Slashdot Mirror
Details and Rumors of iPhone Restrictions Emerging
We're getting indications of the ways the iPhone will be sold (or not sold) and restricted by Apple and AT&T. Reader thefickler writes, "An anonymous AT&T store manager has told blorge.com that users will get their WiFi when they sign a contract locking them into a data plan and EDGE. Kiss your dreams of WiFi reliance goodbye." And our own CmdrTaco found an article up on AppleInsider reporting that the iPhone will not be sold through established business channels — forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores. An AT&T Business Division rep told one customer, "There is no ETA on the [ending of the] sale ban to business."
more like, iPwned
I for one welcome our forced-into-a-locked-contract overlords!
I just got off the phone with the AT&T National Business Ordering Center, and they confirmed that they *will* be selling the iPhone to individuals attached to business accounts (i.e., accounts with FANs) on 29 June. It's possible that the person to whom I spoke might have just been BS'ing, but I figure that person is at least as reliable as the anonymous sources in the article summary.
But those were shortages of their newest gadget, not the refusal to sell them normally.
Don't get me wrong, I'm waiting for that little phone to get over to Europe (Netherlands), I will gladly buy it (if I can)
(and it's not through T-Mobile)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
"Users will get their WiFi when they sign a contract"
I'm not sure this statement makes much sense. Since the iPhone won't be sold without a (data-enabled) contract, shouldn't it read:
"Users will get their iPhone when they sign a contract", which has the advantage of being true, if less trolly.
I thought the iPhone was going to be REVOLUTIONARY! I've never felt so empowered about a product launch! (Well, there was that one time when I was really big into Rage Against the Machine, and I considered myself acutely aware of the injustice around the world.) Maybe I need to stop reading RoughlyDrafted so much...
Then the iPhone is dead on arrival ... and it is that simple. Many cool devices have been
hyped months in advance and suffered similar fates. Forcing contracts and services down
the customer simply does not work and the iphone is no Blackberry.
If this thing is DOA, no app development, and a lot of other lock in restrictions. I am not sure who the customers of those things should be the technical crowd definitely is not.
And lots of other usual apple customers probably are shied away by the contract enforcements connected to this thing.
I assume it will be the crowd who wants to have the latest shiny toy. I am not sure if this thing will be able to stand on its own after some initial success. Apple could have had a winner on this thing if they wouldnt have played Sony or Nintendo in trying to lock the user of this thing down!
It probably will come down to how fast the thing will be hacked open!
I was debating buying the iPhone and not getting a service--using it as a PDA only. There goes that hope. Thanks, Apple.
Though I suppose they never have been one to give you what you want.
This would be the "You can't have it!" advertising campaign, made most famous by Eric Cartman and his "You can't come!" campaign for his briefly owned and operated amusement park.
I wonder how much of this is FUD spread by Apple/AT&T's competitors and how much is legit. If most of what they're saying is legit, I can see the phone being still born, or the TOS changing quickly. (But then again, I don't have the pride that Jobs does.)
Sounds like a lotta restrictions/lock-ins ... how hard are they after The Mighty Buck?
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Too bad the iPhone had to partner with At&T considering all the news about them (filtering content for example). Right now I want to upgrade my phone to one with GPS and turn by turn directions and a few other features. The cost of what I want is high enough that going to a $500 item would not be that hard. Except I have sprint (and a 25% discount from them) and don't want to deal with the hassles of switching numbers.
Oh well only those with the "evil" AT&T can get one.
So, until Apple cuts this shit of giving one provider exclusive sales rights and allows Verizon to sell it, Apple will not have me as a customer.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Are there smartphones out there that don't require a data plan?
For example, with my Treo I'm forced to purchade the $15/month unlimited data plan from Sprint. It's required for all their smartphones.
So this story seems to be about.... A theoretical contract that is the same as the typical contract and may be unfair if the price is too high (but we don't know the price yet)?
Don't blame Apple for this. The money hungry profiteers at AT&T can't leave well enough alone and have to tack on a $150 monthly service contract to go with the $599 iPhone. This basically dooms both companies. If the iPhone were free I would still hestitate to buy it since the bulk of my money will be spent on the AT&T service plan ($150 * 24 = $3600 !!!) Who the hell is going to buy an iPhone, and switch to AT&T, at those rates. The first month's expenditures would be close to $800 (with taxes) for a PHONE! This will be a true test of just how much being cool is worth to Apple fans. Not to mention, it kind of flies in the face of anti-establishmentism that Apple fans are known for.
but does this surprise anyone? For-profit companies maximizing profit by locking users in and limiting access to ensure demand--what a shocker.
Let's face it, if this were any non-Apple or non-tech product we'd all shake our heads at the sad gullibility of the purchasing public and move on. The fact that this is a highly anticipated product that's going to have limited availability isn't anything unusual in and of itself. Apple and Cingular are going to make a good bit of money, which is what they're both in business to do.
Cellular service providers have made it a practice to "strongly encourage" customers to sign up for multi-year contracts to get a better deal on phones, subsidizing the cost of the phones, for which very few people would be willing to pay full price. The WiFi restriction, if true, is just more of the same.
In any event, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be hacks to work around this. I've never owned a phone (much less a smart phone) that wasn't hacked to get around carrier restrictions.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I was never planning on buying one, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting, but it's bullshit like this why I'm not an "early adopter" for technology, despite the fact that I'm an engineer. I'm amazed at how many high-tech products these days have proprietary restrictions in them. I find it ironic that the worst offenders are communication devices. The iPhone costs $600. Usually, companies form restrictive alliances to keep the price down - if product X only works with service Y from company Z, then company Z will usually give a discount for service Y. But the iPhone costs $600, so at that price you'd think that Apple wouldn't need to partner with anyone.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Apple fans will put up with anything. Including this.
It's rev 1 Apple hardware, I don't want it anyway.
Besides, my company pays for my BlackBerry, and a lot of companies have invested in BES infrastructure, so they won't be moving to the iPhone any time soon. We have yet to see anything from Apple about how the iPhone will tie into an existing personal database (like Exchange/outlook, for example) and manual sync, even over Bluetooth, just won't cut it for people used to the BES implementation.
Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.
This is why, to me, Apple lovers that despise Microsoft simply because they are Microsoft are some of the most clueless people around (the same holds true the other way around, of course). Microsoft TELLS you they are fucking you in the ass, wheresas Apple hides it (and it usually works)
ALL buisnesses are in it for the money. Welcome to reality, bud.
Living With a Nerd
Rather than hearing gossip from AT&T reps who almost certainly know virtually nothing about the final details of iPhone marketing (the only information I'm aware of them being provided is a brochure that explains how the thing works), why don't we wait until we get official announcements from Apple and AT&T. Not only are these rumors almost certainly based upon speculation and technological ignorance, but even if both Apple and AT&T have provisionally decided to go with them, there's still a strong chance of them changing their minds in the next week or two.
It's not even 100% clear if the iPhone will need a contract at this stage. Apple hastily removed language implying such from the online version of their ads, and AT&T has internal codes set up for selling iPhones with GoPhone plans, according to some reportage. This week we've seen Apple at a high-level flip flopping on various issues, such as the pretense of ZFS in Leopard (initially ruled out, then changed to present in a stripped down form), and the ability of Leopard's bootcamp to be used as a switcher between suspended versions of Windows and Mac OS X.
The final decisions haven't been made yet.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Sounds more and more like Apple made a deal with the devil in order to get their phone out into the world. From mandatory lock-in to a provider I don't really care for, to the utter disregard for 3rd party developers, it sounds like Apple is simply kowtowing to Cingular at the expense of the consumer. All of these restrictions means that the iPhone is completely inviable to me.
This is old news and entirely expected.
Anyone who thought they could get an iPhone without "appropriate" cellular service will also be disappointed to find out that the iPhone will not grant super-human strength either.
The iPhone has always been presented as part of a platform that included the cellular service. It was always tied tightly to the network. I don't know why anyone is surprised, then, that purchase of an iPhone comes with the network as well.
You're destroying my very worldview when you say such terrible things! Please stop, I don't know what to do with myself if you continue!
Apple and AT&T are not concerned at this point with price, contract requirements, etc. It's simple business. So many people want this thing right now they could charge $140 per month and $1000 for the phone and still not meet production demand. Give it a few months (6 tops) until the other vendors are allowed to join the game, and until other supported data system networks are added and the price will drop as fast as that for the RAZR. Remember, the RAZR was a $300 phone when it came out, and it's just a phone... I expect iPhones with limited use contracts (instead of unlimited) and only 1 year sign on requirements to be available for $399 or less within 6 months and $249 in a year.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Granted, we still don't have all the details, yet, but this strikes me as odd in that Apple would let AT&T "force" this requirement on the sale of the phone. Aren't they known for getting deals done that work for Apple and their customers? This doesn't seem like one of those deals.
I'll soon be in the market for a new phone, and while I'm leaning heavily toward a Treo P model, I'm keeping an open mind for the iPhone, too. However, if they're going to play BS games like this, forget it. I don't need it that bad. Too bad Apple doesn't have their own cell system so they could skip AT&T...
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
It almost sounds like they don't really want to sell the things.
No, it sounds like the damn carrier (AT&T in this case), as usual, has way too much power and is holding back true innovation by restricting what the device maker (Apple) in this case can offer to their customers.
Motorola, Nokia, etc, etc all have the same complaints about American carriers. Crippled phones that consumers don't want, disabled bluetooth profiles, the complete carrier control over what goes on the phone, etc, etc, etc. None of this is new.
I've linked this document before, but I'll link it again. A call to apply wireless network neutrality and Carterfone rules to the cell industry. A must read for anybody that thinks need practices need to end. Forward it to your State and Federal elected officials. Sooner or later this has to stop.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores.
They probably want the customers in the Apple stores, seeing all the shiny new computers nobody else want, and hope some of the customers go "Well, I do have $[500-3000] in my pocket I wasn't planning on spending anyway, might as well".
I wonder how long I till I can get an unlocked one on ebay? I mean, contracts are one thing, but someone who is an employee and bought a box to sell on ebay is another.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Sony thought the same thing about the PS3, and look how that turned out.
Crow T. Trollbot
Of course that was quite a while ago (two years almost, if I remember correctly). And as far as I know, you could always buy a smartphone (for full-price) and put the CIM from your non-smart (dumb?--that doesn't work for a phone... unintelligent?) phone into it and get phone service on your normal plan and just use the pay-per-bit data.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I'm bookmarking your quote, dude!
I'll enjoy reading it again in the future, right after I re-read about how the iPod is dead.
--Richard
"iPhone will not be sold through established business channels -- forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores."
