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."

Comments

uh oh...

[sumi-manga]

more like, iPwned

Re:uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take one iFailure to go, please.

Re:uh oh...

[thetable123]

more like, iPwned Now thats funny, I don't care who you are. Wow they are trying to force me into waiting for the Neo1973.

Re:uh oh...

[Lord Apathy]

This is great fucking news. As apple/at&t blow their own balls off with this overpriced toy it will just lead to better and cheaper knock offs. Just like when they hocked up the ipod for 400 bucks for a 20 gb drive. I bough a creative nomad with twice the space at half the cost. While ipod owners where stuck with buying a new ipod for more space I swapped out a 100 Gb drive in mine with a extra poweful 3rd party battery.

The blowPhone will just be the same. Apple will lock it to at&t. Nokia, samsung, or one of the others will come out with a better one, for half the cost that will not be locked into some network.

Phuck apple....

Re:uh oh...

[Lord Apathy]

flamebait. I don't think so. if that would have been flamebait there would have been a few comments about your mama or how lose and easy your sister is. not to mention a few sprinkling of comments about what you and that sheep where doing last night.

in other words, if was flamebait you would fucking know it. that post was informative at the most, interesting at the least. so if your' going to use mod points use them correctly.

ps this post should be moderated as a troll at the most and overraited in the least.

oh.. apple blows! there that should be worth a flamebait point or 2.

Re:uh oh...

[dave562]

It's great having Excellent karma isn't it? =) Oops, lost another point on this one... -1 OffTopic. Then again, the guy with the wild hair up his butt who modded you down might have run out of mod points by now and I'll be safe.

Re:uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bough a creative nomad with twice the space at half the cost.

Well, bully for you.

Creative's revenue for quarter ending March 31, 2007: $183 million

Apple's revenue for quarter ending March 31, 2007: $5.26 billion

Next!

Re:uh oh...

[Draveed]

Microsoft's revenue for quarter ending March 31, 2007: $14.4 billion

Does that mean you're going to buy a Zune?

Re:uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless you're a business customer with an existing relationship with a store. Boss wants a couple iPhones for his kids? No problem! The local Cingular store will hold them for us.

Re:uh oh...

[SpinyManiac]

I hate zealots of all kinds, nice to see one shot down so effectively. Of course he could just be a troll.

To keep this on topic, there's no way I'd buy an iPhone with that sort of deal, I bought my last phone unlocked to avoid the things phone companies throw at their customers. Besides, my current phone plays MP3s and I rarely use it now I don't take the bus to work.
(Cue rant about people not using public transport.)

Re:uh oh...

[Lord Apathy]

And your point would be? Apple made a gazillon times more money than creative did? So what? Doesn't make their prodect any better than the creative, just more popular. Since you are on /. you should know that popular doesn't always mean better.

Take that red headed chearleader that was doing the football team and half the band. Then take that 3rd year art student, you know the girl with the glasses? While the cheerleader was humping everything with a pulse the art student read every sex manual she could get her hands on. Results, the cheerleader could have the football team cumming in 5 mins, but that arts student, she would take you heaven for 2 hours then make your dead grandpaw cum in his grave.

Popular doesn't always mean better, but in the case of the nomad and ipod you might be right.

Re:uh oh...

[Lord Apathy]

Having a shit load of karma is great. While I don't flame often ... No really I don't, I'm normally just an asshole. I do like to get in the last word sometimes when I think I'm being labeled unfair.

obv

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our forced-into-a-locked-contract overlords!

Re:obv

[pilgrim23]

Never trust a phone plan you can't pick up

AT&T NBS sales

[willith]

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.

Re:AT&T NBS sales

[glesga_kiss]

I would take that with a pinch of salt. I've been a bleeding-edge user of mobiles for quite some time, using forums to find out what's out there and what's coming soon. The customer service reps usually got these things wrong, they aren't exposed to the products until a week or so before they start selling them. They aren't a reliable source, you'd need to speak to their marketing department to get decent new-product info.

Re:AT&T NBS sales

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former* National Business Ordering rep for AT&T/Cingular, let me correct that to Huge grain of salt. It's gotten better in the last 8 months or so(with maybe 2-3 weeks of unpriced "Coming Soon" lead notice now), but most of the time those of us in the Business Customer Services units were finding out about phones after they actually launched/showed up on Premier. Actual Sales reps get more information before that since they have to try selling you on the phone, but everyone else is generally left to discover these things on their own(the encouraged policy from above, but leading to many under-informed reps- try as I might to combat that).

As much as I was looking forward to /trying/ to get an iPhone at launch as an employee, I'm sure as hell glad I'm not there right now having to deal with the impending launch, and will probably wait until the second revision or so before trying to get one. Cingular's pricey data plans also factor heavily into this potential decision(compared to the employee rate plan perks that would have made it an easy choice).

*having left a few months back due to my own dumb mistake and stiff policies

How odd

[Vengeance]

It almost sounds like they don't really want to sell the things.

Re:How odd

[EveryNickIsTaken]

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.

Re:How odd

[Sandbags]

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.

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:How odd

[EveryNickIsTaken]

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.

Sony thought the same thing about the PS3, and look how that turned out.

Re:How odd

[StarvingSE]

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.

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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 :)

Re:How odd

[TheRaven64]

The difference between a mobile phone and a console is the expected lifespan. Mobile phones rarely last more than a year in the marketplace (except at the very cheap end). The iPhone has to do two things:

1. Look shiny enough to drum up interest for the iPhone 2.
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.

Re:How odd

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Re:How odd

[EveryNickIsTaken]

1 year? What's the expected lifespan of a blackberry? That's really what I'd place this closer to.

Re:How odd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No.

No no no no no no!

Regulation is never a good thing. Ever.

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.

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.

Re:How odd

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:How odd

[holt]

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

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.

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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....

Re:How odd

[Fujisawa Sensei]

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?

Re:How odd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:How odd

[DrXym]

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.

Re:How odd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How odd

[glesga_kiss]

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!

Re:How odd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How odd

[gnasher719]

'' 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.

Re:How odd

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:How odd

[Mr. Underbridge]

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

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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

Re:How odd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How odd

[StarvingSE]

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...

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:How odd

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How odd

[amper]

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.

Re:How odd

[voidptr]

$300? It was $500 for about 6 months after launch. And Motorola sold them as quick as they could stamp them out.

Re:How odd

[jamar0303]

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.

Re:How odd

[leonem]

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.

Re:How odd

[Shakrai]

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:

• Used to offer free calls on holidays. No longer does.
• Used to offer free incoming SMS. Then it was $0.02. Then it was $0.10. Now it's $0.15.
• Used to offer 8PM nights. Now it's 9PM.
• Used to offer free calls to your voicemail. Now they charge.
• Used to give you the option of roaming everywhere (though you paid for it). The new America's Choice plan removed this option and replaced it with "free" roaming (mainly by removing the ability to roam in various places, leaving nice big coverage gaps).
• Used to do one year contracts as standard. Now they do two year contracts. One year contracts are available but the sales people get next to no commission on them and will refuse to sell them to you unless you go into the store when it's dead and they have nothing better to do.
• Used to let you change your rate plan without touching your contract. Now it extends it another 12 months.

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.

Re:How odd

[Sandbags]

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.

Re:How odd

[Sandbags]

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.

Re:How odd

[Sandbags]

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.

Whoah, almost sounds like Sony

[Killjoy_NL]

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)

Re:Whoah, almost sounds like Sony

[tsa]

Luckily here in Europe the mobile phone market isn't as retarded as in America, so I guess we will get a better deal here. I can not imagine European customers would ever take the 'no WiFi unless you enter into this contract' thing. Except the extreme Apple fans of course :)
The only iPhone I will buy is one without a SIM-lock and without a subscription to any provider. I already have a subscription and I don't want to have to change just to be able to use the iPhone.

Nonsensical statement ahoy

[minginqunt]

"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.

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[Frosty Piss]

But think about this...

An anonymous AT&T store manager has told blorge.com...

Talk about unreliable rumors, a store manager? There's only 5 or 10 of those in the country! How far down the food chain is that? This guys information is probably based on rumors of rumors. In other words, very possibly no relation to reality.

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was a higher rating than +5, I'd give it to this post.

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[HoldenCaulfield]

To be a bit more informative, it should read:

"Users will get their iPhone when they sign a contract including both voice and data plans."

This has the advantage of pointing out that data plans are required. I know I've been considering getting an iPhone, but once you add a data plan you're basically at $80+/month. Of course, that figure is estimated using the current voice and PDA data plans. Throw in another 20 bucks minimum if you want to tether w/o violating their terms of use.

Without having actually tried out the touchscreen and other features, it's difficult to say whether the iPhone is worth the premium price it will demand.

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[jZnat]

It's not too bad a deal when you make it a family plan of some sort. Everyone in my family has a phone now, and our bill isn't much higher than that. I'm the only one who has any sort of "real" data plan, and these phones would cost an enormous amount if bought separately.

Business phones are even better because you're not the one paying for it! :D (well, you might be getting paid slightly less in order to pay for it, so you might be paying for it...)

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[nytes]

What's interesting is that everyone's talking about this "emerging restriction" as if it's new.

Jobs said, way back in January, that it would only be available with a 2 year contract though Cingular.

Why is anyone acting surprised now?

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[Anonymous Coward]

get the tmobile mda..

that has wifi - and you don't need a data plan for it....

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[walt-sjc]

(well, you might be getting paid slightly less in order to pay for it, so you might be paying for it...)

The point of a business paying for your cell service is to make you more productive. If they are cutting your pay too, it's time to fine a new job.

Re:Nonsensical statement ahoy

[MacDork]

"Users will get their iPhone when they sign a contract", which has the advantage of being true, if less trolly.

It also makes more sense knowing that Apple will be getting a cut of each contract. You're gonna need service though, and you're probably gonna want that EDGE stuff when you start playing with your cute little GPS maps. You're rarely near a hot spot for very long on the road after all...

But...

[mattgreen]

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...

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Maybe I need to stop reading RoughlyDrafted so much...

Good idea. I subscribed to his feed for a while. I would say I'm an Apple fan, as I have really liked (and purchased) many of their products the last few years. But, that guy really drank the Kool-Aid. His position on all things Apple seems to be

a) Assume Apple's position is ideal and infallible.
b) Create pseudo-logical support for the position.

Unfortunately, all too many Apple fanboys seem to take the same approach. Just look at all the dipshits defending Apple's 'Ajax as iPhone SDK' decision... "Apple would be crazy to allow 3rd party development. The iPhone has to be stable."

Re:But...

[mattgreen]

Yeah, normally I let people believe whatever they want and leave them be. His articles though are so extremist that I have to poke fun at them pretty regularly on here. Thankfully, Slashdot generally doesn't carry his stories anymore.

The hilarious part is that I try to troll sometimes in stories like this and the mods actually put up with it. I think it is mostly because we are positively saturated with iPhone articles.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will certainly cause a revolution... all the customers complaining.

Anyways, It is not release yet, so get over it! and wait! All these guys are worse than Cartman waiting for the Wii! Geez!

Re:But...

[MojoStan]

Yeah, normally I let people believe whatever they want and leave them be. His articles though are so extremist that I have to poke fun at them pretty regularly on here. Thankfully, Slashdot generally doesn't carry his stories anymore. I wouldn't be so thankful, yet. Daniel Eran's (writer of RoughlyDrafted) Slashdot user name is DECS and his last accepted submission (which all pimp his own site) was on May 10 (scroll to bottom of his user page). According to his pattern of recently accepted submissions, his next accepted story should occur right about... well, stay ready to poke more fun at him.

In the meantime, you have the option of ridiculing him when he posts a comment on Slashdot that reads like a mini RoughlyDrafted article, like this one from two days ago: Oh Gizmodo

I'm assuming Daniel Eran only uses one Slashdot user account to pimp his site. In case you missed it, he tried to game Digg with multiple accounts and got caught/banned from Digg:

• PROOF that Roughly Drafted is SPAMMING/Gaming Digg with multiple accounts
  • "Photographic evidence of AlexaW and RoughlyDrafted gaming Digg just to get moron Daniel Eran's articles to the front page. (Where they promptly get buried for being inaccurate.) Several users who ONLY digg AlexaW's submissions, all of whom signed up in the last 3 weeks. Coincidence? Not a chance. This needs to be stopped immediately."
• RoughlyDraftedBUSTED
• RDMBusted2

He did submit an accepted story using the name "redrum", but his DECS user page reveals that DECS was the actual submitter.

Re:But...

[mattgreen]

Yeah, I'm well aware he gamed Digg for awhile, and that is part of the reason I actually dish out jabs at him. But I don't want to follow him around Slashdot, that seems kind of mean. I'd rather just undermine RoughlyDrafted's reputation here and there. :)

Re:But...

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

Anyways, It is not release yet, so get over it! and wait! All these guys are worse than Cartman waiting for the Wii! Geez!

C'mon.... C'mon!!!!

DOA

[gd23ka]

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.

Re:DOA

[minginqunt]

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. Yes. The iPhone is dead, WTC7 was blown up by George Bush, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, and the iPod has less space than a Nomad. Lame.

Thanks for that.

Re:DOA

[untaken_name]

No, WTC7 was blown up by God. He's the only one I know of that can bring down a building without any planes, fires, or explosives.

Re:DOA

[minginqunt]

No, WTC7 was blown up by God. He's the only one I know of that can bring down a building without any planes, fires, or explosives. That *can't* be true. I don't hear FOX News screaming for a War Against God, do you?

Re:DOA

[Luscious868]

I'm an AT&T customer and it costs me a grand total of $9.99 for the basic media bundle which gives me access to Edge and several hundred text messages a month. So if you didn't have access to Edge before, you're going to have to pay an additional $9.99 dollars a month. Now tell me, if you're dropping around $500 bucks on a cellphone, do you think you'll blink at having to pay an extra $9.99 dollars a month? Further, if you have the ability to drop $500 on a cell phone, chances are pretty good you're probably already have access to Edge (or it's equivilent with another provider) already.

This is quite the non-issue.

Re:DOA

[Luscious868]

I'm an AT&T customer and it costs an extra $9.99 a month for the basic media bundle which gives you access to Edge. So if you didn't have access to Edge before, you're going to have to pay an additional $9.99 a month for access to Edge and the ability to use WiFi. Now tell me, if you're dropping around $500 on a brand spanking new cellphone (and all of the joys and frustrations that come with a first generation product), do you think you'll blink at having to pay an extra $9.99 a month if you want WiFi? Further, if you have the ability to drop $500 on a cell phone, chances are pretty good you're probably already have access to Edge (or it's equivalent with another provider). This is quite the non-issue for anybody who has the cash to drop on the iPhone. I can see why it would cause an uproar here, but the people bitching about it here aren't in Apple's target market to begin with. Apple isn't targeting the do-it-yourself for a cheap as possible gadget geek crowd. Apple is targeting the I want it to just work and be easy to use first adopter with cash to spare crowd. For people in that group an addition $9.99 a month, if they aren't already paying it, is a drop in the bucket.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on what value your God variable holds.

Re:DOA

[toQDuj]

Don't you feel kind of odd, replying to the same post twice, retyping your words all the way, and still not having some sense of Deja-Vu?

B.

Re:DOA

[flawedgeek]

Last time I checked, the cheap (sub $40) data plans only applied to standard handsets, not smartphones. If you buy a treo or E62, unlimited data is $39.99 a month. Which is why my treo came from ebay, not cingular (what they don't know can't hurt them, right?)

Re:DOA

[Golias]

Now tell me, if you're dropping around $500 bucks on a cellphone, do you think you'll blink at having to pay an extra $9.99 dollars a month? Further, if you have the ability to drop $500 on a cell phone, chances are pretty good you're probably already have access to Edge (or it's equivilent with another provider) already.

I currently pay about $25 per month, total, for my phone service (by lumping into a T-Mobile "family" plan with some friends).

I don't want to pay $60+ per month for a new voice/data service.

However, I would be more than willing to buy a $600 phone/iPod/WiFi Internet device, if I could keep my current voice service provider and ignore the EDGE contract. It would sometimes save me from toting a separate iPod around, and occasionally even save me from toting a laptop around.

That kind of gadget is worth a few hundred bucks to me... It's just not worth locking in to over $2000 worth of services with a long-term voice/data provider contract.

Re:DOA

[untaken_name]

Well, you aren't Muslim, then, are you? :)

Re:DOA

[SadGeekHermit]

Well, I know I'm not going to buy one. Think about the niche it's trying to occupy: the PDA/phone combination. There are a LOT of PDA phones out there, and at least some of them allow you to use WiFi without a contract. And ANY PDA can use WiFi as long as you have the third-party attachment (what do they cost now, fifty bucks?).

