradition and deal with Apple at all.

      How do you know that Apple didn't try to get an unlocked version? You don't.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    4. Re:I wasn't clear enough, I guess by oohshiny · · Score: 1

      How do you know that Apple didn't try to get an unlocked version? You don't.

      I do know exactly that. How? Because Apple doesn't have to ask anybody about producing an unlocked version of a GSM phone, they can simply make one, and it will work with all GSM carriers, domestic and foreign, including Cingular and T-Mobile.

      Just face the damned facts: the Apple iPhone is locked only because Apple wants it that way. Jobs isn't working towards freedom from lock-in, he is trying to create lock-in.

  124. 6.9 ec/min!? by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    Which country is that in?

    In the UK I couldn't get service nearly that cheap.

    Granted it would be nice if the US would let you just buy airtime from the cheapest bidder, but the current packaging system works out well for me.

    Also I consider the fact that I pay for incoming calls to be a HUGE bonus. In the UK you pretty much need a landline to take business calls, new customers are much less likely to make a call that costs them 10x what a local call would. In the US it's virtually impossible for someone to tell whether you gave them a cellphone or a landline.

    I'm interested to know if you really can beat this package and annual spend

    * 2 lines
    * 700 shared peak any-network minutes per month
    * unlimited minutes to subscribers on the same network
    * unlimited nights/weekend minutes
    * Nokia 3166
    * T-Mobile Dash (Actually an HTC Excalibur, Feel free to substitute any Windows Smartphone with Built in Wifi & Bluetooth)
    * Unlimited GPRS/Edge Data
    * Unlimited Access to T-Mobile Hotspot Network (worth US$20/mo)

    Total annaul spend of about $1180 (including the phones). We're also in the fortuitous situation where virtually every single family member and work collegue that we call on a regular basis is also a T-Mobile subscriber - as a result we regularly use 1000 free minutes in addition to maybe 500 of our plan mintutes.

    I'm not saying you can't beat that in another country, but i'd be surprised if you could do siginificantly better

    1. Re:6.9 ec/min!? by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      Which country is that in?


      Finland

      Also I consider the fact that I pay for incoming calls to be a HUGE bonus. In the UK you pretty much need a landline to take business calls, new customers are much less likely to make a call that costs them 10x what a local call would.


      Well, that really isn't an issue here. Cell-phone usage is "cheap enough" for people not to worry about it. And they have no problems calling a cell-phone number. Although landline-number might seem more "tangible", since it implies a fixed office for the company, instead of one guy walking around.

      Fact remains that if you pay for incoming calls, you guys are being charged twice. You pay if you call, and you pay if you answer the phone. We pay only once. And you are actually defending that scheme? Like I said: Unbelievable!

      I'm interested to know if you really can beat this package and annual spend


      OK, here you go (I went with a "package-plan" so it would be similar):

      - 3000 minutes/month of regural calls to mobile-phones and landlines (regardless of the operator or time of call. If you use more than 3000 minutes, the extra minutes cost 9c/minute))
      - 3000 minutes/month of 3G videocalls a month (regardless of the operator or time of call)
      - Unlimited data-transfer (3G, EDGE, GPRS, HSDPA)
      - 3000 SMS-messages a month
      - 3000 MMS-messages a month
      - All possible services (conference-calls, voicemail, caller-ID etc.)
      - Nokia N91 Music Edition

      Price: about 900e/year ($1184/year at current exchange-rate). Price could be lower with a different phone (for example, with a RAZR it would be 780e/year), but not really any more expensive, since N91 is about as expensive as they get. And the minutes I listed only include outgoing calls, incoming calls are 100% free and they are not counted against the plan.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    2. Re:6.9 ec/min!? by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      We don't really pay twice. The person *placing* the call doesn't pay a penny, it's completely free if they are in your local area (and most of the population of my state is in mine).

      The only situations where a person pays to call me is if they are on another cellphone network or if they are out of state (or country). So in my case, about half my calls aren't paid for at all and of the remainder about 90% are only paid for once (although i have to pay for all of those).

      I think this made a lot more sense back when cell calls were really expensive. In Britain it still costs 13p/min to call a cellphone, back in the day it was sometimes as high as 30 or 40p (US 60-80c). This meant that if I chose to only have a cellphone then my friends would have to either not call me or choose to subsidize my serivce. If I had been in the US at the time then i'd have carried the full cost of my cellphone service.

      The plan you quoted only seems to have one phone not the two that we have.

      Granted finland seems to pretty much lead the world in cell services. It's been 8 or 9 years since i've been there, but at that time they had better coverage and similar technology to what the US does now.

  125. Not the same thing at all. by chrwei · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What Apple does is say "if you buy DRM content from iTunes, you can only play it on an iPod." What cell phone providers say is "You can only buy your phone from us, and we'll cripple it in any way we see fit." You are certainly free to put your own content in non-DRM formats on the iPod you bought, no matter store you buy it from. You might have a point if buying your iPod from Wal-Mart meant that you got an iPod with mp3 support removed but support for some Wal-Tunes proprietary format instead, but that's not the case, so you have no point.