Yeah, man. Like, you gotta wait in line with the rest of us. Hey, you mind if I blaze up? Thanks man. *fffffffttttt* Sure, I can spare a spliff. *fffffttt* Sure, I'll show you my Powerbook, man. Check out that widescreen.
And another business PC user is converted.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I have "heard" that only Cingular/ATT owned stores and Apple stores can sell the iPHONE. The SIM card is not removable, basically not allowing you to use another carrier with the phone. Minimum 2 year contract, no "deals" on phone/service. Exclusive to Cingular for 5 years.
I'm sure most of this stuff has been discussed already however with better sources...
I am a Cingular/AT&T customer, and have been since 2001. While all of the phones I have received from them are locked to only work with Cingular service, I have had complete control over what I do with the phone in terms of ringtones, java mini-apps, etc.
I used to have a motorola v200 and all I had to do was get a driver off the net and I could load the thing up with custom ringtones and not pay a dime for them. I now have a RAZR, and I still am able to load it up with mp3's, background graphics, java, and have full unlocked bluetooth capability.
I'm not trying to be a Cingular/At&t fanboy, but I think it can be said that some carriers are better than others. There is one carrier (I think it's verizon, but correct me if I'm wrong) that totally replaces the user interface of all their phones with their own in-house one. The new interface apparently locks most of the functionality and is much less usable than the standard interface, and forces the customer to purchase all the extras through verizon.
I got nothin'
How is this different than any other time? For example, if I want to run OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer - even though the hardware they are using is no longer any different than a regular PC.
Apple has never had any qualms about locking anyone into things if it benefits them - same with many other businesses - ESPECIALLY cell phone carriers.
It isn't very nice, but it also isn't "new".
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
This just goes to make the iPhone just like every other mobile out there. The manufacturer's putth in great features, and the telcos taketh them away.
How long before iPhone unlocking code shows up, I wonder.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I wish I had that kind of power. But I don't. All I can do is vote with my dollars and I voted for Verizon because out of all of the (shit) cell services here in the US, they were better than the others. My purchasing criteria is service: customer and technical - period. I don't give a rats ass about the phones they offer. It would be nice, maybe, to be able to have the Apple, but it's not really important to me.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
I have had complete control over what I do with the phone in terms of ringtones, java mini-apps, etc.
Yes, Cingular isn't as bad as Verizon (ugh, fuck Verizon...) in that regard, but you are missing the point.
Years ago, Nokia wanted to release the E61 smartphone in the United States. Cingular refused to carry it unless Nokia removed the Wi-Fi feature from the device. So we get the E62 -- functionally the same, minus Wi-Fi support.
It's pretty obvious how that benefits Cingular (buy a data plan or your smartphone is a brick), but how the hell does it benefit the consumer, exactly? The carriers are going for a vertical monopoly on devices (they control which ones can be sold), and content (they refuse to allow third party content on their networks). This is exactly the model that Ma Bell used, only now the agencies that are supposed to protect us (FCC, the state utilities commissions, etc, etc) refuse to do so because we have "competition". How is an industry dominated by four major players that all act the same competitive? You'd almost think they have a gentleman's agreement or something...
I'm not trying to be a Cingular/At&t fanboy, but I think it can be said that some carriers are better than others
Yes, and in my experience it's in this order: T-Mobile -> Sprint -> AT&T -> Verizon, for most to least friendly carriers. AT&T isn't being as nasty as Verizon yet, but give them time. They are already getting as nasty as Verizon is with their policies and prices. The only saving grace on the hardware is that as an AT&T customer is that you have the option of dropping full price for an unbranded GSM phone and using it. That's not even an option on Verizon or Sprint with CDMA service.
here is one carrier (I think it's verizon, but correct me if I'm wrong) that totally replaces the user interface of all their phones with their own in-house one. The new interface apparently locks most of the functionality and is much less usable than the standard interface, and forces the customer to purchase all the extras through verizon.
That would indeed be Verizon. You can't do jack shit with a Verizon phone unless it comes through Verizon's "Get it Now" service. And Motorola/Nokia can't even offer full price phones to Verizon customers, because Verizon won't let unbranded phones on their network. Again, it's obvious how this helps Verizon (revenue from Get it Now), but how does it help the consumer?
Read the document I linked. I think you'll find it interesting :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
People, this is a good thing that the data plan will be required. The iPhone would be practically useful without it anyway, which would just result in dissatisfied customers. This way, AT&T will be forced to make their "iPhone plan" halfway reasonably-priced in order to draw customers in, which will in turn help drive down data plan rates from all carriers across the board.
Any questions?
Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but then what's new?
:)
I like Cingular. I hate the fact that they're called at&t now, but I've had cingular plans with motorola phones for about 3 years now and I have had maybe 5 dropped calls, and about the same number of times when I've been unable to make a call. I do dislike having to unlock my phones, but then again afaik most providers have that problem. The data plan I use is $20/mo unlimited, fairly comparable to other providers, I think. I could be wrong on that...but then I've had so little trouble that I haven't really looked around. I bounced from the old at&t to sprint to voice stream to verizon (that last without me actually doing anything) and finally to cingular, where I've been happy enough to stay. I know a few people who dislike their service, who've had bad experiences with billing/customer support...but I haven't. Maybe it's your region? Or, I suppose...maybe it's mine.
http://xkcd.com/386/
... I just can bring myself to get hyped up over yet another freaking locked down cellphone.
There is a war going on for your mind.
the article describing the limitations on the iphone's wifi cites an 'anonymous at&t store manager'. not exactly an athoritative source.
that the iphone's key features might be disabled without a mobile phone contract is all too believable in light of how mobile phones are marketed by the wireless companies. it's one of the reasons why so many people (myself included) insist on keeping the phone as simple as possible and using a second device for the pda, camera, wifi, and mp3 functions. makes it easy to change carriers also.
however, before completely going ape over this, i'd suggest waiting until someone in authority actually spells out at&t's contracts and service plans for the iphone, or to see how an iphone actually comes out of an apple store.
at&t doesn't really need a contract since the iphone only works on their network. granted, the mobile phone company contracts don't require much of the carrier, but why would at&t make any requirements for itself at all when it doesn't have to?
as for potential ipod users who want iphone features without having a phone contract; i suspect that the iphone is only the first of a new generation of ipods. over the next few years, i expect the entire ipod line will get an iphone makeover sans mobile phone features.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
AT&T likes the idea of monopolies if the past is prologue.
I am the guinea pig for my family and companies, and AT&T doesn't realize the power I hold. I can either keep their revenue down, or I can multiply it many times over, in my own small way as a consumer.
If AT&T tighten the thumbscrews too tight on my iPhone account, my business & my family will not buy iPhones, because I will nix it. After all, my laptop and cell phone right now "does it all".
Competitors are not going to stand still, and they will find ways to implement the feel and functionality of iPhone one way or another, so the idea of "Lock-In" is only going to last for a short period of time. I can even envision an "ePhone" with a fold out track pad which covers the screen (shades it even), and the screen is NOT a touch screen.
Competitors will receive a lot more encouragement if AT&T behaves like the famous monopolies we all love to hate.
Apple understands this well as Jobs joked in the WWDC pricing of Leopard for the 'Home = $129....Ultimate = $129". If AT&T & Apple use the Microsoft Vista method of pricing, the competitors will jump on it as quick as they can.
The iPhone was looking really really good until i heard that there wouldn't be 3rd party apps on the iPhone. I'm the kind of guy who's flashed my razr's firmware several times and replaced graphics, installed good stuff, and really went to town so that my phone would do *just* a little more than the average razr.
So when i heard that the iPhone would restrict my play by not using the freeBSD based darwin kernel or any smaller OS kernel that might be wedged into the phone but the symbian based OS, i lost hope of a linux based iPhone.
I now own a treo 750 because i use it for work and i have a few key apps installed and a couple of games (evaluating game emulators though) and will not really be too envious of people walking around with their shiny new fashion accessory.
I still don't own an iPod, but i was hoping that the iPhone would be another contender in the business handheld market, but instead, they took their current route of ignoring (and, apparently hindering in this case) regular business customers and catering to their usual crowd of customers with more money than brains *ducks*.
If only it was as useful as it was pretty, but alas, the old mantra of "you can't do that on a mac" has surfaced once more. Maybe in 10 years they'll wise up and eventually open up their devices to people who expect electronics to work for them, not just put up a really good show of it.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
- Look shiny enough to drum up interest for the iPhone 2.
- Finance the R&D on the (cheaper) iPhone 2.
Like the first generation iPod, it's not about getting a product out that will own the market, it's about getting a product out that will generate excitement and establish Apple as a player in the market.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage. What about the contest for "least prepared person"?
It's not going to dent the Blackberry market. Typing on a touch screen is misery. The iPhone is a mostly-output device, like the iPod.
ATT Wireless employees cannot purchase an iPhone or have it on their employee plans, either.
Also, CmdrTaco, you can go to the Cingular store and get one -- they can't add it to your business account in the store, but they can call out to have it done.
That would indeed be Verizon. You can't do jack shit with a Verizon phone unless it comes through Verizon's "Get it Now" service. And Motorola/Nokia can't even offer full price phones to Verizon customers, because Verizon won't let unbranded phones on their network. Again, it's obvious how this helps Verizon (revenue from Get it Now), but how does it help the consumer?
I hate vendor lock-in, but I'll play Verizon's Advocate (they are in fact the devil):
You can't say they're just profiteering. Though the amount of features available to the US market sucks, it's not a matter of the money lining the carriers' pockets - the margins in the wireless industry (last I checked) were rather thin overall. However, the "Get it now!" add-ons are big moneymakers, with exceptionally high margins.
What does that mean? Basic service must not be a huge moneymaker for them. So the person who benefits is someone who doesn't care about their ringtone, doesn't text message much, doesn't use all the damned add-ons. So if all you want is a phone, go with a carrier that uses vendor lock-in to screw their other customers! You'll probably get a better deal.
It's kind of like how credit card users who pay off their balance every month get a fantastic deal. I, for instance, never pay finance charges. I get the free convenience of not having to carry cash, free accounting statements, the knowledge that I get some degree of fraud protection, and some degree of cash-back reward. Who pays for that? The people who run up huge finance charges, that's who. Just like people who pay for ringtones keep my cell bill down.
1 year? What's the expected lifespan of a blackberry? That's really what I'd place this closer to.
I said life in the market, not lifespan. You may hang on to a phone for several years, but it's a lot harder to find it on sale a year later. My phone was a fairly new release when I got it 18 months ago, and you'd now be hard pressed to find its immediate successor, let alone it with a new contract.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How long do you give it before someone hacks the cellphone to access any wireless network regardless of service plan?