The iPhone is a very shiny, very pretty bit of conspicuous consumption fluff. It's for the Paris Hilton crowd, not us techies.

I've been thinking about a Blackberry, myself, not for work but just to work with.

Re:DOA

[Fahrenheit 450]

AT&T's smartphone unlimited data plan is 19.99/month. 9.99 for the 5MB/month plan.
Whether this applies to the iPhone is still anybody's guess, however.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Forcing contracts and services down the customer simply does not work and the iphone is no Blackberry."

Forcing contracts and services down the customer's throat is exactly what the phone companies want. Heck, a year ago I practically *begged* multiple local cellular companies to sell me a Palm Treo with no data plan. I was willing to pay the full price for the hardware up front, and then sign up on a regular phone plan. I tried 3 different vendors. I pointed out that no, I didn't care what the data plan and discount was, I only wanted WiFi connectivity and regular phone service, and that I was not going to sign up to a 3-year data plan that would end up with me paying 2-2.5x the price of the phone hardware by the end of it. I was told that they would not connect a device of this type without a data plan, even if I bought the device somewhere else. It's ridiculous! They didn't want my business, even though they'd be getting the price of the phone up front and regular monthly service. It was either the bloated data plan or nothing.

The phone companies do NOT want to sell phones, and they never have (witness the years and years people used to pay to rent their landline phones from the company, ultimately paying for the phone many times over). They want to sell exorbitant services that many people don't want or won't fully use. The phone is just a means to that end, and is entirely secondary to their interests. It's the shiny lure on the end of the fishing line.

Along comes Apple, who wants to actually sell phones, ostensibly as a "revolutionary" new computing device. Good luck, without a cellular company to provide the service and "approve" the device for connection to it.

People complain about the RIAA and media companies in terms of their cartel-like control, but they are nothing compared to the phone companies.

Re:DOA

[gd23ka]

Along comes Apple, who wants to actually sell phones, ostensibly as a "revolutionary" new computing device. Good luck, without a cellular company to provide the service and "approve" the device for connection to it.

Right. Which is why I said the iphone is doomed in the first place. The only thing that might
help Apple here was if the phone were bundled with a dirt cheap unlimited calling plan.

Just for your information here, Telekom offers a $30 unlimited minutes, unlimited messaging
flat rate in Germany but it will still take a while for mobile phone costs to settle at
acceptable rates in the US.

Re:DOA

[glesga_kiss]

There are a LOT of PDA phones out there, and at least some of them allow you to use WiFi without a contract.

ALL of them do, this iPhone setup is indeed revolutionary. Hell, you don't even need a sim card to use everything but the phone functionality on most of them.

Re:DOA

[SadGeekHermit]

I kind of thought they all did, but I wasn't sure. Lots of 'em even have keyboards now.

What is Apple thinking? I'm picturing one of those "I'm a Mac" commercials, with Steve Jobs and a developer/geek type of guy, going something like this:

Steve Jobs: "Hi, I'm your new mobile technology overlord."

Techie: "Hi, MTO. I'm a geek. What's that you've got there?"

Steve Jobs: "This? Oh, this is an iPhone. You can't have one yet. But soon, you'll LOVE them."

Techie: "Why can't I have one yet?"

Steve Jobs: "Because we will sell no wine before its time."

Techie: "You're thinking of Orson Welles. Seriously, why can't we have one yet?"

Steve Jobs: "It's not released yet. But it's coming."

Techie: "Ok, um... Fine. So, what does it do?"

Steve Jobs: "Everything! It's beautiful, it plays music and movies and video games, it's sexy, there are many flashing lights, and if you bring it to a rave, it'll even get you LAID."

Techie: "Sweet! So I guess you have a nice developer kit for it, right? Probably Java enabled... Man, I bet I could build some cool stuff for that..."

Steve Jobs: "No."

Techie: "Beg pardon?"

Steve Jobs: "NO."

Techie: "Why not? Wait; aha! You're letting a third party design the development tools, like CodeWarrior or something. Ok, that's cool, I'll just..."

Steve Jobs: "NO!!! If you really MUST develop for this device, build a website on a server! The browser in this device is completely safari-capable. This is the New Way to Develop, anyway, everyone knows everything is web based now."

Techie: "What? You're fucking kidding me."

Steve Jobs: "I am not fucking kidding you. Behold!" (A presentation flies up out of nowhere and goes on for a while, with rave music."

Steve Jobs: "You may adore me now."

Techie: "You suck. Your phone sucks. I'm going to go get a PDA."

(Techie walks off, shaking head. Steve, looking perplexed, looks in the direction the techie walked. He holds up the phone and says after him "Hey! Tetris!").

I just wonder

[MemoryDragon]

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!

Re:I just wonder

[e4g4]

no app development We know this to no longer be true - 3rd party apps for the iphone can and will be created using methods similar to the way widgets are developed for os x. As to contracts.....why is everybody whining about contracts? *Every* phone that is not a prepaid phone requires a contract, and nearly all of them have draconian cancellation fees - why don't we wait until we have the actual details of the contract, rather than the word of an anonymous AT&T store manager.

Re:I just wonder

[Sparr0]

Name one other phone that is not sold without a contract.

(PS: I don't think the iPhone will be contract restricted either)

Re:I just wonder

[dada21]

*Every* phone that is not a prepaid phone requires a contract, and nearly all of them have draconian cancellation fees

I bought my HTC Trinity P3600 last year from a reseller with no contract ($600, though). I added it to my T-Mobile business plan with no long term commitment. There is no contract to cancel if I decide to jump carriers. I have no desire to subsidize my phone's initial cost by giving in to 2 year agreements.

Re:I just wonder

[ChakatSanddancer]

We know this to no longer be true - 3rd party apps for the iphone can and will be created using methods similar to the way widgets are developed for os x

An Apple cop-out. Application development means things like ssh programs, or irc clients, or spreadsheets, or VOIP programs, not silly javascript toys.

As to contracts.....why is everybody whining about contracts? *Every* phone that is not a prepaid phone requires a contract

Untrue. I can go to damn near any decent cell phone store and get a completely unlocked phone that is not prepaid, with absolutely no contract. Plus, I get a better firmware than the crippled ass shit the providers try to cram down my throat. It's how I got my razr, and it's a much better phone than tmobile, cingular, etc sell, because it actually allows me to use the features that are built into the phone.

Re:I just wonder

[mdahl]

Round here (Denmark), you can get every phone with AND without a contract, and contracts cannot be longer than 6 months, as dictated by law. Guess you americans get the short end of the stick on this one.

Re:I just wonder

[ajlitt]

Um... any current AT+T phone? I just bought an 8525 (HTC TyTn) and with my customer employee discount (Premier) applied to the non-contract price I got the phone for less than I would have with a 2 year contract and rebates.

Re:I just wonder

[e4g4]

An Apple cop-out. Application development means things like ssh programs, or irc clients, or spreadsheets, or VOIP programs, not silly javascript toys. Take a look at some of the widgets available for mac os x - many of them are compact, but nevertheless quite fully featured applications, including, but not limited too, terminals, vnc clients, and yep - 3D video games. I can't speak to what kind of object code will be allowed on the iPhone, but while the controller code may be javascript, widgets in the operating system are far more than silly javascript toys.

Re:I just wonder

[Sparr0]

Get back to me when you aren't proving my point.

Re:I just wonder

[TheRaven64]

Application development means things like ssh programs, or irc clients, or spreadsheets, or VOIP programs, not silly javascript toys. Google Spreadsheet seems to work quite well. If things run as Widgets, rather than web pages, then they also have access to Objective-C libraries, and can easily open a socket (the only thing you need for an IRC program or SSH client that you can't do easily in JavaScript). VoIP might be a bit harder, but since QuickTime will be installed and accessible to JavaScript, I would imagine it would be relatively easy.

Re:I just wonder

[Timesprout]

Almost every phone can be bought without a contract, you just pay more for it.

Re:I just wonder

[jZnat]

Anything for Sprint and Verizon? Yeah, they suck.

Re:I just wonder

[ChakatSanddancer]

If past performance is any indicator, cingular will try their damnedest to keep such applications from running by any means necessary. We are talking about the same cell phone provider that won't let yahoo messenger run on their blackberries, after all.

Re:I just wonder

[afidel]

*Every* phone that is not a prepaid phone requires a contract,

Wrong! Every discounted phone comes with a contract. With any of the GSM providers you can bring your own phone and pay month to month.

Re:I just wonder

[e4g4]

That's a fair point - although I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of cell phone customers buy the discounted phone with a one or two year contract. I know personally it meant the difference between $200 and $500 for my Treo - and while yes, it can suck to be locked into a contract, most of the time it's not terribly onerous.

Re:I just wonder

[architimmy]

There are definitely a lot of people who just buy shiny gadgets. The iPhone launch should probably be pretty good and they'll most likely hit their sales targets. My guess is that Apple really misfired on this one however when it comes to the market segment they are targeting. The shiny device crowd is fickle and will turn on Apple whether the phone is good or not. In fact, the better the phone the more likely shiny device dude is to complain about lack of other features (no fusion power pack, etc...). It's this irrational fanboy backlash that could really help kill the device in the cradle.

Of course, it's likely that Apple didn't really miss the target. You could probably blame uber-corp AT&T's marketing department for insisting that they target the douche-bag uber-gadget user segment because those are the only people stupid enough to sign the contracts that AT&T wants to sell with the iPhone. In other words, the product suffers greatly because at the end of the day the carrier only cares to sell the service. The device is just the bait for the trap. The iPhone is bait for a particular kind of user... which is definitely not geeks (unfortunately for us).

I'm not getting one.

Re:I just wonder

[MemoryDragon]

Ok I correct myself the only app you are allowed to develop is a webapp, not what I would call interesting app development. No J2ME no Flash, No Java no ObjectiveC no way to utilize the phones potential except having html user interfaces and some kind of app server behind it :-)

Re:I just wonder

[walt-sjc]

ALL cell phone providers suck. Some just suck a little less. AT&T and Sprint have bad networks where I am... Verizon has by FAR the best coverage in the area. I would be willing to sacrifice that coverage IF the iPhone had a REAL open SDK, 3G, and a few other minor things. But it doesn't, so it's useless to me.

Re:I just wonder

[walt-sjc]

Exactly which web-based VNC client doesn't require a JVM? Most all of the really powerful web apps are JAVA based, not javaSCRIPT.

No more iPhone PDA

[Atheose]

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.

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[PatrickThomson]

And if they were selling the iPhone at a loss like all other contract cellphones, then driving you and your ilk off has saved them money. Just sayin'.

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[Sciros]

Seriously, if they are losing money selling the phone at $500-$600, then someone over there is a total moron. The iPhone is hi-tech and all, but it's no PS3.

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the HELL have you been. They've been saying you need a contract for MONTHS.

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[e4g4]

No it's not - it is in fact 1/20th (obviously a totally rough estimate) the size of a ps3. Miniaturization is expensive!

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[gnasher719]

'' I was debating buying the iPhone and not getting a service--using it as a PDA only. There goes that hope. Thanks, Apple. '' I think you mean "Thanks, unknown AT&T store manager, who certainly has all the information in his hands to inform us, unlike all the other AT&T store managers who haven't heard a word yet, and who was willing to talk anonymously to a blog that I have never heard of, and who surely wouldn't have made this up to make himself feel important or anything like that. "

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[Sciros]

Hehehehe :-) But seriously, take out the blu-ray drive and the PS3 I think gets under $600. Given that it has some serious hardware in there, it has *got* to be more expensive than the iPhone. A few hundred dollars more expensive, I reckon.

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[OS24Ever]

Beautiful Troll.

Ever consider that the other partner in the relationship is part of the problem? I mean how would you think the conversation would have gone if Apple came in with their demands, and Cingular was supposed to play whipping boy.

Apple: Yeah, we're going to make a device that everyone wants, will sell their kids for, will sell their soul for. we're going to make 40 pts of profit margin on it and you have the honor of selling it at the same margin we give a reseller, and they don't have to even buy a plan, they can just buy the phone and we'll let them get a sim card for whomever, and it'll be 3G.

Cingular: Go fark yourself. It'll only come from us, require two year exclusive agreement with us, only work on our network for those two years, and you can't get one without it. Oh and that 3G thing? we don't think our network could handle the load of all your fanboys that run out and buy one the day it comes out. we'll do the old and busted one that way when it fails on the release date we can blame it on you.

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[JD-1027]

I was going to do this exact thing, willing to even eat a early termination fee on some contract.

By the way, whats a standard early termination fee on a smart phone plan like this?

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[Lord Apathy]

Want a iphwn with out the contract. Wait a month or two after the release then check ebay. I pretty much garrent you that some smoe wil have bought this thing, regretted it, and cancelled the contract. They they will ebay the thing for what ever they can get for it.

That or some dumbass will be trying to move a case of hot ones as fast as they can. Ether way, iphwned with no contract.

as for the locks and limits. wait some, some hacker will fix these bugs too.

Re:No more iPhone PDA

[Anonymous Coward]

That may not be correct. The rumor from the get-go was that AT&T wasn't subsidizing the purchase price of the phone. If you scroll down on the comments on the first article (not the /. comments) you find this:

From the training material: "Activation of this phone will require a two-year service contract, or contract extension for existing customers". Also: "There are no discounts or upgrade offers available with iPhone device".

No activation, no contract requirment, or at least, so it seems....

But is it true...

[Brian The Dog]

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.)

Re:But is it true...

[Ziwcam]

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.) I tend to agree with you here. Also, I think people forget this is an Apple product launch we're talking about. It's (obstinately) only because of the FCC that it was announced early. But if one manager from one AT&T store says something, readers should take it with the largest grain of NaCl they can find. He may have heard a rumor, now stated as fact, when he most likely hasn't even seen the contract yet. Remember? Apple launch? Much secrecy. Details aren't revealed even to management until absolutely necessary.

Is Apple becoming more like Microsoft?

[xmas2003]

Sounds like a lotta restrictions/lock-ins ... how hard are they after The Mighty Buck?

But AT&T is EVIL

[svendsen]

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.

Re:But AT&T is EVIL

[jonesy16]

Any of the carriers will allow you to port your phone number to a different service if you switch. By "port" I mean that they will let you keep your phone number from another service. As I understand it, there is a law forcing them to do that. FYI.

Re:But AT&T is EVIL

[Moridineas]

hassle of switching numbers? number portability it works and is easy! (at least in my experience)

I used number portability to get AWAY from AT&T though...

Re:But AT&T is EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

same. I ported from Cingular to T-Mobile back in December. Kept the same number, and about 2 hours after leaving the T-Mobile store, the port was complete and my cingular account and SIM were deactivated. Couldn't have been any easier. And I'm a very happy customer now. Cingular was terrible.

I'm an Apple fanboy and think the iPhone is a joke. This is just the nail in the coffin.

Sorry.

[iknownuttin]

I'm not getting it because its a Cingular plan. And after reading consumer reports, Cingular/ATT is one of the worst plans you can get. And I don't buy the phone: I buy the plan.

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.

Re:Sorry.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Maybe if Verizon would get with the rest of the world and use GSM their customers might have a chance of getting products like this. How 'bout if you give them a call?

Re:Sorry.

[DDLKermit007]

Apple will never sell a Verizon or Sprint version of the phone. PERIOD. Thats a complete hardware redesign for the radio (same reason the Treo 700p will never show up on a GSM carrier). Apple is after worldwide GSM providers. Not backwater thinking US centric companies like those two. Want to switch to a local number when in Europe? Get yourself a new phone or be raped by Verizon/Sprint for overseas rates. Sure Cingular sucks if you need actual customer support, but I'll take being able to swap my SIM when I'm roaming around Asia any day.

Re:Sorry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read your history. Apple approached Verizon first but was turned down.

Re:Sorry.

[the_wesman]

I've started using AT&T Wireless with my first mobile phone in 1999 - they switched to cingular a few years later and I stayed with them - now they're back to AT&T and I'm still here - I have never had any kind of issue with them at all - the prices are reasonable - the coverage is excellent in the US - even in the bumfuck town in northeast PA where I grew up - last summer a DBA at my office set me up with a pager alert system he was using so we would know if anything was going awry with our instance(s) - there was a bug in his process and I ended up getting 3,000 text messages in a 2-day period! I called cingular and in a very short time they reversed the charges on my bill - again, I have nothing but good things to say about AT&T and cingular - they have those funny "dropped calls" commercials (like the one with that hot piece of jailbait with the huge eyes that was on 24) and I can't even relate - I don't even know what a dropped call is - is that when the phone loses signal when you go in the subway or something? seriously, when I'm on the phone, I'm on until one of us hangs up. I'd be curious to read what your consumer reports is telling you.