    --
    - Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
    1. Re:Not the same thing at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesn't say that at all.

      Apple says this: if you buy DRM content from iTMS, you can play it on iTunes running on Mac OS or Windows. You may also play ripped CDs or most other standard audio file formats with iTunes. iTunes may also be used to encode, record, transmit and/or stream music to other devices, and may have it's music library synchronised with the Apple iPod or several other portable media players. If you do this, you may not be able to access some of your audio files - eg, only the Apple iPod can decrypt DRMd MP4 files bought from iTMS, other devices may not be able to play some or all of the formats playable by iTunes.

  126. Handset subsidies by Cabby · · Score: 1

    There is a pretty good reason that network carriers lock down handsets. If they are absorbing fairly hefty subsidies on each piece of hardware sold then they need to have some reasonable certainty that they are going to see that money back. If that means locking their customers into using their services then of course they are going to do that.

    It's not like you can't buy a non-subsidised, unlocked, SIM-free phone and just go to a carrier for a connection and do what you like with it. You pay your money and you take your choice.

  127. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

    Ever heard of Fitt's Law? There's a very good reason for putting the menu bar at the top of the screen - it makes it much easier to 'hit' the menus with your mouse, because the mouse stops at the top of the screen. I recently got a Mac, and nowhere did I see mention of this simple yet important concept. You don't need to be as precise in the vertical direction which means more hits on target. One less degree of freedom to worry about. I had not realized the UI worked that way.

    I came from a windows and linux, solaris, X11, etc. background and I am trained to stop at a certain vertical position to select a menu item (unless of course I know the keyboard shortcuts - and on a Mac I certainly don't, yet.). I am still doing this on the Mac but now realize I don't have to. Cool.

    Thanks!
  128. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by vecctor · · Score: 1

    It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices. As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately. Yeah, but I can write/download/install any software I want on the smart phone (which, incidentally, is why Apple/Cingular's excuse for not allowing that on the iphone is so silly - you can already do it today and it hasn't brought down the cell networks!)
    --
    Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
  129. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Odd, when Netscape wanted to hire me in 1999 to be a lead on their UI team, they seemed to think my knowledge was pretty good.

    Netscape and UI?

    You're really not helping your case.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  130. Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is so "in tune" with what computer users want, it has captured a whopping 5% of the total market!

    FIVE PER CENT!

    Forgive me if I don't rush out to get an iPhone - which I can onlyuse with one carrier - and only use "permitted" software on. I'll stick with my phone that doubles as a PDA and has web and email capability already built-in. WiFi, too.

    And it cost way less then Jobs' model, to boot.

  131. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

    If you want quantities of features, regardless of how easy it is to use them, then Apple products are probably not for you.

    Agreed on that point.

    What makes Apple products and UIs special is that they don't give the customer what they ask for... they give them what they want. Apple studies how people do things, and then develop interfaces that help the user accomplish tasks without getting in the way. Usually, this means coming up with a completely new paradigm (like the touch wheel on the iPod). Once you get over the initial shock of "hey, this isn't what I asked for" and accept the UI design on its own merits, you see that a lot of thought went into it, and it really is better. Other engineering companies have done similar things in the past (the Blender Foundation comes to mind), but they are rare in the industry.

    People who dislike Apple interfaces are the same types of people who focus more on doing it their way than on doing it a better way. Apple may be called a lot of things, but "poor engineers" is most definitely not one of them.
    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  132. So rather than rebut him on features... by deesine · · Score: 1
    you turn towards "attitude"?!

    You basically just called the guy an idiot. Great argument!

    --
    damaged by dogma
  133. Apple: Not more evil than Microsoft by 2short · · Score: 1

    Quite the ringing endorsement in these parts.

  134. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1

    The user interface was awesome and remains to this day on the SonyEricsson phones I've been buying ever since.

    Just goes to show that some people can put up with anything. My current phone is a Sony Ericsson, and it has, bar none, the worst UI of any device I've ever had the displeasure of being subjected to. I was led to believe that it was one of the better phones when I bought it, so I shudder to think of what the rest of the market has to tolerate. If Sony Ericssons are an example of the better phone UIs, then Jobs is just the man to give the industry a beating with his clue stick.

  135. I'll spread this around the office by Sleeping+Kirby · · Score: 1

    Well, to my team anyways. (Sitting at Cingular's call centers now)

    --
    please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
  136. I think it is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As does everyone I know. I hate voice mail. I really don't care to spend 30 seconds navigating through a damn voice menu just to listen to a 5 second message. Most of the time when I notice I have a missed call, I just call the person back and ignore any voice mail they may have left because the vast majority of voice mails are pointless anyway. This is a great idea, and should have happened years ago.