I often suspect that Apple allows these silly restrictions as required by their partners knowing full well that people will find a way around it. Anyone who thinks that Apple wants to screw the consumer because that's "business" hasn't purchased from Apple. One of the great things about the Apple experience is that Apple knows that trying to give the people what they want is good business, not trying to milk them for every dollar they're worth. This is why Jobs called for the end of DRM, and why Apple offers a flat price for their new OS as opposed to Microsoft and their "pay more for the features you really want" attitude.
no SDK, no wifi, one carrier, no killer app, DOA
You forgot "Lame."
Sony releases a Good but over priced product with some restrictions our community feels is bad but supports linux : Corprate arrogance, we will never buy this product. Down with DRM.
Apple release a possibly good over priced product with many restrictions through a patently evil telecom : OMG best thing since the transitor. We'll buy it at any price, with any strings. If Jobs gives us DRM We'll grow to love it.
Ahh that RD field is strong as ever.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This isn't entirely true. I thought the same thing when I signed up with Cingular about a year and a half ago, when I got a Sony Ericsson W600i from them. It was sold to me as being able to run all my Java apps, etc, that worked on the phone. Then I tried to run one of the various SSH clients on it. It failed because it wasn't signed (by either SE or Cingular, didn't matter, I think) and Cingular sets up their phones to requiring signed apps to access data ports other than 80 (which goes through their proxy). Cingular's developer site has the specifics of what needs manufacturer signing, carrier signing, and what will work unsigned using their firmware.
Now, if you buy an unbranded GSM phone, you can certainly use it with all its features on their network. I got fed up and bought a SE K550i online, and it works without any hassle. I was really upset originally because I had intended to start writing my own apps for my W600i that would take advantage of the internet connectivity. Not much point to that if you have to pay them to sign the application... which is far too expensive for a homebrewer.
On the other hand, my work phone is from Verizon, and that one is completely locked down. I had heard that the RAZR is a pretty cool phone... Not at all with Verizon's firmware. Oh well.
the margins in the wireless industry (last I checked) were rather thin overall
It's hard to know what the margins actually are because most of them are owned by parent companies (T-Mo by Deutsche Telekom, VZW by Verizon and Vodafone, etc, etc) and don't report separate results, but even assuming that's the case I don't buy it as justification for this behavior. That was one of the "bad" things that Ma Bell did -- forcing long distance users to subsidize local service. Once Ma Bell was broken up long distance prices dropped like a brick and local service went up to reflect the true costs. In any case, why should my functionality be reduced because of their business model?
Though the amount of features available to the US market sucks
And that's entirely the fault of the carriers. In Europe you don't even typically buy a phone when you get service. You buy a phone at a Nokia store and then find a carrier to get service with. That's also how landline service worked the last time I checked -- I buy a phone (an el-cheapo at Wally World or a $300 one at Staples, doesn't matter) and then get service. The device makers have an incentive to add features to compete with each other. If the carterfone rule hadn't been applied then we might not have ever had analog modems, fax machines, answering machines, etc, etc, etc. Think of the innovation possible with cell phones if the carriers got out of the way.
Basic service must not be a huge moneymaker for them
I'd dispute that. Voice minutes cost them next to nothing to provide. A friend of mine works at the local university. They have their own telephone switch and telecom department and lease dedicated flat-rate trunks to carry their off-campus traffic. How much do you think they pay for voice minutes to the US and Canada? With the flat-rate trunks it works out to less then a hundredth of a penny per minute. With all the long distance and backbone assets that Verizon, AT&T and Sprint own, somehow I doubt that voice isn't rolling in the dough for them. It may not have as big of a margin as data or SMS, but it makes enough money.
So if all you want is a phone, go with a carrier that uses vendor lock-in to screw their other customers! You'll probably get a better deal.
I'd also dispute that. T-Mobile doesn't use vendor lock-in and they are about the best value in mobility, if you live an area with coverage. Right now they are even offering a promotion of 1,000 minutes for $39.99/mo with full N&W. That's 3.999 cents a minute. Verizon's $39.99 offering is 450 minutes or 8.8886 cents a minute. Granted, it all depends on your needs, coverage and where your friends are (mobile to mobile is nice), but I think it dispels the fact that you need to screw your customers to offer a good price on voice. If anything, T-Mo would have the highest backend cost for voice too, given that they don't own their own backhaul networks in the United States like the other carriers do.
Who pays for that? The people who run up huge finance charges, that's who
Your paying for that as well. Ever hear of the merchant fee? Even if you don't eat finance charges the merchant is eating 1.5-3.0% of every sale when you use your credit card. In fact, I'm helping you to pay for that as well because the merchant isn't allowed to pass that charge along to you -- so the cash users wind up subsidizing the credit card ones. Net result: prices go up, Visa, Mastercard and your bank all get richer.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I stopped reading when I got to "Blu-tooth". Their credibility just went down the toilet with the Blu-water
mod me funny
how will this affect those "unlocked" iPhones that are being advertised online (currently on pre-order) which are typically a hundred to a few hundred more than the stated AT&T/Apple soap-on-a-rope bundle price?
Will the WiFi (802.11x) on those unlocked iPhones be disabled or useless?
The free market will take care of that. People already choose providers based on the features they provide. If you don't like the restrictions your carrier places on your phone, choose another one, don't go crying to the government.
We don't have a free market for cell phones! That's the whole point that nobody understands. Four carriers is not competition. It's an oligopoly. How is it competition when they all raise their SMS prices within three months of each other? How is it competition when none of them will allow unsigned applications to run on their phones? How is it competition when nobody new can break into the market because of the combination of start-up costs (billions) and a lack of available spectrum?
The government will only make things worse. Witness the Cable Card debacle for a good example of the government attempting to do something like what you're demanding and failing miserably at it.
Yes, because the carterfone decision can be compared to the Cable Card clusterfuck. The carterfone decision never led to open devices or consumer choice. Ma Bell still has a lockdown on the POTS network and won't allow you to use a phone unless you get it from her. Oh, wait....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think carrying around my entire music collection is a dumb idea. Because there are many things in my collection I know I'll never want to listen to while I'm out galavanting around. Besides the fact that it's just an enormous amount of music that would take an impractical amount of time to navigate around to find what I listen to, the total runtime of the collection would eclipse battery life by a factor of 1000:1 likely.
I understand that some people love to tote around everything they have, but I think this is a waste of time and effort.
As for the data plan, I'm very happy that you have WiFi available where ever you go around your home town. 99% of America I'd say does not. So for alot of people, like me, I'm sure they'll happily sign up for a data plan they'll need anyway. I'm not sure why people wouldn't want a data service anyway as at least a back-up in the same vain that I'm not sure why people want to take their whole gigantic music collection around with them.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
We've had free market and competition in the mobile phone industry for quite sometime; so if competition will take care of everything, why do all the carriers still suck?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Yes, because the carterfone decision can be compared to the Cable Card clusterfuck. The carterfone decision never led to open devices or consumer choice. Ma Bell still has a lockdown on the POTS network and won't allow you to use a phone unless you get it from her. Oh, wait.... Ma Bell was a monopoly. That's about as close to the opposite of a free market as you can get. Cable Card, on the other hand, is almost completely analogous to your suggestion of trying to force the cell phone companies to allow any device on their network. TV content delivery is not a monopoly (and if you think it is, you haven't gone looking for options). Neither is cell service. There are plenty of cell companies to choose from. There are plenty of phones to choose from. If you don't like the terms your cell company imposes, choose another one. You've got options. Demanding that the government step in and try to enforce restrictions on cellular networks is just asking for higher prices and less choice. I already have to pay $5/month in government fees on my cell service alone. I really don't feel like paying more just because you don't like the phones that your carrier supports.
Cable Card, on the other hand, is almost completely analogous to your suggestion of trying to force the cell phone companies to allow any device on their network.
No, it's not. If the cable companies acted like the cell companies you would have to buy your TV from them -- not just your set-top box. They would also refuse to carry the content of competing networks (recall Time Warner trying to refuse to carry Faux News because they own CNN -- it was smacked down) because it would harm their revenue stream.
Neither is cell service
Yeah, it's an oligopoly where the carriers have no incentive to do anything consumer friendly, because new players can't break into the market and people don't have the choice of not having cellular service. That's a lot better then a monopoly.
Demanding that the government step in and try to enforce restrictions on cellular networks is just asking for higher prices and less choice
The Government is already enforcing restrictions on them. Or are you telling me that I can just buy some GSM equipment and throw up a network without involving the Government? They are selling a service based around a limited resource (RF spectrum) that belongs to everybody. There is no reason that they should be able to control what I can do with my handset beyond making sure that it doesn't have a harmful impact on their network -- which any complaint device will not.
Accept the fact that the free market has failed us here. Or find me a carrier that doesn't engage in these practices. You won't be able to because they all do to some extent. I've voted with my wallet and I'm giving my money to the best of the worst (T-Mobile) even though I had to take a huge coverage hit to do so. The carriers should not be allowed to leverage their networks to build a vertical monopoly on the devices and content allowed on those networks.
Read the damn document I linked before you go spouting off your Libertarian theories again. I have some Libertarian leanings and despite them I think this makes a good argument for applying carterfone to the cell industry.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Kiss your dreams of WIFI reliance goodbye"
What was that supposed to mean? Reliance is not it. Reliability? Independence?
Holy Moley
It looks like the iPhone is going to be Apple's Vista.
...this thing could run on WiFi alone. It's a cell phone first, after all.
The specs call for WiFi wireless data, and I don't see a Skype or iChat icon.
You don't want this running without EDGE level data, and without a plan you'll go broke(r).
Store manager? Cingular has three sorts of sellers: actual company stores, Cingular branded stores that are really Joe Shmoe's cell phone store, and resellers who happen to also sell Cingular. You'll get three different answers from these three types of staff if you so much as ask what color the sky is. I found this out trying to upgrade to a specific phone. "We just don't have them in stock right now." "It's sold online only." and "That phone isn't even manufactured anymore, no one has it."
But that level of reliability never stopped the mob from going charlie foxtrot based on a rumor, so why should it now.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
What is the big deal? Does anybody believe that these restrictions will hold over the long haul? I love Apple. Own a Macmini, a Video Ipod and a shuffle for the wife. But I didn't jump on board the Apple train until LAST YEAR. I'm not sure what generation Ipod I've got, but it's close to the most current one. The newest and baddest toys are always overpriced at first to squeeze money out of people who have too much of it. Apple will have plenty of competition, and even without it, the market for folks willing to pay the kind of money this phone will require is too small to support in the long run. If you can wait two years (I will), the situation will be much improved. Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
I dare you.
You're forced to pay around $100/ month. That's $50 more than the average cell plan. Over the two mandatory years, that's $1200.
This means that for many, the handset itself ends up costing them $1800. $600 down and 24 monthly payments of $50.