Re:Sorry.

[Rytr23]

weird.. because Verizon and ATT have almost identical rates for thier plans.. when one co raises their price, the other follows suit.. Perhaps VZW should have gone with GSM instead of CDMA for a more universal market.. Can you imagine the VZW UI on the iPhone? That would probably be fabulous..yeah..

Re:Sorry.

[juniorbird]

"And I don't buy the phone: I buy the plan."

That's fine. I think you've just defined yourself as not in Apple's target demographic -- and Apple as a company that can't possibly deliver something of value to you. (They're not a carrier, after all.) You're better off without each other, and, to any businessperson as well as to any discriminating consumer, that's a perfectly fine outcome.

Re:Sorry.

[ukyoCE]

I completely agree on not wanting Cingular, but can't blame Apple. They had to partner with a single network to get new network features added (eg: visual voicemail) and Verizon turned them down. As others mention, GSM is also more popular in general and will make porting to other networks and countries easier.

So while I'm not interested in getting a Cingular iPhone, maybe in a couple years after the iPhone improves, the Cingular network improves, and potentially, the iPhone becomes available on other networks...

Re:Sorry.

[architimmy]

Well... considering the way Verizon likes to have access to all the low level code for a phone so they can turn off all the default features and charge you to reactivate them I would bet that you won't be seeing an Apple iPhone at your local Verizon store in the near or far off future. I can't see Apple letting anyone get into their product and monetize all the features that sets their software and hardware apart from the competition.

I'd say "vote with your money" but really... who's going to do that. I have Verizon and I think they have the worst service and customer attitude possible, every day I feel ripped off by what I feel are utterly predatory business practices. But, at the end of the day they have to only decent coverage of any cell phone provider. Case open and shut. A cell phone is for keeping in contact, and whatever other features it has, if you have to walk down the block from your apt or stand in the "coverage corner" of your living room to make a call the phone just isn't even worth free.

Re:Sorry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon will never have me as a customer.

Worst company ever? (definitely in the running).

What is this story about?

[ivan256]

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)?

Re:What is this story about?

[asv108]

Its not about a data plan, the story is that in order to use WIFI on your phone(a non AT&T network feature), you will be forced to sign up for an expensive data plan. The iphone's feature set is dependent on your network contract, even if that feature doesn't use the network.

Re:What is this story about?

[rizzo420]

they require a data plan because they don't use regular wifi. they connect to the providers service. the iphone was supposed to have wifi, meaning that it should be able to connect to any AP. apparently, that is not the case and you have to have a data plan to use teh wifi, making it cost more for those who were going to buy it and just use it off wifi as a pda.

Re:What is this story about?

[wiggles]

I don't have a data plan on my old T-Mobile Treo 600. I can use all the palm functionality, sync with Outlook, but I just can't browse the web or get e-mail in real time.

Re:What is this story about?

[will66]

Huh? I have a Treo 600 with Sprint and no data plan. When I first got a Treo 300 through Sprint it had a "2 month free trial" data plan-- which I canceled after 2 months. I later replaced it with a series of treo 600s I've bought on ebay, and have activated without a data plan requirement. Just call them and cancel it.

Re:What is this story about?

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Umm no, not correct.

They are doing this to prevent people from buying the phone, and not setting up an account with ATT, otherwise all you have is a over priced glorified ipod. ATT/Apple are pulling out all the stops to prevent people from buying the phone and going to another carrier, since the price is not subsidized, and many people want the phone, and are willing to pay a fortune for it, there is nothing stopping someone from signing up when buying the phone, and then paying the $175 early termination fee, essentially getting the iphone for 600, +175 etf, and going to tmobile.... I imagine there will be plenty of iphones on ebay for $1k and up...

Re:What is this story about?

[ran-o-matic]

They may have made that a requirement of you to get a discounted price, but this is not, in general, true at Sprint. Sprint sold me a PPC6700 without a data plan. I had to call CS and add it later. I could still turn it off today, but I really don't see much of a point in having any smart phone without a data plan. Of course, the $15 Sprint charges makes this an easy choice. Compare that the the current ATT smartphone data plan rates. You quickly see that the purchase price of the iPhone is only a small part the minimum two year cost of ownership.

Re:What is this story about?

[pdawson]

Yep, in fact my Treo with Cingular does not require a data plan. And I just queued up an order for a 755p on sprint.com with only the $39.99 regular plan. I think your rep took you for a ride.

Re:What is this story about?

[illumin8]

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.

Yes, I bought an Unlocked GSM Treo 650 a couple years ago, put a SIM card in it from T-Mobile, later decided I wanted to switch to Cingular because their GPRS data was faster than T-Mobile, and I've been using it ever since.

If you want an unlocked GSM smartphone you just have to buy it yourself, pay the true cost of the phone (hint, it's closer to $600 than the $299 your carrier wants to sell it to you for with a 2 year contract), and get a SIM card from the phone company.

Sure it costs more up front, but if you figure in the monthly cost of voice + unlimited data plans, you're going to spend a few grand over 2 years time. Also, make sure you don't sign a contract. I'm on month-to-month with Cingular (even though they usually tell you such a plan doesn't exist when you first talk to them, be persistent and refuse to sign a contract if you're not getting a subsidised phone).

Re:What is this story about?

[Anonymous Coward]

A data plan is not required on Sprint. Story's a bit different for BB devices, but for standard smartphones you don't need it. The salesman who told you you needed one lied to you to make a buck.

Re:What is this story about?

[blamanj]

I think if you re-read the article, you will see that WiFi and the data plan are NOT linked. The writer was complaining that in order to get an iPhone at all, he'd have to pay for a data plan, and he was hoping to buy just the phone service and use WiFi. No where does it state that WiFi is disabled if you don't buy a data plan.

Re:What is this story about?

[spotter]

you are not forced to have a data plan w/ a treo on sprint. You might end up paying a huge amount of money if you don't (per KB charges can add up quickly with EVDO).

Re:What is this story about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there smartphones out there that don't require a data plan?

Sure, everywhere. Well, just maybe not in the US.
Seriously -- I don't mean to troll, but the US mobile market must be really f*cked up. For me, it's mindblowing. I know how everyone s against government intervention, but right now you have a nice big cartel that's effectively ripping you off.

I don't even have a contract - I have a prepaid card (this also means my phone number is anonymous); I bought my smart phone from a store with no strings attached and all its features are enabled. Anything less would be unacceptable.

Re:What is this story about?

[fawzma]

Here is how this works, which I found to be complete BS.

I wanted(and got) a Cingular 8525, I asked the sales girl if wifi worked without a data plan. I assumed it would would, I mean, it's wifi and I'm using data from my network. I thought the girl was full of shit when she said I had to buy a data plan in order for wifi to work. Whether or not it's true, I am beginning to believe AT&T/Cingular would pull some crazy stuff like this.

I thought I was getting out of stupid stuff like this by switching from Verizon, but at least Cingular devices are too clamped down. Wife's cu400 can at least run j2me programs, which isn't documented very well.

Re:What is this story about?

[ACMENEWSLLC]

I have a T-Mobile SDA. It has WIFI. I did not purchase the T-Mobile data plan. I can get unlimited free Internet as long as there is an available WIFI connection around. This includes work & home, where I spend most of my time. I can listen to streaming music on my phone w/out paying data charges.

Re:What is this story about?

[nine-times]

Its not about a data plan, the story is that in order to use WIFI on your phone(a non AT&T network feature), you will be forced to sign up for an expensive data plan.

But what if they said instead that, "In order to buy the phone, you must buy the data plan. WiFi comes with the iPhone, but the iPhone isn't available without the data plan."

Personally, given how vague and anonymous the claim is that "One anonymous AT&T store manager said users will get their WiFi...when they sign a contract locking them into a data plan and EDGE," I'm not sure how to take that. It might even mean that at&t is going to provide WiFi service as part of a package deal with EDGE service.

In other words, until you know what this claim means and whether it's true, there's nothing to complain about.

Re:What is this story about?

[skintigh2]

Yes.

With Cingular you are forced to buy a highly limited $40 data plan with no text messages and just a few megs of data, but apparently you can cancel the plan after 3-6 months. Probably wont get the rebates, though.

Personally, I got my Cingular Treo through a military discount and was able to get the MediaNet plan which is $20 with unlimited data and 200 messages. I didn't get a rebate and had to pay over $300 for the phone, but between plan discounts and not buying that plan I save $1200-$1800 over 24 months to get the same service.

I was planning on buying the iPhone the day it came out and sticking my SIM in it and maybe selling my Treo 680, but if I need to buy a new plan or add $40+ a month to my $600 phone, f that.

This is an even bigger disappointment than AppleTV, which I was also planning on buying on day 1 until I found out it had less storage than my 3-year-old MP3 player, couldn't play any of my videos (DIVX), and wouldn't even work on my TV.

Re:What is this story about?

[gatzke]

I refused the data plan for my Treo with Verizon. It took a while to explain that I wanted the same plan I already had, no data, but eventually it took. I am not sure if they still have that option.

I live online at home and work, I don't need to be online everywhere else.

Re:What is this story about?

[Anonymous Coward]

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
No you are not forced. Stop lying. You can sign up for the $15/month unlimited data plan OR don't sign up and pay per KB downloaded.

http://www.sprintpcs.com/common/popups/popLegalTer msPrivacy.html
Vision/Power Vision: Services are not available with all Sprint PCS phones. Usage is calculated on a per kilobyte basis and is rounded up to the next whole kilobyte. Rounding occurs at the end of each session or each clock hour and, at which time we deduct accumulated usage from your plan, or assess overage or casual usage charges. You are responsible for all data activity from and to your phone, regardless of who initiates the activity. Estimates of data usage will vary from actual use. Your invoice will not separately identify the number of kilobytes attributable to your use of specific sites, sessions or services used. Premium content (games, ringers, etc.) priced separately. /i?

Re:What is this story about?

[gad_zuki!]

>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.

I'm not. I dont know what kind of contract you decided to sign, but I've canceled the data plan on my treo for a long time before deciding I really need it.

Re:What is this story about?

[ivan256]

That sounds like spin to me.

You can't buy the phone at all without signing up for a data plan (no word on whether it is expensive or not yet. So of course you can't use the WiFi features without the plan.

don't blame Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:don't blame Apple

[Stan92057]

To think that apple didn't know about all this stuff is ridiculous,remember it was apple that wanted only one carrier. Apple could have opted to make the phone usable with all the carriers, which would be much better for customers. Apple and ATT are using/hoping the Apple fanboys and girls just have to get one no matter what the plan is. Non fanboys will see the contract for what it is, just too expensive and much better options out there. Smart people buy plans not phones

Re:don't blame Apple

[kiddailey]

Who is your source that "apple wanted only one carrier?"

That makes absolutely no sense at all. More likely, they couldn't get all the carriers to cooperate together, were forced to pick one, and that allowed the carrier to demand requirements related to contract and allowed functionality.

Re:don't blame Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... where did you come up with that $150 amount?

Re:don't blame Apple

[griffenjam]

Sorry, but you're the one not making sense. You think Apple got strong armed by a carrier? Apple? When releasing one of the most anticipated phones in history? You think that carriers weren't beating down Apple's door to support this phone? Thinking that Apple was forced to pick one is, well, just naive. To think that it was Apple bending to the demands of a carrier is just foolish. Apple was the one with the power, they were the one releasing a hot new product that people were going to go nuts waiting for. The one with the power is the one that makes the demands, not the other way around. I know all you Apple fans want to believe that they could never do anything this...MIcrosofty, but as has been said, they are a company and they are out to make money.

Re:don't blame Apple

[Stan92057]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2007-05-21-a t&t-iphone_N.htm read that link

Re:don't blame Apple

[toddestan]

That makes absolutely no sense at all. More likely, they couldn't get all the carriers to cooperate together, were forced to pick one, and that allowed the carrier to demand requirements related to contract and allowed functionality.

Yeah, the cell phone market is tough. For example, you can only get a Nokia phone with AT&T service. And Samsung phones are only with Cingular. And you want a Palm Treo? Looks like you have to go with Sprint. Oh wait, that's not the way it is at all! The arguement that Apple is "stuck" with only one carrier makes no sense at all.

These are all just rumours

[blueZ3]

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.

Re:These are all just rumours

[bleh-of-the-huns]

The problem here is that the iphone is not subsidized. You are correct about the contract issue though, they offer subsidies and significant discounts to entice you to sign a contract. If you have no noticed, all the iphone ads and posters appear to have removed the 2 year requirement statement.

No one really knows for sure whats happening, and we will find out on the 29th, and I am sure the iphone sales will be phenomenal, but I also suspect a backlash when people find out their paying $100 a month, and the phone lacks some functionality that many people may want (navigation for one).

Additionally, Cingular.. sorry the new att's network is severely overtaxed, and oversubscribed. The least dropped calls in their ads are correct, only due to the fact they have the least connected calls. Many people are having problems calling, and in some cases have to redial constantly to get a call to connect. When you suddenly add 3 million iphones to the network, I suspect it will melt down.

Go ahead, call me a luddite

[LordNimon]

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.

Re:Go ahead, call me a luddite

[drinkypoo]

the iPhone costs $600, so at that price you'd think that Apple wouldn't need to partner with anyone.

See, that's what gets me. for $600 I can buy a dual-processor laptop or desktop with many times the capabilities of the iPhone (in most ways.) Yes, I know, there is a price on miniaturization, but the iPhone is also a much less powerful device.

I'd have to be offered a truly compelling reason to purchase an iPhone, such as their version of google maps showing you where the free blowjob hotspots are or something.

Re:Go ahead, call me a luddite

[Anonymous Coward]

or $600 I can buy a dual-processor laptop or desktop with many times the capabilities of the iPhone

Except that a laptop or desktop isn't a phone.

Seriously. You can get a lot of shit for $600. That doesn't make it interchangeable.

Re:Go ahead, call me a luddite

[goatpunch]

The iPhone doesn't really cost $600, just like your average RAZR that comes with a 3 year contract doesn't cost $0. I don't know how much the AT&T voice + data contract costs, but if it's around $55/month you're paying $2000 for 2 years of voice and data + ownership of the hardware. Of course if you were going to pay for this voice and data plan anyway, and there's no chance of a better/cheaper one coming along from a competitor in the meantime, then you will end up with a pretty good deal.

A quick look at similar phones shows that they are around the $600-700 mark.

HTC Touch $590 http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=149753
02 XDA Aton Exec $770 http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=138374
HTC TyTN $685 http://www.mobileplanet.com/p.aspx?i=145222

Given the premium that Apple usually charges for their hardware, I can't really imagine a stand-alone iPhone being sold for less than around $1000.

I personally have an HTC TyTN and it's fantastic, I just wish it was a bit smaller and that the touch screen was a bit easier to use with my fingers (without the stylus) - maybe I should grow a coke nail.

Not so

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple fans will put up with anything. Including this.

Re:Not so

[Cpt_Kirks]

But, other than The Faithful, who is going to buy one of these now?

Is this some kind of Jobsian plot, I wonder? There has to be a reason for all this silliness. Apple and AT&T seem to be doing all they can to kill the iPhone before it even comes out.

This HAS to be about money, obviously. But how?

Re:Not so

[Golias]

I'm an Apple junkie going all the way back to the System 7 days. I currently use multiple Macs, have an Airport hub, and am on my second (probably not last) iPod. I have drunk deep of the Kool-ade, and asked for seconds. You will seldom find a bigger Apple zealot than me. OS X is justification for the very existence of Western Civilization. Steve Jobs is my hero. While I would not blow him, I would make arrangements for him to be blown at my own expense if he asked me to, merely out of gratitude for the ways in which his company has improved my life.

But there's no way in hell I'm buying into the at&t EDGE network plan to use this phone. If I could have just bought the phone and relied of free Wi-Fi hotspots for data use (and preferably drop my T-Mobile SIM into it and keep my current plan), I would have gladly dropped far more than the $600 price tag to snap one of these things up. OS X "Lite" on a hand-held? Are you kidding me? Even without the phone, I would want it.

The other shortcoming is that the "best iPod we ever made" as Steve calls it, lacks enough storage for my music collection, let alone video files.

But as it is... Screw it. I'll keep toting around my 5th Gen 80GB iPod and my RAZR. Get back to me with iPhone 2, and if there are fewer ties to a ridiculously expensive (for what it is) phone/data service, I'll consider it.

