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."
"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.
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)?
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.
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
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.
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.
Sony thought the same thing about the PS3, and look how that turned out.
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.
- 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
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.
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 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
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.
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.