I can justify paying maybe $1000 AND lock myself in a 2 year plan at $50/month for the coolness of the iPhone. I won't pay $1800. That's madness unless you actually need the expensive plan.
But I figure a lot of people are going to delude themselves and regret it later...
I thought people were complaining because WiFi wasn't prevalent enough and so EDGE was too slow. Now people are complaining because WiFi is everywhere and they don't want a data plan. Give it a rest! sn't it possible that having data wherever you go, sometimes faster and sometimes slower, via different means, is the best of all worlds?
Where I live we don't even HAVE 3G yet, so I don't need it. But I welcome the realistic combination of WiFi and EDGE to get the widest possible network coverage and the best possible battery life (3G currently really chows down on batteries). All these things add up to actually being able to make full use of data on the device, instead of carefully hording limited battery or data amounts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You'd have to be insane to think that's a good deal, especially if the phone is crippled to only work through AT&T's own network. You could buy an excellent contract-free phone (or an even better one under contract) AND an 80Gb iPod and still have change left over. Who are these idiots rushing out to buy one?
I was debating buying the iPhone and not getting a service--using it as a PDA only.
What part of "Need a contract to buy the phone" that Apple has been saying since launch, ever led you to believe that would be possible in the first place?
I'm sorry your dreams are shattered, but it wasn't Apple that led you to this false hope, so it's unfair to chastise them for breaking yours no matter how much you wish it to be true.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple is not forced to sell through a carrier. All they need to is produce a GSM enabled phone with a SIM slot and they can sell these things through their store like any other device. Let the consumer choose their own carrier.
The concept of crippled phones isn't isolated to American carriers, European carriers pull the same damn stunts. Sony's P990s and M600is have notorious instability issues with branded UIQ versions and lack features that the unbranded phones have.
That said, if you don't like crippled phones then do yourself a favor and don't use contract phones. Simply purchase retail phones from independent vendors and be done with it. In Europe's GSM world this may be more feasible, but even in America there is a good amount of GSM diversity now where unlocked phones are a valid option.
I'm sure you posted AC just because you forgot your account name, not because you wanted to remain anonymous to history with your prediction, say a year hence...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
that the iphone's key features might be disabled without a mobile phone contract is all too believable...
Read the summary again. Yes, it's quite horribly written, but they had FUD to spread dammit and you can't make an omelet without breaking a few grammatical eggs!
If you read carefully, you'll see that all they are saying is that you simply cannot buy the iPhone without a plan, and that plan is customized to the iPhone - not that you can now, nor have you ever said to be able, purchase the iPhone without a plan under any circumstance.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As more recently used by gmail to create demand. The invite system and restricted beta was a briliant stroke of marketing genius. Want a gig storage? Tough!
You're forced to pay around $100/ month.
Who says? You don't have any more idea of what the plan really is than anyone else. Cingular could be making it cheaper for the iPhone because they now all of them will sell at full price.
Basically your arguments are a really good rant against smart phones in general, and show that the iPhone itself really isn't that much more expensive than any other smart phone once you factor in data plans. Yet people own smartphones today.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Back to square one for you, I suppose.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think Job's Reality Distortion Field is failing. After all of Apple's hype, the iPhone looks like just a fancy phone with all the drawbacks and contracts of a "normal" phone.
Thanks, but I'll wait for the eventual give-aways by AT&T. You know, "sign a lifetime contract and get an iPhone, free".
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
You're right about how terrible the carriers are about locking everyone in, but everyone that's blindly claiming that there's no way Apple wants it too is being naive. I'm not saying Apple definitely wants the iPhone restricted, but it would be very easy for them to hide behind the carrier here if they did.
'' There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage. ''
Apparently, being unprepared increases your chances of surviving traffic accidents. Being drunk helps even more. The reason is that being unprepared and/or drunk you are more relaxed, and your muscles are more relaxed, and that can reduce the amount of injuries slightly.
I'd rather "shave my head with a cheese grater" than deal with Apple and their proprietary uber costly junk, and most especially, AT&T. I had AT&T wireless before Cingular and they were attrocious, with hidden fees given new meaning every month, charges from nowhere that made no sense and could only be removed after marathon seven hour arguments with customer service, spotty coverage at best in some of the largest municipalities in CT... Crap on top of crap. Now an iPod with a phone in it, that doesn't hold nearly what any other iPod does, and locked into a single WiFi provider?
No.
Sprint ain't perfect and their phones don't always do what I want, but they haven't screwed me yet so when my contract was way past up and I had a choice, I traded in my old phones and got new ones and signed another two-year contract with them gladly. Apple needed to do a little bet job of thinking out how and with who they do cell business.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Revolutionary product, thats what Steve says! a phone, an ipod and an internet communicatior, buy yourself a noose from AT&T
I know several people who are going to buy the iPhone without even having researched its real capabilities and limitations.
They are the traditional early adopters - the meat & potatoes lemmings the tech industry bank accounts feed on.
Like many early adopters, they just want the latest and greatest _________.
They (or their parents) have more money than sense. They generaly don't have the desire to dig in depth prior to purchasing.
Like a fish in a lake, they see something shiny and go for it with all they have.
Early adopters have been burned in the past but it doesn't affect them in the same way it affects more savvy consumers.
I wish Apple the best and I couldn't care less what happens to ATT.
I will stick to my little two-year-old clamshell cell phone with a small, cheap data plan so I can occasionally check the weather radar.
Is someone who is willing to part with $600 for a great music player cell phone "price sensitive?" Come on.
It's hard to know what the margins actually are because most of them are owned by parent companies (T-Mo by Deutsche Telekom, VZW by Verizon and Vodafone, etc, etc) and don't report separate results, but even assuming that's the case I don't buy it as justification for this behavior.
It's not about justification of behavior. Sprint, for example, is predominantly a wireless company and has margins in the low single digits. I've read analysis that claims similar for the other carriers. From the cutthroat way they attack each other in ads and go after each other's customers, I'd say the market is competitive. So they don't make a ton of money. That's point 1.
I'd dispute that. Voice minutes cost them next to nothing to provide. A friend of mine works at the local university. They have their own telephone switch and telecom department and lease dedicated flat-rate trunks to carry their off-campus traffic. How much do you think they pay for voice minutes to the US and Canada? With the flat-rate trunks it works out to less then a hundredth of a penny per minute.
That's land line, which is irrelevant for an analysis of wireless. You're paying mainly for the wireless capacity, not for the land-based transmission part of the call.
I'd also dispute that. T-Mobile doesn't use vendor lock-in and they are about the best value in mobility, if you live an area with coverage.
That answers itself - Tmobile is known (particularly where I live) for having an abysmal network, particularly where coverage is concerned. Most certainly, with wireless companies in the US, you're paying your dollar for coverage pretty much anywhere you'll be traveling. One way to get a discount is to get a carrier that has coverage in a few areas you plan to be, rolling the dice that you won't get screwed elsewhere when traveling.
Your paying for that as well. Ever hear of the merchant fee? Even if you don't eat finance charges the merchant is eating 1.5-3.0% of every sale when you use your credit card. In fact, I'm helping you to pay for that as well because the merchant isn't allowed to pass that charge along to you -- so the cash users wind up subsidizing the credit card ones.
That one answers itself too. Since the merchants aren't allowed to charge more for CC transactions, on a comparative basis my credit card is better than free. The merchant fees are the only money they get from me. Ever. And since the CC vs. cash cost is the same for the customer, that's the merchant's money they're getting, not mine. So you're quite right - cash users and people who pay finance and late charges pay for the convenience of me using my credit card - which was my basic point all along.
And I still maintain that, similarly, giving a ringtone to a customer DOES NOT cost the wireless company $3 for a 30 second clip. No way in hell. So that money is definitely used to help pay for my service - presumably in the false hope that I'll use their add-on services. Just how my CC keeps increasing my credit line in the hopes I'll use it. And I won't.
Look at the subtle and clever way the Apple Remote Control is opened to allow the user to replace the battery. A little indent at the bottom is actually a button, and pressing it pops open a battery carrier. On a new remote you can barely see any seams or anything at all. I'm betting (a very, very small bet) that there will be some similar way to pop open the iPhone to at the least, replace the SIM.
You simply can't have a GSM phone without a replaceable SIM. I, for example, already have an AT&T phone with a good data plan and a phone number I don't want to change. I'm assuming that the guy in the store is going to pop out the SIM from my current phone and into the iPhone while I'm there. They might be doing some kind of weird and Internationally unwelcome data load thing I suppose, but this is the way they do it on every other GSM phone in the world, so... it's got to be openable.
Mike from www.myallo.com/blog
"Apple iPhone 4GB - Cell Phone Technical Specifications
* Application Platform - Java
* Platform / Operating System - Apple OS X
* Data Download Speed - EDGE (Up to 144 Kbps) and 802.11b, g and n WiFi (Up to 100 Mbps)
* Network Compatibility - GSM 850, 900, 1800, 1900"
That covers every type of GSM network that I am aware of. So, what's your point?
I agree that EDGE isn't exactly exciting, but it does have much better coverage than the newer 3G Networks in the U.S. It would be nice if the AT&T data plan for the iPhone bundled their AT&T WiFi Hotpot aka LaptopConnect service with EDGE.
The future of the AT&T wireless network shows signs of being much brighter. Their HSDPA is being improved and it appears that they are upgrading the existing sites to 14.4 Mbit/sec service. If they roll that technology out nationwide I for one would welcome our new high speed wireless overlords.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
You can spot the CEO's standing in line, they'll be nose-first in their 4-month-old Blackberry.
So an anonymous store rep says it, it must be true? I happen to know that this is false. There are lots of people who want this device to fail. I would wait until the facts are known before coming to any conclusions. Sounds like FUD to me.
That's land line, which is irrelevant for an analysis of wireless. You're paying mainly for the wireless capacity, not for the land-based transmission part of the call.
Right, which also costs them next to nothing, unless they are having capacity issues in a given area, which is fairly rare with modern technology barring unusual events (9/11, the campus shootings, etc) that drive up the volume of traffic. Why do you think they can give away nights and weekends and mobile to mobile?
Sprint, for example, is predominantly a wireless company and has margins in the low single digits.
Sprint is a Tier 1 internet provider that owns a large chunk of the global internet backbone, so where are you getting this "predominantly a wireless company" idea from? And their low margins probably have more to do with the fact that they are still trying to assimilate Nextel (which may go down in history as one of the worst mergers ever) then anything unique to the wireless industry.
That answers itself - Tmobile is known (particularly where I live) for having an abysmal network, particularly where coverage is concerned.
Eh, in areas that they choose to cover the coverage is typically very good. They haven't really bothered at all with rural areas -- but the dirty little secret of the big boys is that if you took away their roaming agreements with the regional providers, they'd have huge coverage gaps as well.