Re:Not so

[hedwards]

But there's no way in hell I'm buying into the at&t EDGE network plan to use this phone. If I could have just bought the phone and relied of free Wi-Fi hotspots for data use (and preferably drop my T-Mobile SIM into it and keep my current plan), I would have gladly dropped far more than the $600 price tag to snap one of these things up. OS X "Lite" on a hand-held? Are you kidding me? Even without the phone, I would want it. The ability to use hot spots would definitely go a ways towards justifying a higher price. But what I haven't yet been able to figure out is why anybody except the most extreme junkies is going to purchase this phone. If it were available through normal channels, the price would be a minimal issue. Something like $400 versus $300 and not necessarily unreasonable. But with limited 3rd party developer support, a lack of exchange plugins, not being 3g, not being available directly with a new service contract, I don't see how this is going to work And yes, exchange support is a big deal. While it isn't terribly important to those that can use a non-exchange email server, anybody in business will be unable to use it if their company is an exchange shop. The common corporate requirements for record keeping would make it all but impossible Granted there have been companies that managed to really flourish in spite of this sort of thing, 3dfx being probably the most notable. It is still an extremely difficult market to be in, and I don't think that a company with pockets as deep as MS would be able to make a success out of this with all of these impediments to ownership. This is a consumer gadget, and I do remember thinking a lot of the same things about the iPod, but in this case it is more than just Apple running the store and only selling it on their platform. That was something that was easily remedied, and the ITMS was never as much of a strangle hold thing as it seemed. It strikes me as being a poor decision. As you noted, I think that there would be a large market for an iPDA, especially if it were well thought out. The Newton despite sucking pretty bad, is one that is still much missed, the technology is here to do it correctly, and there is a version of OSX which will run it. I think that has been pretty much finished. Getting Mac users and even a few windows users to buy it would probably be only a little bit harder than selling the original iPods.

Re:Not so

[Golias]

But what I haven't yet been able to figure out is why anybody except the most extreme junkies is going to purchase this phone.

I don't see it as a phone with an iPod & Browser in it.

I see it as an at-long-last replacement for the old Newton, with a phone in it.

If, by "the most extreme junkies", you mean 1 percent of the current cell phone market, then Apple hits their sales target for this phone right there. Get a few casual and/or business users on board, and it becomes one of Apple's most successful product launches, ever.

But they'll be doing it without me, so long as it's locked into high-priced, low-performance, long-term contracts.

Re:Not so

[darjen]

But there's no way in hell I'm buying into the at&t EDGE network plan to use this phone. If I could have just bought the phone and relied of free Wi-Fi hotspots for data use (and preferably drop my T-Mobile SIM into it and keep my current plan), I would have gladly dropped far more than the $600 price tag to snap one of these things up. OS X "Lite" on a hand-held? Are you kidding me? Even without the phone, I would want it.

I couldn't agree more. I'm no Apple fanboi, but enough with these hideously expensive data plans already! The only way I would shell out $600 for one of these suckers is if it had free wireless and Skype. Unfortunately the iPhone is a bit too big for my preferences too. Tell me when they come out with one that's the size of a RAZR and I might consider it.

Re:Not so

[Golias]

Well, it's about the size of a RAZR plus an iPod Nano, so if you've been toting both around already, it's not so bad, size-wise.

I wouldn't even mind the expensive data plan, if it was good enough that I could drop my DSL at home, and use bluetooth computer connections to the phone for all my at-home Internet needs.

But to pay another huge monthly wad of cash on top of what I'm already spending on broadband service, just so I can use Google Maps without pulling into a Panera Bread parking lot first to sponge off their Wi-Fi? No thanks.

Re:Not so

[Fahrenheit 450]

Well, I'd suppose that would depend on if this is true, or just yet another Apple rumor that doesn't come true. Wouldn't it?

Re:Not so

[IdleTime]

I wonder if Apple is only going to sell it here in the US. Because what they do here, with the plans and lock in, is totally illegal in my home country, just like EULA's. The principle there is that the customer is the one who decides which services and where they want to buy them and not the producer of the phone.

Re:Not so

[oatworm]

I was talking about this with a coworker of mine, and we decided something:

The iPhone is not meant to compete against the Blackberry or Windows Mobile phones of the world. The iPhone is not for business customers. Instead, it's for home users that want similar basic functionality to a Blackberry or Windows Mobile device (something that handles e-mail, browses the web on an easy-to-read display, that sort of thing) but don't want it to feel like a "work" phone. Consequently, Exchange support is unnecessary, as is anything beyond basic calendaring and the like. If it can play a few mini-games, so much the better. It doesn't have support for a bunch of third-party plugins? Oh well - the home user won't need them anyways.

Now, what my coworker and I couldn't agree on was how many home users actually want that, and the reason for that is because this market segment has never been touched. Consequently, I'm curious to see how big the "I want a PDA but not for work" market really is.

Re:Not so

[glesga_kiss]

The ability to use hot spots would definitely go a ways towards justifying a higher price.

Only if it's a subscription plan to a decent hotspot provider. If it's just 'enabling wifi' as TFA suggests, then it's bull. They have to compete against the dozens of phones with WiFi that have no restrictions.

It may be a side-effect of Apple's desire to make computing easier. On mobile phone forums most of the queries and problems people have are relating to WiFi connectivity. Perhaps Apple are wanting to hide the complexities of WiFi encryption by providing a pre-configured service.

Re:Not so

[glesga_kiss]

The only way I would shell out $600 for one of these suckers is if it had free wireless and Skype. Unfortunately the iPhone is a bit too big for my preferences too. Tell me when they come out with one that's the size of a RAZR and I might consider it.

There are several phones on the market that meet your requirements already. Skype has been available on mobile platforms for about two years at least.

Re:Not so

[nbvb]

.... so does everyone now understand WHY Verizon turned down iPhone ?? Why piss off their customers by someone else's rules? If you're going to piss 'em off, at least let it be of your own accord!

Re:Not so

[saboola]

Is this some kind of Jobsian plot, I wonder? There has to be a reason for all this silliness. Apple and AT&T seem to be doing all they can to kill the iPhone before it even comes out.

Well, Ken Kutaragi was let go from Sony due to the pretty bad launch of the PS3, I guess we now know where he get a new job at.

Re:Not so

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bs on your zealot status. We all know you can't be a true zealot until you will and have blown Steve.

Re:Not so

[Villageidiot9390]

I agree with the parent. This phone is not meant to kill off the Blackberries or Windows Mobile phones that business users rely on. This phone is meant to target a whole different audience. It is essentially an iPod and a Cell Phone combined into one and it also just happens to have a web browser and some cool e-mail functionality built in. The people it's really targeting are those who have the "in" phone (such as the RAZR for right now) + an iPod. It's a totally new market, hence the "Revolutionary" part that Jobs is talking about. The only question is really how big the market is.

Re:Not so

[Surur]

Home users dont want YouTube, Google Video, Myspace and flickr? Tell me more...

Surur

Re:Not so

[cayenne8]

"I wouldn't even mind the expensive data plan, if it was good enough that I could drop my DSL at home, and use bluetooth computer connections to the phone for all my at-home Internet needs."

That's the deal breaker for me. In reply to an earlier post of mine on /., I was shown where Apple very plainly stated that no 'tethering', or allowances for you iPhone to be used as a bluetooth modem for another computer would be allowed.

That killed the iPhone for me. I've had to in the past, especially on the run from Ivan and Katrina, to use my current sprint pcs phone to log onto the internet via my laptop. Voice wouldn't work on a NOLA based cell phone, but, txt and internet would. When my ISP has had problems, I used it for that. I can't imagine why Apple won't allow this on the iPhone, but, it appears that that is the case. Till that is rectified, I cannot buy one. The price is no big deal to me, I can easily afford it, but, I need the tethering functionality I currently have with my samsung blade phone and sprint vision package.

Re:Not so

[JD-1027]

I am exactly in your position (Mac zealot since system 6, ha!). I've never seen this kind of no WIFI without contract thing from apple to this degree. This is the same as a TIVO not working without a plan.

Today was a sad day for my confidence in apple.

So I sent feedback, put in the iPod section for lack of a better place, stating my concern (hey, these are just rumors, right?).

http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html

It can only help that I made my concerns known.

Re:Not so

[dave420]

If the phone companies & networks work the same in the US as they do over this side of the pond, that $600 will be the subsidised price of the handset, not the actual cost. If they ever did offer it without a contract (which they won't, as that would not make the phone an out-of-the-box Apple Experience®, and thus sacrilege), it would be more. Yikes.

Well, clearly this isn't the phone for you. I'm not being rude here, but this phone seems to just be a way to get Flikr, MySpace, Digg, Yahoogle or even the venerable /. in your pocket, in a pretty package, not actually a smartphone.

Re:Not so

[the_lesser_gatsby]

I could drop my DSL at home, and use bluetooth computer connections to the phone for all my at-home Internet needs.

You would have to have the world's crappiest DSL connection for that to be the case. Or have rather minimal needs.

Re:Not so

[Damek]

Count me in that market segment. (and to one of your other repliers, no, I don't care about YouTube and other Flash stuff on a phone/PDA)

However, count me out of that market segment at the iPhone price range. The thing looks great, except too expensive ... and the restrictions don't help.

I be po'.

However, considering I (and people like me) didn't get an iPod until 3-4 years after they were first introduced, I have a feeling the iPhone could still be a long-term success.

Re:Not so

[Shuh]

But, other than The Faithful, who is going to buy one of these now?

Are you kidding? Have you even looked at the "smart phone" competition? Compared to the iPhone, they all look like something from The Flintstones.

Re:Not so

[Golias]

Only if it's a subscription plan to a decent hotspot provider.

For that to happen, a "decent" subscription-based hotspot provider would need to exist.

Every one I've seen has less coverage than you get just by war-driving and/or googling for free hotspots in your area.

Re:Not so

[walt-sjc]

But wasn't the newton open for development? Didn't it have expansion slots? User Replaceable batteries? Why Yes. Yes it did. All characteristics the iPhone doesn't share.

I see the iPhone market as a high-end normal cell phone for consumers. It's an upgrade to the Razr, not the Treo or Blackberry. It is a consumer phone with consumer level email / web / ipod, not an business / enterprise PDA phone. Unfortunately, it has an enterprise price and requires business price point service plans. So far, Apple has done everything possible to push away the business user market without explicitly saying that it is doing so. They have also pushed away the pro-sumer market too with the restrictions it has. I really don't understand it.

When I first saw the original keynote demo, I damn near drooled all over my keyboard. At this point however, you couldn't get me to switch to it from my treo even if you paid me to do so. Why? While it may have a far better UI / browser, It just can't do what my Treo does. It's not 3G, It's not open, etc. etc.

Re:Not so

[2nd Post!]

If those services work with Safari, why wouldn't they work with an iPhone?

Re:Not so

[walt-sjc]

FYI, the best 3G is about as fast as the slowest DSL offering. Edge is even slower than that. Edge IS better than a modem, but due to high latency it's only marginally better.

Re:Not so

[SerpentMage]

Fair enough, but a home user is going to fork over that much money for the iPhone? I think not! To attract the consumer you need reasonable prices. Remember the first Palm, it was reasonable priced. Remember the iPod it was reasonable priced for what it offered.

But here are the restrictions with the iPhone:

1) You need a data services contract.
2) You need a contract from one supplier.
3) And you need to register yourself with iTunes store.

No wonder Google is interested in this device. This is a profiling dream! You have all information about the person, where they are located and what they happen to be doing electronically...

I AM DEFINITELY NOT getting this device.

Re:Not so

[darjen]

Right, which makes me wonder all the more why Apple refuses to follow suit with already established technology. Until established companies start to come out with devices that are completely open, unlocked, etc then they might as well kiss me goodbye as a customer. Either that or I'll wait till something I really want comes down in price to $100 or less. The only reason I have my Razr now is because my old plan ended and I got this one with a new plan. But I'm even starting to get fed up with plans now. Having Skype on a sexy device such as those Apple makes would be great. Even more so if it could hold my full music library.

Re:Not so

[amper]

Yes and no. It's more about Apple providing an option to Mac users so that they won't be left out in the cold like they are with Palm, RIM, and Microsoft. The fact that the iPhone clearly is going to work more seamlessly than any of the other platforms, especially for Mac users, is just gravy. That right there is the most compelling reason for me to buy an iPhone. Finally, a smartphone that works with my Mac just the way the Mac itself works--and it'll work great with my Windows machines, to boot, since of course as a Mac person, all my Windows machines get all of Apple's Windows software installed immediately.

Exchange support? Fsck that. Why would Apple want to support the one product that should have the entire technology industry outside of Microsoft uniting to kill? Besides, Apple has the iCal Server out/coming out--do you really think Apple is going to make the iPhone not work with iCal Server?

Re:Not so

[WaltFrench]

...this market segment has never been touched.

Not quite so. Apple's putative genius notwithstanding, this can be figured out by others. RIM (and probably many others) are actively courting the high-end mobile not-necessarily-"mobile professionals;" they see this (quite rightly, methinks) as a huge growth market.

Who are they? People who might really like push email from work, but have a personal subscription. Or work at a job that doesn't take them on the road so much, but still like to have a digital life. The "one device per purse/pocket" crowd. People who like calamari.

Or, as I was told, your soccer-mom housewife. In all, lotsa people; lotsa disposable income.

Re:Not so

[Shag]

I can't speak to RIM and Microsoft, but Apple's own iSync has worked fine with the Bluetooth phones I've owned, and I'm pretty sure Palm Desktop for Mac worked fine with my Treo...

Re:Not so

[dave562]

So basically they want to compete with the Sidekick? Sounds like a losing proposition to me. I still think that the Samsung i730 I used to have was about the best mobile phone out there. It ran Windows Mobile. Had WiFi support. Had a full keyboard. Accepted standard SDRAM cards that you could load your MP3s onto. Had a built in headphone jack. Did ActiveSync with Exchange. With the mobile version of Opera web browsing was actually alright. Most importantly, I could use it on Verizon and didn't have to deal with Cingular/AT&T. That may not be good outside of LA, but in Los Angeles, Verizon pwnz AT&T, no ifs, ands or butts about it.

Re:Not so

[Anonymous Coward]

These are just rumors, I'll wait until June 29th before I start making judgments.

Re:Not so

[Anonymous Coward]

No flash support.

Re:Not so

[oatworm]

Everyone thought Apple was crazy when they released the iPod at the price point they released it at, too. You'd be amazed how much people will pay for something that's "cool" and still "works".

As for your other objections:

1) You need a data services contract.
2) You need a contract from one supplier.
These, I suspect, are both compromises with AT&T/Cingular so they could push this phone out to market. That said, a data services contract isn't that onerous for someone that's used to paying $0.99 for a ring tone or a wallpaper. Again, this isn't geared towards professionals that know all about these devices - it's geared towards novices that are interested in these devices but find your normal fare on this front to be too "stuffy", "worklike", or just plain "complicated". In that vein, having it set up to run on wireless networks as well as the data service provider complicates things because now they have to care whether there's a WiFi spot around or not.

Let me put it another way:
I once had someone who just got a laptop come up to me and ask me if they could get on the Internet with it. "Of course," I said. They then said that they heard that laptops can access "wireless Internet". "Yep," I said, "you just have to be near a hotspot." I then had to spend the next hour explaining hotspots and why they couldn't just pop open their laptop in their house and magically get an Internet connection. At the end, they said, "Well, that's just false advertising," and walked away dejectedly. These are the people that the iPhone is meant to pick up - they don't know about hotspots and, most importantly, they don't want to know about hotspots. They want it to just work.

3) And you need to register yourself with iTunes store.
Considering how it's being advertised as an "iPod with a phone", well, that kind of makes sense. Odds are, if you're getting an iPhone, you probably already have an iPod, in which case you probably already have an iTunes account. Plus, given a choice between Cellphone A that runs through Cingular/Verizon/Sprint/CC Wireless/Tracphone/Virgin Mobile/whomever that has to cough up $0.99 for a ringtone or a wallpaper and $0.99 for a full length of music and, oh, you can get wallpapers for free off the Internet, well, which one are you going to pick?

Again, the iPhone is not geared towards us. If you want something with all the bells and whistles imaginable, you don't want this phone. If you want something that runs an open, free operating system, you don't want this phone. If you want something that gives you tons of choices about everything, including how you get your data, what applications you can run on it, how you get music to and from it, etc., you don't want this phone. On the other hand, if you don't want to have to care about how to get music on there, if you don't want to have to care how to get it hooked up to the Internet, and if you don't care about a bunch of bells and whistles so long as the device in your hand does what you want it to do, which isn't much, you might want an iPhone... unless you text message a lot, in which case you probably will want nothing to do with its clear, non-tactile screen. Eek.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple came out with a different iPhone model with a physical keyboard of some sort, though, especially if iPhone 1.0 does reasonably well. I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple managed to squirm out of the exclusivity arrangements with AT&T at some point, though that would require another provider to work with Apple on the new mail system; for all we know, AT&T might have been the only provider willing to work with Apple on that. If so, assuming the iPhone does well, don't be too surprised if other providers start saying, "Hey, we'll do that out-of-order mail system," at which point we'll not only see iPhones being available for other providers but probably also see other phones taking advantage of that feature.

