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.'"
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:
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
.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
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.
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.
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
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."
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).
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.
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).
"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.
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.'"
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.