One way to get a discount is to get a carrier that has coverage in a few areas you plan to be, rolling the dice that you won't get screwed elsewhere when traveling.
Eh, T-Mo has coverage in 85% of the local area where I go (Verizon might have been 95%). As far as traveling goes, every single place I've looked at for a vacation this summer (eventually settled on the Outer Banks) either has native T-Mo service or a roaming agreement with a local company. So I'm not overly concerned.
Price wasn't even my main reason for switching to them. It was mostly me being fed up with the fact that my CDMA Verizon phone stopped ringing for incoming calls (straight to v/m more then half the time) once they rolled out EV-DO in my area. They refused to fix it even though I documented that it happened on three different phones (what, are they all broken?) and that at least six other Verizon customers in my area (just the ones that I know) were having the same problem. Their customer service was rude and condescending and on top of all of that I can't even load a ringtone on my phone without hacking it? Screw them! I made a nice utility bill in photoshop that suggested I'd moved to the Adirondacks in an area with no coverage and ditched them without paying their $175 extortion^Wtermination fee.
I actually pay more for service with T-Mobile because they gave me a decent SMS package. I refused on general principle to give Verizon that money because of the way they treated me. Unless they think they can renew you for two years and get a big fat commission check out of the deal they don't give two shits about you.
So you're quite right - cash users and people who pay finance and late charges pay for the convenience of me using my credit card - which was my basic point all along.
But it sounds like you are assuming that you are costing them money and the other customers are supporting you. That's not the case. The profit margin on your account is a lot less then the profit margin on the person carrying a $10,000 balance at 19% APR, but you are still making them money.
Regardless, even if I accept your argument that the cell industry depends on ringtones and SMS as revenue and wouldn't survive/would raise voice prices without them, how exactly does that justify locking down my phone again? You realize that most people would continue to use "Get It Now" for these things right? How does the handful of people smart enough to bluetooth/usb an mp3 to their phone harm Verizon's bottom line? Cingular and T-Mobile (and Sprint?) all seem to be making enough money without doing this.
Would you still be singing the praises of your credit card if they only allowed you to shop in certain stores?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Ah I'm so sick and tired of the iPhone hype. FFS it's a phone and not even that advanced one. It's so pale compared to the crown jewel Nokia N95. Sure the GUI looks cool, but in the mobile world pretty just doesn't cut it. Sure the GUI is a little prettier than series 60 3rd edition, but yeah.. so what. Where's the functionality? I smell a lot of trouble for the iPhone.. might do well in the US thou but I doubt it'll do too good in the far bigger markets in Europe and the rest of the world.
Summary says "forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores."
Uh huh. So what's that huge sign I saw in the window of the AT&T store announcing the iPhone's availability on June 29? Just a diversion?
-- Boycott Shell
I would consider anything short of an official statement from AT&T or Apple to be nothing but a rumor.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Sounds like this whole iPhone is going to be almost as popular as the Newton. Great job Apple. I really think they should get IBM involved driving fees with service vendors so high that nobody will be willing to service the product as well - but maybe they can wait on that until after they've alienated as much of their customer base as possible. Apple's acronym exposed; A.P.P.L.E = All People Purchase Lame Equipment (They hope anyway).
No, it sounds like the damn carrier (AT&T in this case), as usual, has way too much power and is holding back true innovation by restricting what the device maker (Apple) in this case can offer to their customers.
You have got to be joking me. Apple is not some poor bitch that gets kicked around the consumer electronics market. In fact, Apple is no one's bitch, despite claims to the contrary that pop up when Apple's policies don't match up nicely with what people envision it should be doing. This was most clearly shown when Apple and EMI made a deal to offer DRM free music. It had been bitch and moaned endlessly that Apple refused to offer DRM free music for the indie companies that wanted it. The great Apple defense was that 1) It is too hard to some how integrated DRM and non-DRM free music in the same service and 2) Apple is prevented by super secret contracts that don't let them offer DRM free music to rival recording labels.
Behold, both defenses were utterly wrong. Apple clearly has the capacity to offer DRM free music, and the fact that the RIAA has not pig piled on with lawsuits when Apple let EMI offer DRM free music shows pretty clearly that there is not some secret contract with the RIAA that prevents Apple from offering DRM free music to indie labels.
This is the same scenario. "OMFG, Apple is going to offer a restricted product. I bet AT&T is making them do it."
No, Apple is doing what it wants because it wants to do it. Any of the other carriers would have broken their backs to be the ones to own the iPhone. Hell, Apple doesn't even have to have a carrier and could just offer an open phone to anyone who wants to buy it. Apple is on top and AT&T is without a doubt the bitch. There is only one iPhone, but there are dozens of carriers.
Accept Apple products at face value. Apple products are all tightly controlled platforms with integrated software and hardware. The disadvantage to this is of course that if you buy Apple's products, you become Apple's bitch and basically need to feed from the tit of Apple with few alternatives. On the flip side, Apple has a massive amount of control over what goes into their products and the image of their products. The result is a device that looks slick, will make you feel hip and trendy, and will likely be reliable.
Yeah, that is right, Apple products have both advantages and disadvantages. The iPhone is no exception. Holy shit.
Wait a minute, this thing is a Mac. I thought they were hack-proof.
That's not quite how it works with the carriers. The deal is this: if the cell phone manufacturer wants the carrier to carry a particular cell phone in their (the carrier's) stores, they need to customize the software on the phone to meet the carrier's requirements--meaning load the phone with all of the carrier's software/services and lock out certain features.
The reason why it feels like the carriers have too much power is because everyone purchases a cell phone contract and the carriers often provide discounts on the phones if the customer purchases a contract. So you go to the cingular/verizon/tmobile store and they say "with a 2 year contract, we'll give you $100 or whatever off on your cell phone." If you don't accept, then you go out, look for a plain cell phone, realize that cell phones are damn expensive (even the cheap ones) and come crawling back to the cingular/verizon/tmobile store ready to sign the contract. The problem is, the phone you're buying (from them) is loaded and modified with their crap so it is basically useless to you during and after the contract. Had you bought the phone and service separately, you could enjoy the full benefits of the phone's features as well as a cell phone service with no contract.
It's still possible to buy the phone and service separately (no crap loaded phone, no contract) in the U.S. with GSM providers (I believe ATT, T-mobile). It's just that nobody does it because for many people they typically only use their cell phones for talking (it does not matter how much crap is on the phone as long as they can make a call) or they're not willing to pay for the full cost of the cell phone.
So in a nutshell, the carriers effectively control the American consumers because in general the American consumers aren't cell phone/tech savvy and always go after the cheaper initial price even if it is a contract.
Personally, I'm done with contracts because without the contract, I can easily bargain the service price down anytime I want as long as there's more than one service provider. Bargaining isn't fun, but it's better than being someone's bitch for 2 years.
Right, which also costs them next to nothing, unless they are having capacity issues in a given area, which is fairly rare with modern technology barring unusual events (9/11, the campus shootings, etc) that drive up the volume of traffic. Why do you think they can give away nights and weekends and mobile to mobile?
Nights and weekends are free as an enticement because maintaining the network - towers, equimpent, etc - is a relatively fixed cost (on a day/night basis). Same reason electricity is often cheaper off-peak. In this case, peak business-time demand drives network capacity, which would be lying effectively dormant at night. As such, some genius marketeer came up with the idea of making nights and weekends free, and the rest followed. What else do you think the costs are of running a wireless company? It's not cheap by any means, and is why you don't see little mom-and-pops throwing up towers all over the place. There's a serious capital expense involved, for startup and maintenance.
Eh, in areas that they choose to cover the coverage is typically very good. They haven't really bothered at all with rural areas -- but the dirty little secret of the big boys is that if you took away their roaming agreements with the regional providers, they'd have huge coverage gaps as well.
Yes - covering the first 50% of the population is much cheaper than covering the last 50%. They've chosen to reduce costs by reducing geographical coverage. Even accounting for the reciprocity agreements, Tmobile seems to have piss coverage breadth compared to the 'big boys.'
But it sounds like you are assuming that you are costing them money and the other customers are supporting you. That's not the case. The profit margin on your account is a lot less then the profit margin on the person carrying a $10,000 balance at 19% APR, but you are still making them money.
I'm *probably* still making the CC company money, though not nearly as much as they'd like considering my average balance that nets them 0 interest. If I spend $2000 a month on the CC, then I have an average balance of $1000, which means they're basically making me a permanant 0%-interest loan. They are probably giving up $50ish in interest. On the other hand, taking the merchant fees and subtracting cash back, they probably make abouut $300 or so on fees. That's a $250 gross. Out of that comes all the fees that my card company pays Visa for my transactions, overhead, etc. If the net margin is positive, it's not by much. In any event, my point is that the money the CC company makes doesn't come from me, thanks to the CC company forcing that rule on their merchants.
Regardless, even if I accept your argument that the cell industry depends on ringtones and SMS as revenue and wouldn't survive/would raise voice prices without them, how exactly does that justify locking down my phone again? You realize that most people would continue to use "Get It Now" for these things right?
I don't grant that assumption at all - I think many people would figure out how to get their own mp3s on the phone for free, use wireless not sold by the vendor, etc. They lock the phone down so you have to use "Get it now." Otherwise, why the hell would you - "Get it now" sucks! So I do think they use lock-in as a revenue generation tool. What other reason would there be to remove features from phones? Fun? The joy of underwhelming customers?
How does the handful of people smart enough to bluetooth/usb an mp3 to their phone harm Verizon's bottom line?
The cell companies make their money from kids and businesspeople. The latter pays a lot for high-end service. The former is the driving force for ringtones, text messaging, etc (something else they absolutely gouge for). I most certainly think kids could do it, particularly with help from their friends. I'm assuming the phone manufacturers would make it quite easy to do your own ringtones as a value-add if the ser
- Lock-in with a particular cell phone company. No ability to use another SIM card.
- Typical feature crippling by that cell phone company.
- The particular cell phone company in question is not even one of the kinder, gentler
cell phone companies that offers you vaseline before 'transacting business' with you.
- Mandatory outrageous monthly subscription fee to complement the chewy goodness of the
outrageous up-front price.
- All the storage capacity of a first generation iPod
- Steve Jobs thinks AJAX is an SDK.
- Battery life that is almost certainly going to suck, but even on the off chance
that it doesn't, I'm happy to let somebody else spend $$$ and tell me about it first.
- Version 1.0 of a complicated device. Bound to have major bugs.
I guess my dream of a better Nokia N800 just went out the window. There's only one thing left to say to Apple: Welcome to the Social!...the guy who bought it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"(and preferably drop my T-Mobile SIM into it and keep my current plan)"
Wasn't the iPhone locked into the AT&T network, so you could not change SIM on it?