Re:Not so

[amper]

If you think Palm Desktop for Mac "works fine", then I'd say you don't have very high standards for software.

  Of course, I might be biased because I've never actually owned a Palm-branded PDA. I've had a Kyocera 6035 (I couldn't find a use for a Palm until it had a phone in it), a Sony Clie NX60 (got tired of no upgrades for the 6035 and no Wi-Fi), and a Samsung SPH-i500 (my current Palm device and primary cellphone, but I'm still pissed because it doesn't send SMS and doesn't have Bluetooth, but I'll keep it for now because I despise thumboards). None of these actually works 100% with Palm Desktop for Mac. Only the most basic sync features work. Based on my experiences with Palm devices, I have a very low opinion of Palm, and I will likely not buy another Palm device...unless of course I end up getting another one through my equipment insurance on the i500.

Hopefully, somebody will port Graffiti I to the iPhone...which is the only application I've ever found for the Palm OS that was actually compelling. Of course, that was a Newton app first...

I will say, though, that the Foleo looks interesting. I can't wait to see a real one. I've been saying that we need this sort of "in-between" class of portable device for a long time already, years, even.

Re:Not so

[amper]

Oh, and the Bluetooth 2.0+EDR capable Samsung SPH-m610 I bought to go with my Nokia 770? Not supported by iSync.

Re:Not so

[amper]

Difference between the Newton and the iPhone? Steve Jobs and fifteen plus years of history. Love my MP2100. Have all the Newton books and dev tools. Never use it. Hell, I even have an Ethernet card and an ISDN card for it!

iPhone not a business/enterprise PDA phone? WTF, are you smoking dope?

iPhone supports:

1. Standards compliant web browser. Find me one on any other PDA platform, please. Seriously.
2. IMAP email (supported by every serious email server out there, including Exchange). Show me a nice IMAP client for any other PDA. Go ahead, make my day.
3. Calendaring (which Apple would be absolutely nuts not to have working with iCal Server/Darwin Calendar Server), but at least we know for damn sure it will work on a Mac like a damn Mac application should, which is better than I can say for any other PDA I've seen.
4. Custom Google Maps application that blows the J2ME version out of the water, never mind trying to use the regular browser version on *any* handheld device.

What exactly do you think it is that the iPhone would so desparately need to be a biz/ent PDA phone in your eyes? Palm, RIM, and Microsoft are about to get their asses handed to them, and they know it better than you do...

Oh, but maybe you just didn't realize that there are an awful lot of people that get paid a hell of a lot of money working for large enterprises that actually use Macs as their primary computers?

Re:Not so

[amper]

Rrrright. Because Flash doesn't work with WebKit...for the last fscking time, it's the same damn browser. Only the interface wrapper is different. Jobs cannot get up on stage and release materials containing materialy false statements about Apple products. The SEC would hang his ass out to dry--they'd love to get him on something after his whistle past the cemetary bypassing of the options backdating scandal.

Re:Not so

[amper]

In reply to an earlier post of mine on /., I was shown where Apple very plainly stated that no 'tethering', or allowances for you iPhone to be used as a bluetooth modem for another computer would be allowed.

Citation, please. This is a very important point. I looked through your past posts for the last six weeks, and the replies, for anything that looks like it might relate to the iPhone, but I don't see what you're talking about.

Re:Not so

[Anonymous Coward]

It's lost in your sarcasm, so I can't tell your point.

But Flash doesn't work on iPhone, regardless of what you think the phone being 'OS X' means. The iPhone is running an ARM processor rather than x86 or PPC for that matter. So it being 'the same damn browser' doesn't have any relevance, as we are talking about FLASH not Safari in general.

So maybe that's what you were saying, or not. Who can tell?

Re:Not so

[cayenne8]

"Citation, please."

Hello, sorry so long to get back. I wish I had the good quote someone answered me with...it was a few month ago. But, I do believe it was said by Jobs himself when he introduced the iPhone, so you might look at that. I found this blurb here which mentioned this:

"What doesn't iPhone do? Unlike most smart phones, the iPhone doesn't have voice-dialing, voice memos, 3G Internet access, Word or Excel support, one-handed operation, or video recording. It can't be used as a laptop modem. The battery can't be replaced. It doesn't support removable storage. The calendar, task list and e-mail won't sync with Microsoft Outlook."

Tethering like I mentioned, is a big deal for me too...but, I think Jobs himself said you could not use it at a modem for another computer.

Re:Not so

[cayenne8]

Actually this article had what I think was quoted to me earlier about no tethering.

Re:Not so

[walt-sjc]

iPhone not a business/enterprise PDA phone? WTF, are you smoking dope?

To stoop to a lame personal attack that has no basis in fact shows that you still have yet to develop the ability to have a reasonable adult conversation, but I will spell things out to you anyway...

IMAP access to exchange for corporate users is not enough. It's not push. Ever used goodlink on a PDA or a blackberry with the exchange connector? The calendar on the iphone does NOT have exchange calendar support. Hate to break it to you, but the corporate world does (with VERY VERY few exceptions) does not use iCal Server. The google maps app on my Treo is no different than the demo Steve showed in his prior keynote. I can search, scroll, click on phone numbers to dial, pull addresses out and put them in the address book... Exactly how do you think it's different?

I freely admit that the iPhone has a better screen, UI, browser, and mmedia player. Those things are not enough when it comes to the needs of business users.

For the iphone to be viable for business it has to have a true open SDK that allows native offline apps to be written. It needs a user (easily) replaceable battery - especially with the announced battery life (I carry several spares when I travel.) It needs tethering support. It needs a real keyboard (slide-out would be nice.) It needs to have alternate carriers supported. It needs 3G (Edge is pathetic.) It needs to support word / excel viewing at a minimum (which it may do, but it has never been announced or demoed.)

One thing to note about all the iPhone demos... I STRONGLY suspect that they have been using wifi and not Edge. Why? Everything was WAY too fast for it to be Edge - I've used Edge, and it's quite slow. Better than a modem, but not by much due to the latency.

I fully expect other phone manufacturers are already working on adding better screens, improving the UI, and adding decent browsers, and doing so with open SDK phones at 2/3rds to 1/2 the price.

Oh, but maybe you just didn't realize that there are an awful lot of people that get paid a hell of a lot of money working for large enterprises that actually use Macs as their primary computers?

Well, I do too, and am looking forward to Leopard. That doesn't mean that I'm going to buy an iPhone if it doesn't meet my business needs, much like I won't buy an appleTV, because it too fails to meet my needs (no capture / SD support.) I fully believe that apple fanatics that Must Buy Everything Apple will buy the iPhone. I also believe that savvy business users who do more work that just surfing the net and reading email will not.
BTW, all those business users that use macs (myself included?) Less than 6% of the market. Statistically, we mean Very little.

But hey, refuse to acknowledge reality. That's your choice.

Re:Not so

[amper]

Now *that* is disturbing. If it's reported by Macworld, there's a better chance that it's actually true than if it's reported by a rumors site. That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would Apple or AT&T restrict the iPhone from doing something that is acceptable on any other Bluetooth phone? I don't use my m610 with my MacBook much, but I *do* use it, and I use it with my Nokia 770 fairly often.

Of course, with the iPhone, I'd ditch the Nokia, and I would have to use the MacBook even less, but still, why, if I'm paying just as much as any other customer for network access would I not be allowed to do this?

Re:Not so

[amper]

To stoop to a lame personal attack that has no basis in fact shows that you still have yet to develop the ability to have a reasonable adult conversation, but I will spell things out to you anyway...


Get over yourself.

IMAP access to exchange for corporate users is not enough. It's not push.

Not every corporate user in the world uses Exchange. Exchange doesn't push, anyway. Push is overrrated, as well.

The calendar on the iphone does NOT have exchange calendar support. Hate to break it to you, but the corporate world does (with VERY VERY few exceptions) does not use iCal Server.

I never said it had Exchange support, and iCal Server is only available as Darwin Calendar Server at the moment. Apple isn't releasing the iPhone to support Microsoft, who doesn't need the help because small-minded fools keep sucking at the Microsoft appendage.

For the iphone to be viable for business it has to have a true open SDK that allows native offline apps to be written.

Bullshit. You obviously have very little experience in the business world.

One thing to note about all the iPhone demos... I STRONGLY suspect that they have been using wifi and not Edge.

No shit, Sherlock. It's a demo. Time is of the essence when you're advertising. Nobody with more than a quarter of a brain thinks it's going to be that fast over the EDGE network.

I fully expect other phone manufacturers are already working on adding better screens, improving the UI, and adding decent browsers, and doing so with open SDK phones at 2/3rds to 1/2 the price.


Yes, because they've done such a good job of it already. And price? Go take a look at the prices of other smartphones, *none* of which have specs that come within the same solar system as the iPhone.

Re:Not so

[amper]

You might have noticed that Flash runs just fine on ARM, but I suppose not...

Re:Not so

[amper]

Just to make sure you were paying attention, here's a quote from Emmy Huang, the Product Manager for Adobe Flash Player, from her own blog: ...now that the player is up to v9 all devs are responsible for implementing new features *cross-platform* moving forward.

Adobe clearly has interest in providing useful technologies for the mobile and device market. I don't have anything useful to add to the iPhone rumors -- it's Apple's product and it would be inappropriate for me to make a guesstimate of their plans there. Best person to ask? Apple. :-)

Meaning, of course that Apple hasn't mentioned Flash for the iPhone yet, and Adobe knows better than to scoop Steve Jobs...if Adobe and Apple didn't have Flash for the iPhone in the works, why would Emmy need to defer?

Re:Not so

[FictionPimp]

The browser is exactly the same, he didn't lie. But flash still does not work. Of course maybe you would realize flash is not safari, but a safari plugin.

Re:Not so

[walt-sjc]

I think you need to get some professional help. Are you really unable to have an Adult discussion? Or are you just trolling?

Seems as though you failed to address most of my other datapoints but seemed to focus on exchange, I'll bite on that. The majority of major businesses ARE on Exchange, Groupwise, or Notes. There are multiple exchange connectors that do push just fine, such as the blackberry server and Goodlink. Having a PDA connector for your corporate groupware system is quite important to corporate users. Obviously you don't have a clue as to what is out there, or what people in corporate environments are buying. If push is so overrated (sounds like you haven't used it) then why is apple touting it so loudly?

Go take a look at the prices of other smartphones, *none* of which have specs that come within the same solar system as the iPhone.

While I wouldn't use it personally, The moto Q goes for $99. The latest blackberry runs $300. All are under $400. As for specs, your right, the iPhone isn't in the same solar system. It's missing too many features that I listed in my previous post (all the ones you ignored.)

You obviously have very little experience in the business world.

Your right, it's only been about 20 very successful years being a step away in the tree from the CEO at various companies. You wouldn't last long in my organization. Doesn't get along well with others, prima donna, vulgar language - Action: Termination

Re:Not so

[cayenne8]

"Now *that* is disturbing. If it's reported by Macworld, there's a better chance that it's actually true than if it's reported by a rumors site....why, if I'm paying just as much as any other customer for network access would I not be allowed to do this?"

I hear ya...that is the deal breaker for me right now on the iPhone. My sprint contract is up in Jan. and I was looking to get one then, but, if they don't change this capability...I can't see myself getting one.

Fair enough

[Ryan Amos]

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.

Re:Fair enough

[afidel]

RIM is apparently working on divorcing the BB functionality from the physical device. They already have several BB emulators for a few model specific JAVA implementations, they just need to make it a bit more generic and then certify devices. I think they are worried that Exchange/Windows Mobile will eat their lunch and so they are doing everything they can to get their software onto as many devices as they can.

Re:Fair enough

[glesga_kiss]

It's rev 1 Apple hardware, I don't want it anyway.

rev 1 is always crap from just about everyone.

Welcome to reality

[Pojut]

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.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Shakrai]

Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.

Replace "Apple", with "Cingular"^W"AT&T" and you might be accurate there. I'm no Apple fanboy and I don't even own an iPod but if you think that Apple wants these restrictions you are insane. This was the best deal they could get with a national carrier (Verizon demanded even worse restrictions) so they are going with it.

Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me. It wouldn't have had all the carrier dependent features, but it would have been a workable iPod/phone combo, it would have been affordable, and it might even have set a precedent for selling these things outside the iron grasp of the carriers who want them locked down and crippled so they can provide their own revenue stream.

That would have been a nice way to Jobs to do something pro-consumer and stick it to the carriers for forcing all of these restrictions on him. Guess that was too much to hope for. Yeah, it's all about the money :(

Re:Welcome to reality

[kannibal_klown]

While I don't look at Apple via Rose colored glasses (and am not getting an iPhone), I feel that more of the blame lies with AT&T for some of these annoyances.

Sure, Apple is out just to make money and the only reason they're viewed as a hero to MS's villain is merely the lesser amount of power they wield, their high(er) quality products, and Mac zealots.

But really, who benefits from these odd changes? Apple gets whatever for selling the phone, but then AT&T is the one locking you into data contracts and such. As part of a give/take Apple might have said "Fine, we'll lock the WiFi unless you unlock it for them." I mean, look at most of the annoyances... with the exception of no true SDK or removable memory most of it is contractual lock-in stuff.

While it looks like a cool gadget, I won't get it. I have enough problems with my photocopier's touch-screen keyboard and not knowing if my sausage fingers hit the right button that I don't need that kind of headache with a phone. It may be tres-cool hardware but I think I'll pass.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Pojut]

It may be tres-cool hardware but I think I'll pass.

Holy fuck. Turn in your human credentials now, for you are the spawn of satan.

Re:Welcome to reality

[dada21]

Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.

and

ALL buisnesses are in it for the money. Welcome to reality, bud.

That's a pretty close-minded view that I believe many slashdotters share, but it is also completely wrong. Businesses are not "in it" for "the money" or just "for (financial) profit." Neither are consumers. No one enters a trade agreement without considering their own gain. A phone company has no reason to sell you a phone if they're not going to gain SOMETHING out of the deal. It isn't always money. AT&T may give away a few hundred phones to the likes of Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt in exchange for a non-financial profit from these parties.

You, the "consumer," also are not going to make a trade if you don't get a gain. If you buy the iPhone, it will be for some personal gain -- you can call that a profit. I use my HTC Trinity because it gives me a few different forms of profit: it works well, so my customers are happy (financial gain). It handles my daily business and personal tasks efficiently, so I get a time-savings profit. I paid $600 for it, but I have gained significantly in terms of finances, time and uniqueness. I made a "profit," or I would not have purchased the phone from HTC. HTC gained a profit, in terms of finances.

The market is all about mutual profits by both parties -- not just one party gaining and the other party losing. When that happens, we call it government.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Moridineas]

Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me

SIM card? Apple won't even let you replace the BATTERY!

If you think it's only the nasty carriers that would make this a closed device, you're deluding yourself--look how "open" the ipod is.

Re:Welcome to reality

[localman]

Sure, businesses are in it for the money, and there's nothing wrong with that. But here's the part that most people don't seem to understand: the best way to make money is not by "fucking you in the ass" as you say, or by deceiving consumers, or by locking consumers in, etc, etc. These might work as short term strategies, but they always fail as long term strategies. And making money in the short term at the expense of the long term is not what business is about.

In general, if I were to criticize Microsoft vs. Apple, it's not because one is "in it for the money" and the other isn't, it's because one of them is shortsighted. Yes, it bugs me as a consumer when they release a limited, crappy, or overpriced product, but assuming I'm a reasonable facsimile of an average consumer it's bad for them too. And that makes them stupid. Good business doesn't have to be stupid.

In this case, assuming this rumor is right, I think the restrictions that AT&T and Apple are putting on the device are pretty stupid. That makes it bad business; and even if the product succeeds, that doesn't mean it was a good idea, it might have done even better without all the restrictions.

Cheers

Re:Welcome to reality

[Shakrai]

If you think it's only the nasty carriers that would make this a closed device, you're deluding yourself--look how "open" the ipod is.

I'm not deluding myself over anything with Apple. (Here goes my Karma) Their entire business model is based around marketing a flashy product that is basically inaccessible to the power user and barely customizable at all beyond what Apple "thinks" you need.