  137. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

    Actually, LG interfaces are pretty good

    Boy, if that isn't proof that YMMV--I was gonna post about how I thought the UI on my LG phone really sucked. What constitutes a good interface is largely in the eyes of the beholder and probably has as much to do with what you are used to as anything else.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  138. Re:"wresting control away?" really? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    The exemptions not specifically mentioned in the statute itself. Application for an exemption is made to the Librarian of Congress, who then makes a ruling as to whether or not the exemption should be granted. The cell phone exemption unlocking was granted in the most recent cycle:

    http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

  139. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

    A. That is your opinion
    You keep repeating this like it's some relevant insight. Yes, it is his opinion. That doesn't suggest that it's not well-founded and entirely true.
  140. Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

    Are you claiming that there will be no TV or movies on the iPhone? Or are you saying that streaming shows over a cell connection is better than loading up from the iTunes store?


    No they will be on the iPhone, but you will have to run home and load them from your computer unless you want to wait 4hrs to download a video clip.

    High speed 3G streaming is VERY common on cell phones for the past 2-3 years. That is why when you buy a new Motorola Razr, you get an ad to sign up for TV services, that stream TV quality video to your phone in REALTIME.

    So REALTIME streaming is the key here. Also if you buy a song on your phone, users with 3G phones get the song as fast a someone on DSL, they don't have to use a dial-up comperable speed connection to wait for it to download as you will on the iPhone. Think how long and painful downloading a new album from iTunes at dial-up speeds will be, when others can get the same album on their phone instantly from the music store.

    Hope that clears it up.

  141. Well trolled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hats off to you.

  142. I wouldn't call it a "fear" at all by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    I'm old enough to remember when just about everyone I know remembered dozens of phone numbers without thinking twice about it. It's just what you did back then. Sure you had a phone book with some numbers written down but if you threw together your friends, family, and work you were probably walking around with one to two dozen numbers in your head.

      Sure it's nice that technology can help manage phone numbers. It's also nice to be able to remember them when the technology isn't there to do it for you. Standing at a pay phone and being unable to remember your own wifes cell phone number is kind of pitiful. I saw that happen to a coworker one day. I guess he was having a vague fear of his wife giving up on finding us and leaving us at the renaissance festival that day. I wasn't afraid though. I was just pissed.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    1. Re:I wouldn't call it a "fear" at all by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Standing at a pay phone and being unable to remember your own wifes cell phone number is kind of pitiful.

      It is pitiful when you forget your cell phone and end up needing it.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  143. "orifices", eh? by GentlemanRogue · · Score: 1

    The plain fact is, most telecom carrier senior management couldn't find their "orifice" with both hands & a flashlight...

    --
    you really expect me to be able to express my opinion of what's so fucked up in this world in 120 characters or less?
  144. Name a poor Apple product first by beetle496 · · Score: 1

    Um, pretty much the only thing wrong with the Cube was the pricing. The success of the Mini demonstrates that rather nicely! There have been real Apple lemons.

    --
    I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
  145. Delusional by IANAAC · · Score: 1

    Still you can install OSX on non-Apple systems

    Um, no you can NOT legally do this.

    I challenge you inform all of us how this is legally done.

    1. Re:Delusional by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Legally, no, because it's only licensed to run on Apple machines. My point, however, is that the basic OS is an open-sourced BSD derivative, which is how people are able to hack it to run on a Dell.

    2. Re:Delusional by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      Legally, no, because it's only licensed to run on Apple machines. My point, however, is that the basic OS is an open-sourced BSD derivative, which is how people are able to hack it to run on a Dell.

      So what you should be saying then is that BSD can legally be run on a Dell (or any other intel box). OSX is NOT BSD. BSD makes up a part of OSX, but OSX does not make BSD. There are some very proprietary parts in OSX that you simply are not allowed to legally run on non-Apple hardware.

    3. Re:Delusional by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I said that they can be made to run on a Dell, which is absolutely true. I never claimed that making them run on a Dell was legal, nor have I claimed that it's worthwhile, but only that it can be done.

  146. Cracking... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Um, pretty much the only thing wrong with the Cube was the pricing.

    Didn't it also have case cracking problems? It was kind of an interesting idea but it just didn't seem to work out well, too much in-between a desktop and a non-desktop (like the Mac mini, which inetrestingly enough seems to have done very well).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Cracking... by beetle496 · · Score: 1

      There were some people who made a stink about mold lines. I was responsible for at least half a dozen of these, I never noticed such a thing, but maybe I was lucky. Even the worse on-line photos I saw at time seemed quite modest to me. But I guess if one pays top dollar for the thing, one wants it to be perfect.

      Mine all ran great, one broke a USB port, but that might have been rough handling. The CIO had an idea that the Cubes would make nice "luggables" but that never worked out.

      The Cube did have one design flaw I hardly ever see mentioned: no standard audio jack. The USB powered speakers slowed the processor and used up a valueable port.

      I am not surprised that the Mini has done very well. Like I said, the only real flaw with the Cube was the price.

      --
      I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!