Apple is getting bigger, that's for sure, but so is Mr. Jobs ego. Apple did a good job with the iPod, hey practically became the reference, so by default it must mean they know everything about technology, consumers and what not. I'm amazed how much hype there's around that not yet released phone/iPod Nano hybrid. I must admit when the gadget was announced 6 months ago, I was thrilled. Finally a smart phone fully compatible with my Macs. However in those 6 months they've released so few info apart from the cool limited functions, it makes it hard to really want this product. If the AppleTV is any indication, it's a cool little box that doesn't do much and in the end, for the price isn't worth it. On top of that, in the last year, Apple has been putting all their eggs in the same basket, the iPhone ! The end result: Leopard has slipped, features are being cut (top secret features anyone !!!) and the big surprise...Safari on Windows...right ! All that to provide the appropriate tools for Web Pages to display properly on Safari (the only browser on the iPhone). So if that rumors of no WIFI enabled without a contract is true, it doesn't surprise me one bit. Steve Jobs seems confident enough that his phone will sell millions of units on June 29th at 6pm, whatever the price tag cause that thing is so cool. I for one will be waiting and I'm happy to see there more realistic people on this forum than anywhere else. For those buying the thing, I hope those 300+ new patents don't break on you. I wish them luck with their new baby, but I for one am losing faith in Apple. Maybe down the road we'll start hearing about switchers to other platforms. On June 29, I don't know where I'll be, but certainly not at an AT&T/Apple store.
I see it as an at-long-last replacement for the old Newton, with a phone in it.
This is precisely the same thing that I and millions of other Mac fans said when we heard of it. I mean, how could Apple pass up the opportunity to produce the first viable *NIX handheld that included telephony and all of Apple's great media software? The possibilities were endless, given the already extant, enormous library of Mac and GNU software out there. Then we heard about MultiTouch and the fact that it "has Cocoa," and everyone was thrilled.
Then the SDK news, and now this complete garbage about WiFi being disabled (not to mention needing to sign a new contract in order to even get one in the first place)?
Fuck you too, Steve.
+++ATH0
Can I do iChat AV from it? If so, I'll buy it. Period. If not, don't want it no matter what else it can do. iChat AV is that important to me and being able to use it solely from a handheld/phone (even if it required WiFi to do so) as opposed to having to lug around a MacBook would override any other hesitations I have. I realize that this isn't really a representation of the average customer, but it's my two cents none the less.
Trust me, it's not that fast. I was in Chicago using it and I think I got speeds comparable to a heavily-loaded DSL connection.
+++ATH0
I too have Cingular. However, I have an HTC TYTN (branded as the Cingular 8525). It has Windows Mobile 5, no application lockdowns, no software lockdowns of any kind (Bluetooth functions perfectly), I can even replace the firmware myself on it with a WM6 image if I want to. It has Bluetooth 2.0, a 2MP camera, a slideout keyboard, a miniSD slot... and WiFi. I have no data plan and am entirely happy that way. Skype works beautifully.
By all accounts, my TYTN is FAR AND AWAY more functional than the iPhone, yet costs precisely the same.
So we know Cingular allows these kinds of phones on their network. What the crap, Cingular?
+++ATH0
Ha! Seriously people. Apple is not a bitch little consumer electronics company being beaten and abused by all around it. Apple sets the rules and others play by them. Apple simply likes locked down devices. Apple offers a slick looking and well marketed locked down device. The disadvantage is that you are tied by the balls to Apple for all things concerning Apple products. The advantage is that because Apple has a device where they control the software, hardware, and most of the entry points into the device, the device is relatively reliable.
This is how Apple works. They have worked like this for as long as they have been around. Locked down device, software/hardware integration, high reliability, slick look, slick marketing. Take it or leave and spend less time on tears when you realize that part of the Apple package is an Apple lock in. The Apple lock is what makes the device reliable and predictable. Don't like? Don't buy Apple.
Regardless of the hoops to jump through with the carriers and whatnot. Millions of teenagers will make their parents buy this for them. End of story.
Get off the internet and drive! ;)
What else do you think the costs are of running a wireless company? It's not cheap by any means, and is why you don't see little mom-and-pops throwing up towers all over the place. There's a serious capital expense involved, for startup and maintenance.
I've never said it was free or easy. Only that I tend to think that voice is profitable in it's own way and that defending their locking down of hardware on the basis of needing the revenue to make voice cheaper is a thin argument at best. That revenue may be going back into building more towers and expanding their native service area -- but I doubt that voice prices in the areas where they already have service would go up if they lost that revenue. And I'm not even rooting for them to lose that revenue -- only for them to stop trying to be a vertical monopoly with strict control over equipment and content. They'd still make money.
Tmobile seems to have piss coverage breadth compared to the 'big boys.'
Eh, they work where I need them too and that's what I care about. I'm a stubborn man of principle and refuse to do business with Verizon (crippled phones, nasty policies, rude CSRs) or AT&T (equally nasty policies and even worse customer service), so my choice was Sprint or T-Mobile. I wanted the freedom of GSM (easy to change phones, seamless global roaming) so T-Mobile it was. Granted, I considered ditching them when they ended the relationship with Cathrine Zeta-Jones ;)
I don't grant that assumption at all - I think many people would figure out how to get their own mp3s on the phone for free, use wireless not sold by the vendor, etc. They lock the phone down so you have to use "Get it now." Otherwise, why the hell would you - "Get it now" sucks! So I do think they use lock-in as a revenue generation tool. What other reason would there be to remove features from phones? Fun? The joy of underwhelming customers?
Even if that assumption is correct, you still haven't convinced me as to why they should be allowed to do this or why applying the carterfone rules to them is a bad idea. If you aren't all about consumer protection/rights then think of how much innovation is being held back by these types of policies. Read the parts of that document that contrast the internet to the mobile world.
The cell companies make their money from kids and businesspeople. The latter pays a lot for high-end service. The former is the driving force for ringtones, text messaging, etc (something else they absolutely gouge for).
Yes, we are raped up the ass on SMS. I use it quite heavily (IM clients on the phone) and pay for the unlimited package from T-Mobile: $14.99/mo. In a given month I'll do 2,000 - 2,500, so I'm still paying more then half a penny for each one. If it costs them a tenth of a penny to process an SMS I'd be surprised. You are screwed even more if you just want to use them once in awhile (think Google SMS to look up directions or phone numbers) and pay the per use rates. T-Mobile won't disable them for phone who don't want them (apparently they use them for voicemail notifications on the back end), yet they still charge people to receive them and you have no option to reject an incoming SMS (like you do an incoming call). That right there is complete bullshit, but that's the state of the industry these days.
I'm assuming the phone manufacturers would make it quite easy to do your own ringtones as a value-add if the service providers didn't scream bloody murder.
And the fact that they can't kind of proves my whole argument. Innovation is being artificially restrained by the revenue interests of the carriers. This needs to change.
At that point, since I have the self control to not use the thing like it's free money...why the hell wouldn't I use it everywhere? Saves me trips to the ATM and provides tangiable benefits over cash. And thanks to their control of merchants and people who eat finance charges, it's free to
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The iPhone is not a phone, it is a device that works as a phone and does a plethora of other things. To think of the iPhone as a cellular phone is to think of a laptop as a portable word processor. Sure it makes phone calls but it also surfs the web, plays music, stores video and photos and probably has other applications on it as well.
To use this device without a data plan of some sort is taking away a great deal of the functionality of the device even if it connects via WiFi under some circumstances. I suspect that the WiFi component is probably intended for wireless access to your home computer (for file transfer) more than it is intended for use in public WiFi hotspots.
Imagine trying to use the iPhone for surfing the web while riding a bus or as a passenger in a car. It would not be a good "user experience" which is something Apple is known for providing. So, Apple has an interest in making sure that the device has a plan that is appropriate. Obviously, AT&T also has an interest in selling a data plan with the device. Not only is the data plan for them but it is also important for them to provide a good "user experience" for the device. If word got out that the device was "flakey" they would have a hard time selling them!
Here's the other side of the story. I am a Cingular customer - have been for a very long time. I recently purchased a HTC 8525 Windows Mobile phone for Cingular. By default they have WiFi Internet Browsing disabled. You actually have to go into the phone's registry to flip a binary switch to allow it to "EnableAutoDetect" before it will use an internet source other than EDGE / MediaNet.
So, in other words, I wouldn't be surprised if they did disable WiFi for the iPhone, or at least the ability to browse the internet via the WiFi, since there is a precedent.
How is an industry dominated by four major players that all act the same competitive? You'd almost think they have a gentleman's agreement or something...
It's called an Oligopoly, and they do in essence have a gentleman's agreement. They know that if they all continue to impose artificial restrictions on cell phone technology, charge way too much for phone service, and what not then they all stand to become very very rich.
I've only dealt with cingular, so maybe I don't know what the others have to offer. I have a $45 a month plan where I never come close to using all the minutes and texts I get. Even though their customer service does suck, I've never really had to use it.
I do think it's about time that the wireless industry has some regulations imposed on it. When cell phones first became prominent, they were the new toys for the rich kids. Now they are a way of life, and can be seen as a type of utility (network bandwidth). The obvious thing that comes to my mind is the blatent double-dipping on sending text messages. Why should both the sender and receiver be charged for a message? It's like being charged for the amount of water that comes out of your faucet and the amount of water you drink every month.
Also, where is this linked article that you speak of? I don't see it in your message...
I got nothin'
I had a work MotoQ that suffered the Black Screen of Death (a software problem with Windows Mobile) which requires a replacement unit. How is that good IN ANY WAY? My phone cannot do anything except display a cryptic DOS-style error message.
Well, to start with it's not clear if the WiFi will really be disabled without an EDGE service plan, or exactly what the AT&T service plan for the iPhone will be, so it seems a little premature to be issuing the big FU to the one guy on the planet who's trying to fix the cell phone industry. Recall, this is the same guy and the same company who tried to save the music industry from it's own stupidity. (Reference EMI's evolving position on DRM). You might want to give this a little time. Apple cannot fix the entire cell phone industry overnight, but they can fix some things up front, gain influence in the market, and use that influence to fix other problems later.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Also, where is this linked article that you speak of? I don't see it in your message...
It's here and it was in my original message :)
BTW, I agree with everything that you said.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How is it competition when none of them will allow unsigned applications to run on their phones?
Where is this notion coming from. I've had at least 4 phones (that could run custom software) and not one has required me to sign an application (with anything more than a self-created key) i've written to install it.
Get with T-Mobile!
Probably as big as the "I want a computer but not for work" market is.