That said, given that Jobs has stood up to the music labels before with DRM (presumably because it suits him as well as his consumers), it would have been nice to see him fight the carriers on the issue of crippling features. Obviously he didn't decide to do that.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Moridineas]

I agree with everything you said.

Would have been nice to see that indeed re: steve. not sure I understand why apple would do it this way--wouldn't it be even better for them if there was a Verizon iphone, a att iphone, sprint, tmobile, etc.

would be nice to see a cdma version, too

Re:Welcome to reality

[Bemopolis]

Speaking as an Apple lover, I don't despise Microsoft because they are Microsoft. I despise Microsoft because of what Microsoft is: a company that is unable to make anything except for wonky, artless crap. And if that were the end of it that would be fine; but their crap is ubiquitous, and sometimes a requirement.

To use a non-car analogy, Microsoft is like....Celine Dion. I mean, sure, I can concede that she's a gifted technical singer, but she has the aesthetic sensibility of a third-grade dropout Appalachian bootlegger who lost 90% of his hearing in a still explosion, with the rest of his faculties addled by methanol poisioning and a dose of the clap he got while stationed in the Pacific theater fighting the nips. (Hi, Grampa). Now, there are some people whose palate Vann diagram overlpas well with this, and more power to them. As for me, I won't allow that meliasmic dog sick in the house. And if that were the end of it that would be fine. Now imagine a world where you go to work and they pipe Dion over the PA; and after work you go online to your bank website to pay your credit card, and there's a banner that says "Sorry -- you must be playing 'My Heart Will Go On' to access this feature"; and then your so-called friends keep sending you email with attachements that plays a mashup of 'Ce N'Etait Qu'un Reve' and 'To Love You More'; and then, to get a grip on sanity you turn on the news and Rene Angelil is on Letterman talking about how Celine Dion is spurring 'innovation' by requiring the vast majority of mp3 player manufacturers to include 'Miracle' and 'On Ne Change Pas' pre-installed, along with preview tracks of 'D'Elles' that can, in some instances, cause malware to take over your player and play 'Power of Love' repeatedly at full volume.

So yeah, I hate Microsoft. That's The Way It Is.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Shakrai]

would be nice to see a cdma version, too

Well, the problem with that is that the CDMA carriers will refuse to activate unbranded devices on their networks. But he still could have decided to release an unbranded GSM version. Any T-Mobile or AT&T customer would have been able to use it. Plus all the regional carriers (Suncom, Cellular One, etc) that use GSM. Plus virtually any mobile user outside of the United States or Asia is already on GSM.

Instead he decided to go the carrier-specific route. This lets him add carrier dependent features (visual voicemail) but I think it's a disservice to innovation and his customers. But what do I know? :)

Given that people are already willing to pay $350 for an iPod, it would seem like basic GSM phone functionality could have been added for another $100 and sold independently of the carriers. It wouldn't be a true smartphone, but it probably would have appealed to more people. How many people do you know with smartphones vs iPods? Hell, my Grandmother has an iPod....

Re:Welcome to reality

[8-bitDesigner]

Inaccessible to the power user? For the last few years, you've been able to recompile the bloody kernel. Hell, you can run GNOME on top of OSX, replace the default BSD utilities with GNU ones, and install GCC.
And how on earth is that inaccessible to the power user?

Re:Welcome to reality

[jdigriz]

And how exactly is Apple going to prevent you from replacing the battery? Even if the device were similar to an iPod in terms of how easy it is to open, a google search will reveal dozens of firms who will replace your iPod battery for you when it wears out.

Re:Welcome to reality

[MarcoG42]

It isn't always money. AT&T may give away a few hundred phones to the likes of Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt in exchange for a non-financial profit from these parties.

Wouldn't the profit they get from that sort of transaction be people saying "OH! Paris has that phone, so *I* have to have that phone!" So the sheeple run out and get it, thus making the carrier MORE money? I fail to see how that is non-financial profit.

Re:Welcome to reality

[toQDuj]

Even their website sttates that the battery might need replacing every now and then.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Moridineas]

Oh come on, why do you need to defend apple so much?

how easy it is to open? you want me to either order special tools or pry open my pretty ipod and risk breaking it? I'm posting on slashdot! What do you think people who DON'T care about this stuff feel about their ipod batteries? It's simple--it's harder and more expensive to replace an ipod battery than any other device with a easily accesible and replaceable battery. that's it.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Moridineas]

I'm not sure to whom or to what you're responding? I didn't say anything about power users or accesibility..

though I do think you are far offbase. openess is not the same as hackability. xbox was hacked to death--it is not open.

I can't install extra software on my ipod, replace the battery on my ipod, etc without hacking it--literally or softwarewise!

Re:Welcome to reality

[jZnat]

Maybe he was referring to OS 9? By the way, installing GCC is as simple as installing Xcode (included in the Mac OS X DVDs you get with your computer or from Apple, or downloading it from them), and is quite common for developers and *nix users to do. Actually, it's pretty damn *nix-geeky to replace a lot of things in OS X with alternatives, and in order to "power user control" (so to say) over the OS, you need to edit plist files (which requires command line usage).

Wait, what do you mean by "power user" then? It's very similar shit on Windows (regedit, gpedit.msc, etc.), KDE, Blackbox/Fluxbox/etc., Enlightenment, etc. Will a power user be willing to edit text files and database files (e.g., plist, registry, *rc), use the command line, and download 3rd-party hacks?

Also, most Apple devices are pretty hackable by power users (their computers, iPods (except for the Shuffle), AppleTV), and the fact that their iPhone probably won't be hackable is quite contrary to how they've been running since Jobs came back from NeXT.

Re:Welcome to reality

[spotter]

i'm wondering why you think verizon demanded "more" restrictions. Verizon's main restriction is almost always that you can't run any other application on your phone. Well guess what, Apple agrees with that. :) Verizon has also crippled bluetooth in the past (no obex) but that wouldn't affect the iPhone because there's no point to it! Also, Verizon has crippled DUN, but again, there's no actually marketing on Apple's part to suggest it views DUN as a feature at all.

Personally, I think it's just that Verizon wasn't willing to pay up, while Cingular was (that's the only reason they would get a 5 year (!) exclusive (same reason why Verizon has an exclusive on the LG chocolate)

Re:Welcome to reality

[jZnat]

Best. Analogy. EVAR.

I'm saving this one. It's so over-the-top until you realise that it's completely true. Curse you, Microsoft! :(

Re:Welcome to reality

[glesga_kiss]

Even if the device were similar to an iPod in terms of how easy it is to open, a google search will reveal dozens of firms who will replace your iPod battery for you when it wears out.

What use is that to folk that do business travel e.g. transatlantic flights? I have two batteries for my laptop and two batteries for my phone. Standard practice for me when you have 12+ hour flights from time to time.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm no Apple fanboy and I don't even own an iPod but if you think that Apple wants these restrictions you are insane."

This point is just moronic.

"This was the best deal they could get with a national carrier (Verizon demanded even worse restrictions) so they are going with it."

This is even more moronic. AT&T is a GSM network. Apple is now locked in to that GSM network. How is that better than allowing anyone with sim card to buy an unlocked iPhone and use it on the very same GSM network with NO restrictions? You act like they need a carrier for... well something. You are wrong about that. They have restricted themselves to the exact same network that would be available to an unlocked GSM phone and gained NOTHING. You really think they need showroom space and advertising from AT&T? Not fucking likely.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Stan92057]

"But really, who benefits from these odd changes? Apple gets whatever for selling the phone, but then AT&T is the one locking you into data contracts and such"

By having an exclusive contract with ATT, you don't think apple isn't getting more then just the cost of the phone?? Just how does an exclusive contract make it better for customers??

Re:Welcome to reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.

I laughed so hard when i saw you misspell business... twice!

Re:Welcome to reality

[porcupine8]

I thought they needed a carrier to do the visual voice mail thing.

Not that I think that justifies it, if that was the only/main reason for the lock-in. I'm another who would love to use one as a PDA if I didn't have to buy phone services with it. Hopefully in a couple years.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Shakrai]

They have restricted themselves to the exact same network that would be available to an unlocked GSM phone and gained NOTHING

The last time I checked there is more then one GSM network in the United States.

Re:Welcome to reality

[nytes]

i'm wondering why you think verizon demanded "more" restrictions. Verizon's main restriction is almost always that you can't run any other application on your phone.

I have a cheapo Verizon phone, but it is capable of syncing over USB. And my understanding is that the phone, if you bought it directly from the manufacturer (LG), would come with the USB cable and syncing software. Guess what? Since I got it through Verizon - no cable, no software, and no option to get them from Verizon.

Verizon wants to force you to use their services for all data transfer to and from the phone - pictures, calendar, ringtones, the works.

And I understand that bluetooth enabled phones are equally crippled.

Do you think, for a moment, that Verizon would have allowed Apple to create a phone that had fully working WiFi?

Re:Welcome to reality

[nytes]

I think that was the GP's point. The iPhone would have worked on ATT just fine without the lock-in. It would have also worked on T-Mobile. (Not sure if there is any other GSM network of significance in the US.)

The GP is complaining that Apple didn't have to tie themselves to ATT to market the iPhone as a GSM phone.

Re:Welcome to reality

[ad0gg]

Considering at&t isn't subsidizing the phone. Apple could have just sold the iphone without locking into a carrier. So when you buy iphone, it isn't subsidized and you're paying full price, you get stuck in 2 year contract and you have to get At&t data service plan.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you use your phone in a plane ? Over the Atlantic ? Enough to discharge the battery ?

Re:Welcome to reality

[8-bitDesigner]

Sorry about that, actually. Actually, I meant to reply to the parent of your post.

The author point I was responding to was argued that Apple's business model is to make shiny toys for non-power users (paraphrasing, of course), hence my response about the level of power-user friendly-ness in OSX.

Re:Welcome to reality

[dave420]

Apple have done PLENTY in their existance to lock their users into their products. PLENTY. Saying anything else is ignoring a whole bunch of stuff.

As a hardware manufacturer, it's up to them to release the phone. They can have it unlocked if they want. The locking is performed by the phone network, true, but the manufacturer accepts it or not. It comes down to commission paid by the network to the seller of the phones to decrease the price of the handset to the consumer. That's why you can get otherwise-expensive handsets for free. This isn't a case of Apple being strong-armed into being the bad guy, this is Apple trying to make money. You also remember that Apple have painted themselves into a corner, in that they need a carrier to offer the same level of reliability that they need to keep the Apple Experience going. With other products, that was no issue, as it was Apple looking after the product from selling to operating. You can imagine that would go down the pan if their phones appeared on networks that could not keep the experience going.

Saying this is somehow not Apple's fault is ridiculous.

Re:Welcome to reality

[glesga_kiss]

Do you use your phone in a plane ? Over the Atlantic ? Enough to discharge the battery ?

Easily, most PDA phones have a 'flight mode' with a picture of a plane to make it easy to convince the aircrew. I've never even had a second glance while using it. Plus, I'll use the wifi in the airport before I go, that's a battery eater, plus undoubtably I'd be listening to mp3s most of the time. And on the plane watching some divx movies or playing a 3D game like Call of Duty hammers the battery by pegging the CPU at 100% with the backlight on. The only thing you could do to make it worse would be to activate bluetooth (e.g a wireless headset) or WiFi to access some of the new airline net services that are being deployed.

You can drain my PDA in about 2 hours if you push it hard. Normal use is about two days.

Re:Welcome to reality

[ovidus naso]

Your comprehensive knowledge of Céline Dion's oeuvre is disturbing.

Re:Welcome to reality

[fbjon]

a google search will reveal dozens of firms who will replace your iPod battery for you when it wears out.

Behold! A new market has sprung up, thus contributing to the economy!

</broken window>

Re:Welcome to reality

[myowntrueself]

Will a power user be willing to edit text files and database files

I tried to be a power user on OSX.

I edited /etc/fstab

Fat lot of good it did me...

Re:Welcome to reality

[ggvaidya]

That's beautiful! Do you mind if I post a link to Newsvine?

Re:Welcome to reality

[walt-sjc]

And I understand that bluetooth enabled phones are equally crippled.

Yes, they are crippled in a way that requires you to go into the service menu and turn it on. So by "crippled" you mean "disabled by default", then yes.

Considering that you can get an LG cable and software elsewhere, it really is a non-issue. But the LG phones are exactly that, phones, and can't do too much. On the other hand, Verizon Smartphones, like the treo, blackberry, Q, etc. all can run any just about any third party app you want, including freely downloadable apps. You can also write your own app. Bluetooth on VZW smartphones work fine - I sync and use my phone as a broadband connection via my laptop and bluetooth just fine.

Re:Welcome to reality

[The One and Only]

I suppose flying on airlines that provide power plugins is impossible for you.

Re:Welcome to reality

[spotter]

verizon has shipped phone's with wifi before.

the XV6700 for instance, and the Treo 700W/WX can use wifi w/ an add on card.

Re:Welcome to reality

[glesga_kiss]

I suppose flying on airlines that provide power plugins is impossible for you.

The PSU and phone charger are usually in my stow-away luggage. Why carry them all day? Besides, I'm at the mercy of my schedule and company budget, you don't get power hookups on most flights.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Moridineas]

Lol, Bastiat reference--very nice!

Re:Welcome to reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Celine Dion is extremely popular, almost entirely among women. You may not understand it, but that means nothing, as you also apparently can't understand why Windows is popular despite the aesthetics of Apple computers. What's funny is that you are trying to hide your self-loathing because you actually like both Windows and (haha) Celine Dion, undoubtedly even to yourself.

Lighten up on yourself. You're not an elite, you love populist things but are afraid of admitting it. Just love who you are, honey. You'll feel much better.

Re:Welcome to reality

[sco08y]

It wouldn't have had all the carrier dependent features

That's it in a nutshell and, sadly, it works. US carriers deliberately make their features incompatible to prevent unlocked phones from becoming popular. They have the same mentality (and business model, more or less) as the old phone companies that used to rent you the telephone.

Re:Welcome to reality

[Scudsucker]

Apple have done PLENTY in their existance to lock their users into their products. PLENTY

Such as?

Here's an idea

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:Here's an idea

[0xdeadbeef]

Yet, by bitching about it now, you actually have a chance at influencing Apple and AT&T's policies before the phone is released.

Oh, geez, I kill me. But seriously, if you don't like people assuming the worst about Apple, then maybe Apple should give out real information instead of iPhone commercials on television every 15 minutes. They want our attention, they got it, but they don't get to choose the kind of attention they elicit.

Re:Here's an idea

[sjofi]

The final decissions have definitely been made long ago. They won't be made the night before selling of a product begins. Apple merely has chosen not to release the facts. Hard to see why the heck. Maybe they try to get more publicity this way. Anyway, since no information is released two weeks before they start to sell the product, it serves them right to spread speculation. Let them correct and state the facts, if the speculation is incorrect.

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Limited ZFS support has been in Leopard builds for several months. Apple only ruled out the rumor that it was to become the default filesystem. No flip-flopping involved: it's just that rumor sites get carried away trying to read between the lines.

and the ability of Leopard's bootcamp to be used as a switcher between suspended versions of Windows and Mac OS X.

On the bottom of every page about Leopard is the text: "All features referenced in the Mac OS X Leopard website are subject to change."

Re:Here's an idea

[squiggleslash]

No flip-flopping involved:

Try re-reading what I wrote.

On the bottom of every page about Leopard is the text: "All features referenced in the Mac OS X Leopard website are subject to change."

Indeed it does. Which is my entire point, is it not?

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for "Cingular, now the new AT&T" as tech support, which is the reason I'm posting as Anonymous coward. I like my paycheck. I can tell you that unless the "anonymous sources" in the article are regional vice presidents or higher they don't know jack about the iPhone that isn't publicly available already (read: apple press releases). I've worked for this company for quite a few years and have NEVER seen the lid this tight on a product launch. About all they have told us for sure is that there are two versions, one with a 4 gig capacity and one with an 8 gig capacity. Oh, and that we won't be offering it for sale at the "no commitment" price because the damn things require there own special sim cards and cannot be unlocked. I am dreading 6/29 because of the complete and total lack of training on this product because Steve Jobs has demanded absolute secrecy about the iPhone until the official launch.

Re:Here's an idea

[Westacular]

I'm not the grandparent poster, but I just want to point out that in both those incidents, it looks like the confusion was actually a result of internal miscommunication rather than indecision (which is how I would interpret "flip-flopping"). The marketing people not reading last week's emails from the engineers, effectively.

Your point still stands, however: Off-hand comments and speculation of this nature is not remotely reliable at the moment.

Deal with the devil

[ChakatSanddancer]

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.

