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.
.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.
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
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).