:)
Which, if you look at Apple's existing marketshare, seems to be at about 5%
GPL Deconstructed
Do you not realize that Apple had to *change* their agreement with the cooperation of EMI in order to offer DRM free music? Have you not noticed that EMI's head came out and publicly stated that he was "well aware" of Steve Jobs' position on DRM "long before" the famous "open letter"? Yes, Apple might very well be both opposed to locked-down WiFi, and forced to compromise on that point in order to reach an agreement with Cingular/AT&T and get into the market. Stop being a fucktard. And take a course in basic logic.
True dat. I have never not had coverage with my AT&T Wireless-then-Cingular-now-AT&T (yes, it's been a while). This includes rural Maine where there is even (slow, but still) GPRS. On top of that, it works anywhere in the world. I've never understood the vitriol directed at AT&T(Wireless)/Cingular, I've always found them reliable. Plus, they unlock your phones after being a subscriber for three months, no charge. That's sweet.
By the way, their data plans are t3h sh11z. $20/mo for unlimited data. They say that they'll cut you off if you tether, but nobody's ever had it happen to them. Means, WiFi anywhere.
And, they don't have the audacity to lock down useful features on their phones, like Bluetooth DUN, or even Audio Gateway. No hax required!
Now, I'm no fanboy(i), and it might be my residence in NNJ or my ~10yrs of giving them my money, but I've never had any crap from them. YMMV
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Accept the fact that the free market has failed us here. Or find me a carrier that doesn't engage in these practices. You won't be able to because they all do to some extent.
The free market isn't magic. It doesn't enable the impossible.
Have you ever considered that they all do it to some extent simply because it isn't possible to offer the service at a reasonable price without some restrictions?
Demanding that the free market engage in magic to offer you all your whims at the price you set does not demonstrate a failure of the free market, it proves that the person making the demands has lost any connection with reality.
The free market also doesn't work instantaneously. It just works faster than the government does.
Regulation is never the answer. In fact, as you point out, it's the existence of things like the FCC that prevent competition and prevent the free market from working. Eliminate these restrictions on the free market, and you'll get better phone service.
Trying to legislate better phone service will not work.
Remember, it was splitting up Ma Bell and forcing there to be competition that made the home phone market what it is today, not regulation.
Fuck off to suckin' Jobs' dick then
will it be the iFlop?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Ya brainwashed dipshit
No, Jobs is no great villain, but I don't think there's any evidence for your claims for his heroism. Jobs isn't trying to "fix" either of these industries: he's trying to make a buck, which makes him no better or worse than any other corporate baron.
In the case of music, a hard look at the facts blows your case out of the water. Jobs for years profited from DRM. He defied open standards with proprietary formats. He conspired with the music biz to keep music prices higher than most consumers were willing to pay (as readily measured by the volume of P2P trading vs. the volume of iTMS sales). Now, he is even increasing costs for downloading music under the cover of eliminating DRM. That's not fixing anything so much as prices. (Sure, they wanted to charge more; call him only a partial appeaser, then.) Through these services, Jobs has proven himself less a benign reformer than a useful ally to the malignant music cartels.
The court is still out on his entry into the cell phone biz. Early signs, as TFA today suggests, aren't cause for celebration. Yes, don't give him the big FU yet, but also wait and see and judge realistically before claiming he is "fixing" anything.
I know fanboys will be fanboys. But can the rest of us resist sentimentalizing Jobs just because we like his OS and industrial design?
Oh, get over it, already. Every carrier requires a data plan with every Internet-capable smartphone they sell. Besides, you'd be limiting yourself if you *didn't* have one. Free Wi-Fi isn't everywhere.
Look, there's going to be some restrictions on the iPhone, just like there's restrictions on every other cell phone ever released. Why does AT&T want to tie the Wi-Fi to the existence of a data contract? To prevent people from buying an iPhone, and canceling their contracts the next day (even with the early termination fee, this would be very useful for a lot of people). See, the nifty thing about the iPhone is that although it has restrictions, it's going to be a whole lot more open than any other device that's come along before, and stuff like that scares the crap out of the cellular carriers--this is why AT&T insisted on (or Apple offered) an exclusive contract and why every other carrier turned Apple down.
Photos, music, movies, widgets/apps, etc. All of these things will get on your iPhone through iTunes, not through the cell network. This means no extra mon(k)ey business for AT&T. All of the other crap is just AT&T hedging their bet.
Now will somebody answer me this...how is this going to work with generic Wi-Fi v. AT&T hotspot subscriptions?
Fortunately for the rest of us, this is the way of the future, and no amount of silliness from carriers is going to prevent it from becoming the norm in the near future. The iPhone is just going to suffer from a transition stage that will still be better than the experience of every other phone out there.
The next version of the iPhone will probably not be cheaper. It will be the same price, just with better features, like more memory, a faster processor, longer battery life, faster networking, and a camera on the front for video conferencing. How long did it take Apple to drop the price of the iPod from $399? I sincerely doubt we'll see a cheaper iPhone until at least the third generation design.
I meant technically best, not financially best. I know it's kind of expensive - although at $20 a year for unlimited data, I would be ecstatic (I'm guessing a mere tolerable $30).
Heck, I'm all about low cost - I currently use pay-as-you go cellphones because it's the cheapest way to have a cell phone. But if I cam going to get a device that supports browsing the internet, I don't want some half-assed connectivity solution, I want connectivity the maximum amount of time possible. I want upgrades man, not a leaky canteen in the middle of a desert.
If another company had made a product as apparently useful as the iPhone, I would have been all over that as well. In fact I have been waiting ever since my Palm died for just such a device from Palm, always hoping they would improve the Treo to the point that I would like it.
The only the Apple gets from me as far as the phone goes is a little more credibility that the UI might actually be responsive. It's not like I own every Apple device ever made, or have a poster of Jobs hanging in my garage. I just want a nice phone/PDA that has good access to the internet. I have not liked Blackberries or Treos or Windows Mobile devices I have tried, but the iPhone really appeals to me.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've been very happy with my 1st gen iPod that delivers 9+ hours of music on a full charge.
I already have to charge my phone once every other day anyway (RAZR). Who cares if I have to charge the iPhone just as often? I have more reason to charge it daily since like an iPod you'd want to dock it more often to sync new songs or podcasts. Frankly I'm not sure what advanced phones today can really offer five hours of talk time either, and 16 hours for music is more than reasonable.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Where in the US is it illegal to sell a cell phone mandatorily with a plan? I have never heard of anyplace like that, and am not sure if it sounds like it would be legal in itself to limit a company in this way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I like Apple, but I refuse to purchase anything from their brick and mortar stores. The products are great and Apple should be doing a lot more business in their stories than it is, but sadly the number of people who actually want to talk to d-bags already spend all of their money at the Gap.
Cellular phone sales are no joke. Apple store employees usually hit Quota because their products sell themselves, but this doesn't really seem to be the case for this one. These restrictions make it a very unattractive product, and given that most Applestore employees have virtually no sales skills (They're use to selling things that sell themselves), you'll probably see most of the sales in the first few months by early adopters.
When I visited my first Apple store, I assumed that the utterly terrible service was attributable to the particular management of the store. The more stories I have visited the more I have learned that Apple simply has terrible policies and procedures.
1. Get some dedicated cashiers who aren't paid on commission. Man, how shocking is it that nobody wants to help you when the store is busy and all you want is a pair of earphones? Not very when you consider that they literally aren't paid to help you.
2. Can you please hire some people who went to supercuts rather than the local art school to get a hair cut? A little individuality, even piercings and tattoos, is fine, but is spiked hair really required to sell computers and phones? Where's the guy who looks like he got a CS degree and isn't from the set of Zoolander? Hey jobs, you know that most of us look like the dorky PC guy in the commercials, right? Yeah, I'm uncool at 23. Thanks you eighty year old d-bag.
3. Institute a people skills program. It doesn't have to be much, it can be as simple as Publix's "Greet everyone within ten feet" rule.
I could go on, but honestly why does anyone buy Apple stock when it becomes brutally apparent from a visit to the Apple store that the company fails to understand the rudiments of customer service or store organization?
I'm bookmarking your quote, dude!
I'll enjoy reading it again in the future, right after I re-read about how the iPod is dead.
--Richard
I personally hope that the iPhone sees a modest but steady amount of sales in the years to come. That way, both sides of this rather silly debate get to eat crow.
$300? It was $500 for about 6 months after launch. And Motorola sold them as quick as they could stamp them out.
This
jackass.
I know I don't actually have to explain this to you because you're trolling, but for anyone else reading: it's a lot less about ls -G and a lot more about VLC, VNC, ssh, and other useful applications that are impossible with Jobs' "sweet solution."
+++ATH0
AT&T/Cingular's paranoia combined with Apple's pathological need for control.
+++ATH0
I've had 4 different Pocket PC / Windows Mobile devices and none of them have ever had the problem you describe (although, as I understand it, the Q had quality control problems).
Your Q is also not my TYTN. HTC has an excellent reputation for building solid, full-featured smartphones. And let's be perfectly honest here: Windows CE is an EXCELLENT, highly stable, high-performance (for the hardware you put it on) operating system. The kernel is rock-solid and real-time out of the box.
WM5 is a great *underlying* OS. The *UI* is a steaming turd, for the most part, as far as I'm concerned.
In my opinion, the iPhone's UI does not make up for all the things you CANNOT do with it.
+++ATH0
Sounds like Apple's following the same gameplan for the iPhone as they used for the original Mac. It's the cell phone for the rest of us (i.e. not for those dumb old-fashioned businesses no matter how much money they have).
Did you miss it?
It was called the WWDC keynote.
+++ATH0
Your use of the term "fanboy" is an ad hominum attack, and serves only to undermine whatever rational arguments you might make. It has also become cliche here in Slashdot for anyone who seeks to rebuke (rather than rebut) any comment with which they disagree by tossing these dismissive accusations of fanboi about, no matter that the comment might be factually correct and logically consistent. Dismiss it all with "fanboy", you think you can, but you are about this also mistaken.
Apart from that, your argument is generally weak. All of the assertions in your argument could be true, without invalidating the documented truth of my proposition. It is a matter, now, of public record that Steve Jobs has been, for a long time, possibly since before you ever heard of the iPod, lobbying the recording industry in opposition to DRM. It is quite clear that Apple never would have been able to license the libraries of the recording companies if Apple hadn't developed solid DRM technology, and supported it diligently. It is rumored that the contracts Apple had to accept for the first round when the opened the iTunes music store even included out clauses for the record companies, giving them the right to revoke Apple's right to use their music libraries in the event that Apple's DRM failed to protect the music in question.
This isn't blind faith. It's not sentimentalism. It's just a rational analysis of the facts.