Stock crash

[waTR]

Wow, their stock is going down faster than a hooker on Main St. My put options are looking really sweet right now!! Woohoo!!!! You can always count on Apple to screw something major up when releasing something that would otherwise be revolutionary.

Thank you Steve Jobs and AT&T.

The LG brother device of the iPhone is starting to look really damn sweet at this point.

Oh well, here comes another newton...

This is news?

[volkris]

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.

Re:This is news?

[Frankie70]

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.


In the GSM world, there is no reason for an instrument to be tied
to the network, other than the reason that the provider is
subsidising the cost of the phone. Even in that case, all that
provider can do is lock the phone. And locked phones can be
unlocked at a small cost.

Re:This is news?

[volkris]

We're not talking about GSM.
If you must go that direction, then what we're really talking about is a subset of GSM.

We're talking about the iPhone, which is not a normal GSM phone. It has a variety of features that aren't part of GSM, and with those features comes a higher level of integration between the phone and the service provider.

There is no reason to assume, and certainly no reason to insist, that the iPhone will work like a normal GSM phone, then. It's simply not.

No, it can't be true!

[mattgreen]

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!

"Insanely great" approach to sales?

[evil_aar0n]

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...

No, it sounds more like...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Coraon]

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.

Re:I wonder

[Cythrawl]

Probably never. and here is the reason why

Motorola, LG, Samsung, Kyocera, etc all have thier software updating tools and firmware tools for phone repair and upgrades etc. These are called in the biz as PST's or RSD tools

Im pretty sure that Apple wont be releasing these to the wireless carriers, just like RIM dont for thier blackberry line. RIM do all the repairs, updgrades etc on thier hardware.

Not Motorola on the other hand you can get the firmware updates and software to do it yourself (if you know where to look) Motorola also offer firmware updates for the Razr currently for you to do yourself.

Apple afaik are taking the RIM Approach to thier iPhone... Only Apple will be able to do anything with them (software wise) therefore reducing the possibility of an unlocked iPhone considerably

Steps to Get an iPhone

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

Important: You Must Follow All These Steps in the Precise Order to Obtain Your iPhone. Failure to Do So Will mean Being Denied Entry To the Kingdom of Jobs

1. Take a number from the iphone number dispenser at the front of the store.
2. Proceed to the Coolness Evaluation Station. There you will be evaluated on your dress, apperance, and general coolness to determine whether you are worthy of having an iPhone. Among the criteria: A.) If you have a goatee, you may not have an iPhone. Those are so last year. B.) If you are a white man with Chinese or Japanese symbols tattooed on any part of your body, AND you can't read the language it's written in, you may not have an iPhone. Posuers are so lame. C.) If you are wearing a NASCAR shirt, a mullet, or carrying a can of Skoal, no iPhone for you, Cletus. D.) If you've ever owned, or even touched, a Zune, you may not have an iPhone. What's wrong with you? Finally, E. Any woman carrying a small dog with her as a fashion accesory may not have an iPhone. Get a life, Princess.
3. If you have passed the Coolness Test, you may proceed to the Icon of Jobs in the center of the store. Kiss it thrice and ask for Jobs to bless your purchase.
4. After kissing the Jobs icon, proceed to iPod/iPhone Acclimation station, where your iPod and your iPhone will be introduced to each other to see if their peronalities are compatible. If you have forgotten to bring your iPod, you may, at the acolytes' discression, buy a new one.
5. Finally, proceed to the Wallet Weighing Checkout station. Your wallet will be weighed, and must weigh more than a feather, but less than a duck. If it passes these tests, your wallet will be taken and you will be allowed to have your iPhone. No, you may not have your wallet back. Your bank will be able to issue you new credit cards.

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Steps to Get an iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, where are my mod points when I needs 'em? :)

Re:Steps to Get an iPhone

[nytes]

Well, okay. I gotta do what I gotta do.

But does it have to be a french kiss again?

Re:Steps to Get an iPhone

[foniksonik]

I was once a dice gamer and there was a game called Paranoia that I really enjoyed... this outline of yours sounds like the type of thing I'd create as a 'mission'... and of course you'd have to role play the whole time, with other players trying to screw up your chances while also attempting to gain the coveted device... and i'd be making you roll dice every 30 seconds for apparently no reason at all, except some times it would count and you'd get sent back to the end of the line ;-p

That was a fun game...

I got my Treo through Cingular, no data plan req.

[blueZ3]

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.

Re:DOA -- Bookmark! Bookmark! Bookmark!

[repetty]

Quote:

Then the iPhone is dead on arrival ... and it is that simple.

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

Apple's secret recruiting plan

[El_Smack]

"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.

Some info

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Some info

[mlts]

If the SIM card is not removable, what happens if someone accidentally locks the SIM card by typoing their PIN, then the PUC (unblock code) too many times? On GSM phones, it would require a new SIM card, which isn't too expensive, around $20 or so at a T-Mobile or AT&T store. However, if the SIM card is not removable on an iPhone would mean that too many typos would permanently brick the phone.

Hopefully this isn't the case.

This isn't new . . apple has always had lockin

[vecctor]

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".

Talk About...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Talk about intentionally crippled!

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.

Re:Talk About...

[glesga_kiss]

How long before iPhone unlocking code shows up, I wonder.

Along with waranty-voiding instructions on how to use a heat gun to open it up so you can actually access the sim card. It's locked away.

I wish!

[iknownuttin]

Maybe if Verizon would get with the rest of the world and use GSM their customers might have a chance of getting products like this. How 'bout if you give them a call?

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.

Re:I wish!

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Same here. The way they lock you out of any non-approved apps is shit, but the top criteria is the service and I've never seen one with more coverage or better data service than Verizon. I wish like hell there was another provider on that level (other than Sprint, man they're worthless) that gave you or even let you use open phones, but ah well.

Well, good

[Moochman]

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.

Re:Well, good

[grapeape]

I wouldnt count on any data rate price wars. Frankly I would not be surprised if AT&T tried to charge more. They are counting on the apple fanboys to make it the next ipod. I think they overestimate themselves but rest assured they are going to make a go at making it the most expensive phone to own ever.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the most twisted logic I've ever seen. Who the fuck moderated you up?

no SDK, no wifi, one carrier, no killer app, DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Any questions?

I actually like Cingular *breaks out asbestos*

[untaken_name]

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. :)

Sorry....

[Jaysyn]

... I just can bring myself to get hyped up over yet another freaking locked down cellphone.

let's wait for an authoritative source

[The_Rook]

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.

Re:let's wait for an authoritative source

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind, now that there was an information leak, Jobs will cancel the deal. No iPhones for Cingular/AT&T. Perhaps, luckily for us, no iPhone at all, and we can stop seeing these annoying gossip posts on /., which is looking more and more like the National Enquirer.

Tomorrow, on /. news: Fire your stylist: Jobs not wearing an iPod!

Free Competition or Lock In?

[BoRegardless]

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.

Re:Free Competition or Lock In?

[DDLKermit007]

Not trying to flame, but your thought that competitors will jump in on the look & feel is kinda laughable. Kinda like how they did with the iPod? Still handles allot better than anything else in the market, and customer service beats the rest still hands down.

Re:Free Competition or Lock In?

[BoRegardless]

Agreed in some respect.

However with 1 billion handsets selling a year, those suppliers HAVE TO KEEP UP.

Some way, some how, you keep up or die.

I was gonna buy an iPhone

[TinBromide]

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.

Re:I was gonna buy an iPhone

[TrevX]

Do some research. The iPhone will allow 3rd party software. The OS is NOT Symbian based..it is OS X through and through. http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/11/apple-announces -third-party-software-details-for-iphone/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/osx.html

Re: Sig

[Moochman]

There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage. What about the contest for "least prepared person"?

Not going to replace the Blackberry

[Animats]

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.

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[Aladrin]

Thanks for the review. How long did you use the iPhone before you ... What? You haven't used it at all?

It doesn't have a typical touch screen. It's specially made and even has a patent on the tech used, so I'm sure you haven't used one like it before. We won't -know- how bad or good the screen is until someone gets to review it that isn't paid by Apple.

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[fozzmeister]

It won't have tactile feedback like a key, of course, so it will be crap to type on. it's plain common sense.

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[mgabrys_sf]

And man will never fly. It's just common sense.

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[glesga_kiss]

All touch screens are bad for data entry, dual touch won't make a bit of difference. You need to constantly be looking at the keys to use them as there is no tactile feedback.

Also, it makes some software annoying, such as stop watches. You cannot rest your finger on the lap button while watching the race etc. Anything that warrants keeping your finger ready and doing something else is next to impossible.

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[JD-1027]

If it is mostly an output device, then big screen, on-screen keyboard only when rarely needed seems to make sense to me.

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying the iPhone will magically grow tactile-feedback keys after it invents them?

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"so it will be crap to type on. it's plain common sense"

No it's not. Since you've not tried it - it's not common anything. There were lots of people who wrote off powered flight as well.

I don't usually have to explain something this simple - but I'm always willing to help those who are "slow".

Re:Not going to replace the Blackberry

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Didn't you see apple's patent application for
"superdopper OLED display with integrated camera pixels and electrode matrix"

It's amazing the screen can double as a camera for video conference.
The multitouch system can see your fingerprints so only you can use the phone.
the electrodes give you a small electric shock when it registers a key press.
They can double as a brail reader as well, for the visually impaired or use in pocket.

Best of all.
The Screen can be used as both a touch and a stungun.

Employees of ATTWireless are getting screwed too

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It shall be hacked.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:no SDK, no wifi, one carrier, no killer app, DO

[MalleusEBHC]

no SDK, no wifi, one carrier, no killer app, DOA

You forgot "Lame."

Odd

[king-manic]

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.

Re:Odd

[mgblst]

You obviously have never used a Sony UI, or and software written by Sony to access a device. Sony produce some great electronics, but seem to have difficulty in making it friendly and accessable. The software for their minidisc players was so bad people never used it. Also, I am betting that the iphone can actually play mp3s, rather than claiming to play mp3s, and then secretly converting them to atrac. And then you could never get them back of your minidisc, so you could never use it for storage.

I hate Sony for a lot of reasons. I hate Apple for DRM, one reason.

Re:Odd

[king-manic]

Actually the PS3 UI is pretty smooth. The windows/apple software for their devices suck but their device GUI's aren't bad. The PSP, PS3, PS2, PS1 have a pretty simple straightforward GUI.

Re:Odd

[mgblst]

They must have outsources it to someone else, I could never believe Sony could be competent in software design. The atrocities they have hoisted onto the public were such a disgrace, I could never forgive them.

Re:Odd

[king-manic]

The software for their walkmans, cameras, md players etc.. are after thoughts. They make some decent hardware then slap on some shoddy software that is barely functional. For the PSP and PS3 they problably have a dedicated GUI design team drawn from some of their game studios.

Are you sure it's Apple that's locking it?

[Solandri]

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!

I'm not sure it's Apple that's doing all the locking. What does Apple gain by limiting the wi-fi? Nothing. In fact they lose a lot of potential customers who see the iPhone as a PDA first, phone second. What does AT&T gain? It forces all purchasers to buy an expensive data plan (which was already required), and requires that they stay on that data plan if they want their iPhone to be able to connect to a regular network. It seems to me this is much more likely to be something AT&T requested if not demanded that Apple do.

Blu-tooth?

[smitty97]

I stopped reading when I got to "Blu-tooth". Their credibility just went down the toilet with the Blu-water

Re:Blu-tooth?

[TenBrothers]

Yes, nothing is quintessentially 'slashdot' as good spelling.

how will this affect those "unlocked" iPhones?

[MoFoQ]

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?

Re:how will this affect those "unlocked" iPhones?

[kris2112]

It won't affect the 'unlocked' iPhones at all.

They will still be a scam designed to separate you from your money.

It truly is a matter of taste

[MrPerfekt]

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.

Re:It truly is a matter of taste

[Golias]

It's not as if having 600 albums (or whatever) on your iPod makes it heavier than having 10.

With my whole library on my iPod, I never have to think about "what do I want to listen to today" before heading out the door. I grab the iPod, and I have it. My playlists can be made from my entire collection without thinking about what may or may not be available on a given day. I only need to sync when I add songs & albums. The advantages of convenience are enormous, and well worth the occasional hassle of a little extra scrolling.

Plus, with the ample space of the 80GB iPod, I can rip my CDs to Apple Lossless instead of lossy AAC or MP3 files. Not a huge deal in the car, but since my iTunes library is also hooked up to my home stereo (and my CD collection is boxed up in the back of a basement closet), it's nice to have everything ripped in the best-sounding format possible.

Non U.S. Non-Crippled iPhone?

[An dochasac]

I wondered about this since I have the European Nokia E61 which works with any Wifi (Unlike the U.S. Cingular/AT&T E61 with

• no Wifi!) If Apple locks their product into an monopoly in the U.S., that's fine. Locked in monopolies are apparently what we seem to expect here in the land of the free. But if Apple ever plans to sell the iPhones in Europe or Asia, they're going to have to create a version of it which is free to roam to other internet providers, including my own broadband router. It's what they expect.

can someone translate this to English?

[consumer]

"Kiss your dreams of WIFI reliance goodbye"

What was that supposed to mean? Reliance is not it. Reliability? Independence?

Bit By Bit

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Moley

It looks like the iPhone is going to be Apple's Vista.

Re:Bit By Bit

[Dantehicks42]

To compare apples with apples... Apple's vista will be Leopard. iPhone will be Apple's Zune ;)

No one ever said...

[jpellino]

...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.

Iphone Strategy same as all others

[Timtimes]

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.

Change the bgcolor of the Apple menu.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare you.

So, $3000 for an iphone?

[__aailob1448]

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...

Re:So, $3000 for an iphone?

[tji]

Of course, the vast majority of us would be paying cell charges anyway. So, you can chalk up $600 of that to an existing cost for average cell phone service. We'll see what the basic level of service requirement is for the iPhone. Maybe it's $60, maybe $80.. hopefully not $100.

I was all ready to purchase an iPhone on day one. But, I'm taking a wait and see approach, considering the combination of the silly "HTML as SDK for iPhone" thing, the two year service requirement -- with no phone subsidy, the unknown call/data plan, and any other unknown restrictions.

Re:So, $3000 for an iphone?

[__aailob1448]

I was taking the cell charges into account. $1200 for a 2-year contract. I assumed that there would only be one $99 iPhone plan available with random access voicemail, data plan and other such features. I'm paying $30/month for my cellphone right now. Prepaid. Assuming unlimited data and clever ajax apps that manage not to run sluggishly on edge, I might consider spending up to maybe $80/month. Not for an MP3 player or a cellphone but for an appealing organizer and internet browser. Unlikely though.

Get the complaint straight

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Get the complaint straight

[bluemonq]

Or, you know, it could turn out that the people who'd be ok with paying a couple hundered dollars more for the phone (in some locations, it is illegal to sell phones with contract-only; they have to at least display a phone-only cost) STILL won't be allowed to use Wi-Fi unless they sign a contract, after which a piece of software enables Wi-Fi access. Knowing AT&T, I wouldn't put it past them.

Re:Get the complaint straight

[glesga_kiss]

Isn't it possible that having data wherever you go, sometimes faster and sometimes slower, via different means, is the best of all worlds?

Not when you are forced into signing up to something that adds e.g. $40 per month to your bill, which is a common figure for high-speed data plans on a smartphone.

Assuming a conservative half of that, $20 pcm, that's still $240 per year. Over the two year fixed plan it doubles the cost of the phone...for something that many people do not want or need.

The slashdot mindset when it comes to Apple is wierd. If this was any other company they'd be universally slated for it.

Re:Get the complaint straight

[Anonymous Coward]

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. If you think battery life is important, then you might be disappointed with a phone that's touted as "the best iPod ever" (Steve Jobs's words). Video, music, photos, and perhaps that multitouch interface might suck and wear out that non-replacable battery in a short time.

Re:Get the complaint straight

[mgblst]

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?
 
Yes, good point. Two distinct sets of people are complaining about two different problems, how is this possible? Or maybe you just have a problem with the word people, and seem to believe that there is you, and then there is people (the other person).

The world is a complicated place, isn't it.

Re:Get the complaint straight

[SuperKendall]

The world is a complicated place, isn't it.

Not really, there are just people that like to complain about anything. It's pretty much that simple.

$500-$600 AND a contract

[DrXym]

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?

What led you to think that?

[SuperKendall]

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.

You forgot to add "lame"

[SuperKendall]

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...

They weren't even saying disabled

[SuperKendall]

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.

How do you know the plan is not cheaper?

[SuperKendall]

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.

iPhone runs OS X, not Symbian

[SuperKendall]

Back to square one for you, I suppose.