Anyone who thinks that Steve Jobs is not consciously trying to fix a broken cell phone industry simply isn't paying attention. It's quite clear that the cell phone handset makers think that their customer is the wireless carrier. The wireless carrier industry is an oligopoly. This combination of factors is directly responsible for the state of cell phone suckage, which is pretty severe, and has appeared to be intractable. Apple is very clearly trying to fix this broken industry by getting into a position where the handset maker and the wireless carrier realize that their ultimate customer is you -- the ultimate user of the cell phone handset and service.
If you want to blow my arguments out of the water, you're going to need to work a little harder at it. Whatever you think of Steve Jobs, it's pretty difficult to deny that he is one of the few true visionaries in the technology industry, with a proven track record of leading an often unwilling industry into their own brighter future, against their collective will. Sure perhaps that is a bit of a poetic way to express it, but it's hardly sentimentalism. The pace of evolution of the cell phone has been painfully slow. I'm not in a mood to be sentimental at all. I'm in a mood to see the problems fixed, and the only hope I see on the horizon is Apple. Nobody else was stepping up to the plate.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Hey, did you come up with that sig yourself? I did mine.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Can't the carriers use their control for *positive* changes? Sony Ericsson phones in Japan have 1+GB internal storage and microSD as well as Memory Stick- this wouldn't have happened without carrier pressure. This is what we need to see out of US carriers.
OSx86 FTW
There are some very good points here, and it puts me in mind of how bandwidth is paid for in general. Someone running a website is charged for bandwidth usage by their provider, yet they are providing the content that means people want to use the service at all. They also charge the end user, but generally not per-quantity.
Would anyone else agree that a better model might be end-users paying a rate for data downloaded which really represented the cost, and content providers not paying? It seems fairer to me - you pay for the stuff you want, and that's how the network is supported. I know a lot of the big publishers are 'evil corporations', and one's instinct might be that they should pay for distributing stuff, but ultimately they'll pass the costs on one way or another anyway, and internet distribution (bar advertising) is unique in that it's genuinely on-demand use of the infrastructure. Actually, I think I've just found the flaw in my theory - bandwidth-intensive flash adverts that drive up costs, although that could be solved at the browser end, and probably would if people were really paying for data.
They could apply different costs to different methods of getting data, so when your phone moves out of WiFi, you start using 3G or EDGE and the price per byte goes up. The market as a whole would be much free, I think, than under the current model.
Have you ever considered that they all do it to some extent simply because it isn't possible to offer the service at a reasonable price without some restrictions?
Oh that must be it! It has nothing to do with greed at all! It's all about being able to offer the product at a reasonable price. Let me use Verizon as an example because I've had the most experience with them (customer for 6 years until I switched to T-Mobile), but I'm in no way singling them out because a Cingular customer could probably make the same arguments:
That's just some of the more restrictive/anti-consumer policies they've adopted. I haven't even touched on the phone lock-downs. I'm sure the fact that they've become less and less friendly over the years has nothing at all to do with the fact that the number of players in the wireless industry has been reduced by buy-outs and mergers.
The free market also doesn't work instantaneously
You Libertarians speak of the "free market" with a reverence seldom seen outside of religious followers. You realize that we've tried a completely "free market" and laissez-faire economic policy before and it didn't work, right? From coal workers whose condition was little better then slavery, to child labor, to standard oil, blah, blah, blah.
The people that spout the "free market" as a solution to everything scare me almost as much as the committed Marxist-Leninist.
In fact, as you point out, it's the existence of things like the FCC that prevent competition and prevent the free market from working. Eliminate these restrictions on the free market, and you'll get better phone service.
I'll get better phone service by getting rid of the FCC and letting anybody start transmitting on the same channels/bands that Verizon/T-Mo/etc are currently using? How does this work again?
Trying to legislate better phone service will not work.
I'm not trying to legislate phone service. I'm trying to level the playing field by preventing the carriers from exploiting their position to dictate what kinds of features Motorola/Nokia/etc are allowed to include in their products. There is no reason why Verizon should be allowed to tell Motorola what they can include in their product. Would you consider it acceptable if Time Warner told you what kind of TV you could use? Or what about your power company telling you what kind of light bulbs or microwave you had to use? You have choice in those markets -- as long as the device is complaint with certain standards (obviously the light bulbs and microwave need to work on 120V/AC/60hz) and doesn't harm the power company/cable company you can use whatever you want and the device maker can include whatever features they want.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
$600 iPhone + cingular rip off >> $800 N95 + your choice
Noikia always has and always will be king, everyone knows this. The N95 has **vastly** more features:
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n95-1716.php
The iPhone won't even have 3rd party software to make up for it's poor feature set.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The iPhone would be very useful without a data plan, to anyone who spends most of their time in a WiFi hotspot. Why pay for pig-dog slow EDGE when you've got free WiFi all around you? (Notwithstanding the fact that this whole discussion is predicated on a rumor. Given the evil policies of wireless carriers, it will not surprise anyone if a data plan is required with the iPhone.)
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Another assumption in your argument is that there won't be a 3rd party SDK which can allow a 3rd party to solve these problems. Fake Bill Gates notes that there are four logical development paradigms that Apple could offer on the iPhone: He goes on to suggest that Apple will offer these in reverse order, Web 2.0 first, Dashcode next, Cocoa 3rd, and J2ME maybe someday if there is a reason.
What you are missing is that Apple *did* get something from Cingular, besides 'visual voicemail' (which personally I think is overrated).
Much more importantly and I believe unprecedented in the industry, is that the phone manufacturer (Apple) gets a cut of the monthly revenue from the carrier. That is huge. I'm pretty sure sure Cingular doesn't give Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, etc monthly fees.
How is "No SDK Required" NOT Apple's usual spin on the truth, which is "there is no SDK and we're not giving one to you."
Bet you five bucks we never have a native SDK for this thing. The great thing about being a pessimist when it comes to where business interests intersect technology development is that 90% of the time, you're very likely to be right.
+++ATH0
Well, the PS3 really isn't that cool by itself, especially to people who already own a PS2 since many of the PS3 games also exist for the PS2. Next, consoles are not something 100% of people want. More importantly, it's not just a $600 console, but an $1100 package if you want to really use it with a few games, accessories, controllers, cables, memory cards, etc, and oh yea, it only really works if you have a high def TV... Everyone needs a mobile phone. Next, it had direct competition with other products that do basically the same thing for lower prices. The iPhone has no competitor. Initial sales of the PS3 were also delayed, and understocked, which gave it a disadvantage to it's competitor. Next, the iPhone natively integrates with things people already have (iTunes, iPods, docking stations, headsets, etc) Other than the phone and a plan, you don't need much else. Most people already have a plan and only need to add a data plan or increase their minute plan. Next, phones have a 1-2 year life span. PS2 has been around for a very long time, and is still a currently marketed product. I've got 2 of them, and ones almost 4 years old. I was not even an early adopter. I replace my phone every 2 years like clockwork. Most importantly, Apple is not interested in cornering the market. Their market research anylists are allways dead on with product sales, selling out very quickly on new items, and maintaining just enough product in the market to meet the demand they predict. 10 million phones is a tiny, tiny chunk of the cell market, and a VERY easy goal to attain. Each AT&T store is getting at most a few dozen phones on day 1. There will be 50 people waiting in line to get one, and a tone will be pre-ordered at stores. I'm predicting 1 million units in the first 30 days. As prices drop and lower models come out, the numbers will increase. Apple predicted a modest iPod sales run with the gen 1 model. They sold many times more than their prediction in the first 12 months. The iPhone will do the same. Comparing the PS3 to the iPhone is simply a bad analogy. Also, keep in mind, this device not only competes with devices in the phone market, but also micro computing devices that fit into this price range. We also know the iPhone can connect to a digital display using an adapter cable. Don't be surprised to see it being used as a presentation system for keynote addresses soon.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
I think you're right. We already know GPS will be an add on. We can also figure on iChat being added. I don't see them putting a camera on the front of the unit, but perhaps one that swivels. The swiveling mechanism could even be used as part of the stand to hold the phone up when chatting. More memory, likely increasing from 4/8 to 6/12 in the next release, and then 10/20 in a following model, is also predicted.
Making a cheaper model is going to be a challenge. The iPod has cheaper models, but only because major features can be removed. Taking out the hard disk, big battery, and big display in favor of flash based technology means less cost and lower warranty service (solid state is less likely to have issues than hard disk electronics). What features of the iPhone can you see people willing to give up for a cheaper model?
The storage of the iPhone is already too small to make smaller (maybe 2GB model would be $50 less) The screen is the selling point. Take that away and you loose too much (the internet, photo viewing, video, and more) so that's not an option. Might be able to take wireless out and replace it with an add-on port, but that's a $25 option tops. Make it wide screen only (eliminate complicated motion sensors) and you could save another $10-20. The camera could also be removed completely (many people never use theirs) and businesses might be more likely to adopt the phone without it (due to legal concerns over data or business secret theft). That might lower it more as well by another $30-50. I could see a phone exactly like the current model, but less RAM, no camera, no GPS option, and wirelass only by an add-on adapter, and drop up to $150 off the price.
The big price drops are simply going to come in the form of incentives from the phone company. That data plan is worth so much to them that they can absorb $300 of the phone price and still make more money in a 2 year period than selling a $50 phone with no data plan. Now the $600 model is $300 retail with a new contract. $300 is not that hard to choke down for the latest, greatest phone tech. The lesser model at $200 and a chepped down model like I described above would be $100.
Of course, with Apples track record, expect gen 2 to be exactly the same price, with a few new bells and whistles (including native iTV support via wireless, and GPS being the two big ones, possibly native keynote support as well with an adapter cable or even a wireless/bluetooth add-on, oh and more RAM).
Gen 3 will likely split models and finally offer a budget iPhone, but I still don't see this being more than $150 under the lower model.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
starkruzr from your other posts here on slashdot I read about you:
t icleid=41095&cpage=208#feedbackAnchor
http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?ar
is that about you? If so you are by no means an authority on computing.
First, I like your enthusiasm. At first, it may seem like you have found a hole in my logic. Hoping to impose no negative feelings, not attract flame, let me further enlighten you.
It could easily be argued in many circles that in fact being drunk is a state of preparedness for the challenge of the accident. Also, those who see it coming, and do not have proper mental preparation to avoid tensing up, are therefore unprepared to receive the trauma. Person's who crash cars professionally take these steps of mental and physical preparation (though usually not getting drunk) and come out of accidents with less physical trauma than those who have not steeled themselves by understanding the nature of the physics behind the crash and preparing by going limp prior to the impact.
There is no single incident, no matter how random in nature or probability, that one cannot on some level prepare for and thus be more victorious than another who has not taken those steps. Sure, walking around in a bio contained suit all day and night to prepare for a biological strike would seem completely ridiculous, and can actually hinder preparedness for hundreds of other challenges, but if a WMD did land there, the moron in the suit would win that challenge.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.