More power, cap'n. The RDF won't hold!

[boyfaceddog]

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".

To take from Sam Malone

[suitepotato]

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.

Re:To take from Sam Malone

[freedom_india]

Actually i too love Sprint.
Bought it based on my friend's recommendation and they have been true to their word in CT (new britain).
Coverage is good, and customer service has been very good.
I still don't know why Apple made iPhone as GSM when it plans it sell it only in US

i Don't Phone !

[srinivas_pokunur]

Revolutionary product, thats what Steve says! a phone, an ipod and an internet communicatior, buy yourself a noose from AT&T

Early Adopters Are Entertaining

[flexoffset]

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.

Dollars to donuts the data plan rates stay same

[jaypaulw]

Is someone who is willing to part with $600 for a great music player cell phone "price sensitive?" Come on.

I'm betting the phone is user-openable

[Lepton68]

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.

Re:I'm betting the phone is user-openable

[kchrist]

You appear to be exactly right.

What's your point?

[dharbee]

"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?

Re:What's your point?

[Shakrai]

My point was that it read like the AC was assuming that if they had gone with an unlocked/unbranded release that they would only have access to Cingular so they might as well have signed with Cingular anyway and done an exclusive deal.

Clearly I mis-read his post and must now go and kick myself in the ass and drink more coffee.

future AT&T wireless data network: HSDPA

[Gary W. Longsine]

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.

Especially with the head-cam attachment.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can spot the CEO's standing in line, they'll be nose-first in their 4-month-old Blackberry.

Sounds like FUD to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Every single day!

[traveller604]

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 lies: It's being sold at AT&T stores

[objekt]

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?

Detailed Rumors

[Infonaut]

I would consider anything short of an official statement from AT&T or Apple to be nothing but a rumor.

Newton

[WarpSnotTheDark]

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).

OMFG, AT&T made Apple do it!

[Shihar]

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.

Re:OMFG, AT&T made Apple do it!

[Shakrai]

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.

Well, one could argue that when iTunes and the iPod were unproven (had anybody prior to Apple been successful at selling music online?) Jobs had a lot less leverage with the labels then he does now. I didn't follow it that closely, because I don't care to line Apple or RIAAs pockets to buy crappy music (used CDs are a better value for me), but that's just a hunch on my part.

Accept Apple products at face value. Apple products are all tightly controlled platforms with integrated software and hardware

I never disputed that. I personally don't see the appeal in a lot of their pockets once you take away the pretty case, the marketing machine and the fact that half of your friends probably have them. I'm talking specifically about the iPod here, but it probably applies to other products as well. I even said as much in another post of mine somewhere around here.

I do dispute that AT&T is Apple's "bitch" though. And I do dispute that it's in Apple's best interest to force this product to be sold with a data plan. What do they care if you download your iTunes songs via Cingular's EDGE network or an open wi-fi point somewhere? I'm sure there was a bit of give and take on both Apple and AT&T's part in the negotiations for this product.

And you can't deny that the carriers have been crippling features and services for years in an attempt to force people into generating revenue for them. In a way they are worse then Apple in this regard -- at least with all of Apple's products you have another choice. What choice do you have with the cellular industry? To not have a cell phone? They all act the same. This seemed as good of a forum as any to bring that problem to light and get people to read the write-up that I linked in my original post.

Re:OMFG, AT&T made Apple do it!

[Shihar]

Well, one could argue that when iTunes and the iPod were unproven (had anybody prior to Apple been successful at selling music online?) Jobs had a lot less leverage with the labels then he does now. I didn't follow it that closely, because I don't care to line Apple or RIAAs pockets to buy crappy music (used CDs are a better value for me), but that's just a hunch on my part.

Job's didn't need any leverage. Indie labels were literally begging to sell DRM free music so that they could compete easier with the RIAA labels. What changed was Apple, not the labels. Smaller labels have been begging for this for a while. As was shown when Apple signed up EMI, there was no mystery contract clause that prevent Apple from offering DRM free music to certain labels. It was a magical coincidence that Jobs suddenly started decrying DRM as the devils work a few months before the deal was released, but didn't make a stink of it years back. It was just good marketing.

do dispute that AT&T is Apple's "bitch" though. And I do dispute that it's in Apple's best interest to force this product to be sold with a data plan. What do they care if you download your iTunes songs via Cingular's EDGE network or an open wi-fi point somewhere? I'm sure there was a bit of give and take on both Apple and AT&T's part in the negotiations for this product.

Apple had the option to sell their phones the exact same way Nokia does. Every carrier sells Nokia phones. Nokia sells the carriers phones and gives them the keys to lock and unlock features. You can also buy a Nokia phone that is completely unlocked right from Nokia. Apple could have followed the same model. Instead, Apple decided to sell a closed phone to a single carrier. Apple could have offer an exclusive deal to another carrier, played them off each other, or simply sold the phone open to anyone who wanted it. This is a great deal for AT&T, but it means that Apple is in the position of calling the shots.

The fact that Apple is selling a relatively closed phone tied to AT&T services should not be a surprise and follows Apple's traditional business strategy. By making AT&T the only carrier and cutting the phone off from competing outside services, Apple retains control over what goes into the phone and how it interacts with the network. What you are going to get is a phone with hardware and software designed to interact with a single system. The result will be a closed system tied to a single carrier and what some might find onerous restrictions on the use of the devices. The pay off will be an Apple customized service with greater reliability because they only need to support a single network pipe into the phone. I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple is getting to skim some of the money for the subscription service on top of what they get for selling the device.

Apple is not the victim. It is not the poor little consumer electronics company getting manhandled by the big bad cell phone company. Love it or hate it, Apple is a titian that is kicking ass and taking names. Apple does what Apple does because Apple wants to do it.

Re:OMFG, AT&T made Apple do it!

[Shakrai]

It was a magical coincidence that Jobs suddenly started decrying DRM as the devils work a few months before the deal was released

*shrug*, as I freely admitted, I haven't really followed it, because I really don't give a damn. I buy used CDs to deny RIAA/Apple the money. My car stereo plays mp3s on standard data CDs (you can fit a fair amount of music into 700 megs). If I ever wanted a portable player I'd probably look at something solid-state, with all the functionality of the iPod and half the cost. So far this hasn't been an issue.

Apple had the option to sell their phones the exact same way Nokia does. Every carrier sells Nokia phones. Nokia sells the carriers phones and gives them the keys to lock and unlock features. You can also buy a Nokia phone that is completely unlocked right from Nokia.

Right, but the whole point that I've been trying to make is that business model barely works in the United States thanks to the policies of the carriers. It doesn't work period for any of the CDMA carriers because they won't activate non-carrier-branded phones. It does work for AT&T and T-Mobile, but even at that, AT&T has made rumblings about banning non Cingular IMEI's from the network and T-Mobile refuses to let you use MyFaves on a non-MyFaves phone, even though there is no technical reason why it won't work (you can edit your favorites on their webpage).

So right there, Apple couldn't have sold it for Verizon or Sprint. And Cingular's data AUP is as restrictive as Verizon's -- technically you are in violation of the Verzion AUP/T&Cs if you use their data product to download or stream music. Kinda defeats the purpose of the iPhone, doesn't it?

I won't come out and defend Apple anymore then you will, but if you honestly think that they could have gone it alone (if they were inclined and they probably weren't) and done this without carrier cooperation, then I want some of what you are smoking. Regardless of the particulars of the iPhone deal and Apple's business model, the carriers in the United States have entirely too much control over the equipment makers.

Hacked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute, this thing is a Mac. I thought they were hack-proof.

Close, but not quite

[tknd]

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.

Re:Close, but not quite

[Shakrai]

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.

Not quite. You can bring your own phone to T-Mobile or Cingular, but you still have to sign a contract to get a postpaid plan. T-Mobile considers any plan with nights & weekends to be "promotional" and it requires at least a 12 month contract. Dunno what Cingular's exact policy is, but it's something similar.

That right there is bullshit because the way the industry defends the practice of locking people into contracts is that they have to subsidize the phone. It would be very interesting to see what would happen to phone and service prices if the carriers were disallowed from selling them bundled to service/contracts.

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.

I got a retentions deal with T-Mobile: $39.99/mo for 1,000 minutes. Required two year contract. I actually didn't feel bad about it because they aren't subsidizing my phone for me (I buy unbranded ones). I get a cheaper price and they get a commitment. Given that old cell phone plans are usually grandfathered in I'll probably have that price for a long time, unless I move out of their service area.

That feels better to me then "We'll give you this crippled, locked down phone with buggy software for free if you give us two years of your life"

In Summary

[HaveNoMouth]

I agree with most of the other posters here. Let me summarize why I won't be buying an iPhone:

• 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!

I hear every iPhone comes with a tool

[elrous0]

...the guy who bought it.

SIM?

[feranick]

"(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?

Re:SIM?

[Golias]

Yes. And I'm saying that's one of the drawbacks.

Re:SIM?

[kchrist]

I can't speak for "the new AT&T", but Cingular had a pretty fair unlocking policy: They'll give you your unlock code after 90 days of service. I don't expect this will change with the iPhone, as people will still need to use them outside the US (albeit without the fancy visual voicemail or other Cingular-specific stuff).

One man's ego vs The Consumers

[Dantehicks42]

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.

Unfortunately, you and I are wrong

[StarKruzr]

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.

Re:Unfortunately, you and I are wrong

[dave562]

Just because the WiFi is disabled, does that mean that it simply can't be enabled? The last time I was involved in anything phone related was 1994 with Oki 900s and CTEK, and Motorola G1, G2, G3 stuff. There were all sorts of things that the phones couldn't do from the factory, but with some updated firmware, they were wide open. Is there any reason to believe that the iPhone won't be the same way?

Re:Unfortunately, you and I are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, people everywhere are clamoring for a phone that lets them run ls --color. jackass.

iChat AV

[rindeee]

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.

Re:iChat AV

[Dantehicks42]

I don't think it will. If you look at the functions, it's a phone, an iPod and a browser/mail device. I don't even think it'll let you connect to your .mac account and sync your info. You'll have to go in iTunes to do that, like for an iPod. The more I look at this thing, the more I realize it doesn't do much. If it does iChat AV, it won't have video.

I had HSDPA

[StarKruzr]

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.

Here's what I don't understand.

[StarKruzr]

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?

Fan Boi Logic

[Shihar]

If this is not one the silliest displays in fan boi logic ever... I don't know what is.

Followed right after by...

Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me. Maybe Apple really wants to do the right thing, but maybe they have just not read your post and realized that they could just sell it unlocked to anyone! ...or maybe Apple really likes locked down devices where they control as many of the paths into as possible, and also like the idea of scoring a monthly revenue stream by tying the iPhone into a subscription service and scoring some of AT&Ts profits.

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.

teens

[luckingfame]

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.

Sheeple

[Hohlraum]

Get off the internet and drive! ;)

iPhone is not a phone!

[gone.fishing]

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!

Re:iPhone is not a phone!

[Thumper_SVX]

Spoken like someone who's never tried to surf the web on AT&T/Cingular's EDGE connections. "Flakey" would be an improvement.

Let me help you understand

[AddressException]

The following two quotes are contradictory:

It has Windows Mobile 5

By all accounts, my TYTN is FAR AND AWAY more functional than the iPhone

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.

waiting is

[Gary W. Longsine]

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.

Unsigned Apps

[grahamsz]

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!

Re:Unsigned Apps

[Shakrai]

I am with T-Mobile. Which phones are you using? T-Mobile branded ones or unbranded?

Re:Unsigned Apps

[grahamsz]

Right now I have a T-Mobile Dash, before that a Nokia 6660 and before that a Samsung S300.

"I want a PDA but not for work"

[2nd Post!]

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% :)

You are really truly dense.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You are really truly dense.

[Anonymous Coward]

o you not realize that Apple had to *change* their agreement with the cooperation of EMI in order to offer DRM free music?

Speaking of being a fucking idiot, did you not read his post? He said that indie labels were begging Apple to please let them offer DRM free music AND APPLE REFUSED FOR YEARS. So yes, they had to change their contract with EMI, but they didn't have to do a damn thing make the change for indie labels. It wasn't until a large label signed on that they finally agreed to start letting everyone offer DRM free music.

Re:I actually like Cingular *breaks out asbestos*

[slimjim8094]

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

Who the fuck cares how big Maczealot you are

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off to suckin' Jobs' dick then

so

[Lehk228]

will it be the iFlop?

Suck Jobs' dick ya Macfag

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya brainwashed dipshit

Stop sentimentalizing Jobs

[Zhe Mappel]

...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.

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?

QMFG! The sky is falling! Run and tell the King!

[amper]

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.

Technically best

[SuperKendall]

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.

Doubtful

[SuperKendall]

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.

Where is this?

[SuperKendall]

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.

The Apple store.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:DOA -- Bookmark! Bookmark! Bookmark!

[toddestan]

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.

Way to miss the point,

[StarKruzr]

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."

Re:Way to miss the point,

[amper]

Yeah, OK...because Apple has already made the official annoucements that there will be no capability for VNC, ssh, etc., on the iPhone. :rolleyes:

Yes.

[StarKruzr]

AT&T/Cingular's paranoia combined with Apple's pathological need for control.

Re:Yes.

[dave562]

Neither of those has anything to do with the technical implications of actually enabling "disabled" features on the phone.

Anecdotes can "prove" anything

[StarKruzr]

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.

The cell phone for the rest of us?

[ClosedSource]

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).

Yes, they did.

[StarKruzr]

Did you miss it?

It was called the WWDC keynote.

Re:Yes, they did.

[amper]

Please provide the quote, then, from the WWDC Keynote. It's online, we've all seen it. You will not find such a quote. The closest you can come is Steve saying "No SDK Required". This is not the same thing as saying "No SDK Available, No development possible". FFS, try actually reading the developer documentation from Apple that's been available for years already about all the specific technologies that are going in the iPhone.

It runs OS X. It runs WebKit/Safari. It runs Widgets.

All those things you're looking for will be there, maybe just not on June 29. For what it's worth, ssh and VNC on a Palm suck. They're only slightly more tolerable on my Nokia 770.

Stop making nonsense

[Gary W. Longsine]

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.

Re:Stop making nonsense

[Zhe Mappel]

I'd like to be persuaded, Gary. But you've ignored my arguments while reciting what is, by your own admission, "poetic" fluff about the matter. Let's review.

1) Irrespective of your fantasies about Jobs as a lifetime foe of DRM, the fact is he enabled the music biz to foist it upon us through iTMS for several years. Then he helped labels raise prices for its removal. Neither piece of mischief "fixed" the music biz, at least where consumers are concerned. But these efforts did aid and abet a very nasty industry at a time when consumers were telling it to change its pricing and distribution models.

2) Your Apple-polishing aside, it's far too early to judge whether the iPhone will have the least positive impact upon the phone industry. All you can raise is the claim that Apple's entrance will help "the handset maker and the wireless carrier realize that their ultimate customer is you," a Polyannaish outburst that I somehow imagine you uttering after a long suck on a helium cannister. Combating oligopolists with a $600 phone that's too expensive for most people to buy? We'll see if that makes Jobs the new cellphone Che, but I doubt it.

Nice sig

[Russellkhan]

Hey, did you come up with that sig yourself? I did mine.

Don't buy the Apple fan boy hype.

[Weezul]

$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.

you missed a key point

[Gary W. Longsine]

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.)

Fake Bill Gates on the iPhone SDK

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming (as are many others) that the iPhone will not include those features. Perhaps in the first version, it might not include anything other than what has been publicly demonstrated. However, you should recall that there are lots of engineers at Apple who will want many of the same things that you want. Apple has basically a corporate policy to under-promise and over-deliver whenever possible, so it's reasonable to assume that the iPhone might include a feature or two that has yet to be announced. Apple has also changed its internal accounting system (which is a big, big deal, by the way) to allow them to deliver "new features" to the iPhone via software updates over the lifetime of the phone, and they have an announced intention to do so.

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:

There are four logical ways that Apple could deliver a software development platform on the iPhone, and they will, eventually, deliver at least three out of four.

1. J2ME(a platform-independent, but probably sub-standard performance characteristics native client)
2. iPhone Cocoa Kit ("fully native applications, full client-server ability, etc.")
3. iPhone DashCode Widget Kit ("mini web / javascript applications, can be client-server")
4. Web 2.0 + AJAX in Safari ("fully server based web applications")

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.

Apple gets a cut of monthly revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

  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.

Are you for real?

[StarKruzr]

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.

starkruzr the authority on computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

starkruzr from your other posts here on slashdot I read about you:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=208#feedbackAnchor

is that about you? If so you are by no means an authority on computing.