Slashdot Mirror
Details and Rumors of iPhone Restrictions Emerging
We're getting indications of the ways the iPhone will be sold (or not sold) and restricted by Apple and AT&T. Reader thefickler writes, "An anonymous AT&T store manager has told blorge.com that users will get their WiFi when they sign a contract locking them into a data plan and EDGE. Kiss your dreams of WiFi reliance goodbye." And our own CmdrTaco found an article up on AppleInsider reporting that the iPhone will not be sold through established business channels — forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores. An AT&T Business Division rep told one customer, "There is no ETA on the [ending of the] sale ban to business."
more like, iPwned
I 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.
"Users will get their WiFi when they sign a contract"
I'm not sure this statement makes much sense. Since the iPhone won't be sold without a (data-enabled) contract, shouldn't it read:
"Users will get their iPhone when they sign a contract", which has the advantage of being true, if less trolly.
I thought the iPhone was going to be REVOLUTIONARY! I've never felt so empowered about a product launch! (Well, there was that one time when I was really big into Rage Against the Machine, and I considered myself acutely aware of the injustice around the world.) Maybe I need to stop reading RoughlyDrafted so much...
If this thing is DOA, no app development, and a lot of other lock in restrictions. I am not sure who the customers of those things should be the technical crowd definitely is not.
And lots of other usual apple customers probably are shied away by the contract enforcements connected to this thing.
I assume it will be the crowd who wants to have the latest shiny toy. I am not sure if this thing will be able to stand on its own after some initial success. Apple could have had a winner on this thing if they wouldnt have played Sony or Nintendo in trying to lock the user of this thing down!
It probably will come down to how fast the thing will be hacked open!
I was debating buying the iPhone and not getting a service--using it as a PDA only. There goes that hope. Thanks, Apple.
Though I suppose they never have been one to give you what you want.
So, until Apple cuts this shit of giving one provider exclusive sales rights and allows Verizon to sell it, Apple will not have me as a customer.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Are there smartphones out there that don't require a data plan?
For example, with my Treo I'm forced to purchade the $15/month unlimited data plan from Sprint. It's required for all their smartphones.
So this story seems to be about.... A theoretical contract that is the same as the typical contract and may be unfair if the price is too high (but we don't know the price yet)?
but does this surprise anyone? For-profit companies maximizing profit by locking users in and limiting access to ensure demand--what a shocker.
Let's face it, if this were any non-Apple or non-tech product we'd all shake our heads at the sad gullibility of the purchasing public and move on. The fact that this is a highly anticipated product that's going to have limited availability isn't anything unusual in and of itself. Apple and Cingular are going to make a good bit of money, which is what they're both in business to do.
Cellular service providers have made it a practice to "strongly encourage" customers to sign up for multi-year contracts to get a better deal on phones, subsidizing the cost of the phones, for which very few people would be willing to pay full price. The WiFi restriction, if true, is just more of the same.
In any event, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be hacks to work around this. I've never owned a phone (much less a smart phone) that wasn't hacked to get around carrier restrictions.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I was never planning on buying one, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting, but it's bullshit like this why I'm not an "early adopter" for technology, despite the fact that I'm an engineer. I'm amazed at how many high-tech products these days have proprietary restrictions in them. I find it ironic that the worst offenders are communication devices. The iPhone costs $600. Usually, companies form restrictive alliances to keep the price down - if product X only works with service Y from company Z, then company Z will usually give a discount for service Y. But the iPhone costs $600, so at that price you'd think that Apple wouldn't need to partner with anyone.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Apple fans will put up with anything. Including this.
Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.
This is why, to me, Apple lovers that despise Microsoft simply because they are Microsoft are some of the most clueless people around (the same holds true the other way around, of course). Microsoft TELLS you they are fucking you in the ass, wheresas Apple hides it (and it usually works)
ALL buisnesses are in it for the money. Welcome to reality, bud.
Living With a Nerd
Rather than hearing gossip from AT&T reps who almost certainly know virtually nothing about the final details of iPhone marketing (the only information I'm aware of them being provided is a brochure that explains how the thing works), why don't we wait until we get official announcements from Apple and AT&T. Not only are these rumors almost certainly based upon speculation and technological ignorance, but even if both Apple and AT&T have provisionally decided to go with them, there's still a strong chance of them changing their minds in the next week or two.
It's not even 100% clear if the iPhone will need a contract at this stage. Apple hastily removed language implying such from the online version of their ads, and AT&T has internal codes set up for selling iPhones with GoPhone plans, according to some reportage. This week we've seen Apple at a high-level flip flopping on various issues, such as the pretense of ZFS in Leopard (initially ruled out, then changed to present in a stripped down form), and the ability of Leopard's bootcamp to be used as a switcher between suspended versions of Windows and Mac OS X.
The final decisions haven't been made yet.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
Apple and AT&T are not concerned at this point with price, contract requirements, etc. It's simple business. So many people want this thing right now they could charge $140 per month and $1000 for the phone and still not meet production demand. Give it a few months (6 tops) until the other vendors are allowed to join the game, and until other supported data system networks are added and the price will drop as fast as that for the RAZR. Remember, the RAZR was a $300 phone when it came out, and it's just a phone... I expect iPhones with limited use contracts (instead of unlimited) and only 1 year sign on requirements to be available for $399 or less within 6 months and $249 in a year.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Granted, we still don't have all the details, yet, but this strikes me as odd in that Apple would let AT&T "force" this requirement on the sale of the phone. Aren't they known for getting deals done that work for Apple and their customers? This doesn't seem like one of those deals.
I'll soon be in the market for a new phone, and while I'm leaning heavily toward a Treo P model, I'm keeping an open mind for the iPhone, too. However, if they're going to play BS games like this, forget it. I don't need it that bad. Too bad Apple doesn't have their own cell system so they could skip AT&T...
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
It almost sounds like they don't really want to sell the things.
No, it sounds like the damn carrier (AT&T in this case), as usual, has way too much power and is holding back true innovation by restricting what the device maker (Apple) in this case can offer to their customers.
Motorola, Nokia, etc, etc all have the same complaints about American carriers. Crippled phones that consumers don't want, disabled bluetooth profiles, the complete carrier control over what goes on the phone, etc, etc, etc. None of this is new.
I've linked this document before, but I'll link it again. A call to apply wireless network neutrality and Carterfone rules to the cell industry. A must read for anybody that thinks need practices need to end. Forward it to your State and Federal elected officials. Sooner or later this has to stop.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Sony thought the same thing about the PS3, and look how that turned out.
Crow T. Trollbot
Of course that was quite a while ago (two years almost, if I remember correctly). And as far as I know, you could always buy a smartphone (for full-price) and put the CIM from your non-smart (dumb?--that doesn't work for a phone... unintelligent?) phone into it and get phone service on your normal plan and just use the pay-per-bit data.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I'm bookmarking your quote, dude!
I'll enjoy reading it again in the future, right after I re-read about how the iPod is dead.
--Richard
"iPhone will not be sold through established business channels -- forcing Cingular business customers to stand in line for their goodies, as individuals, at Apple stores."
Yeah, man. Like, you gotta wait in line with the rest of us. Hey, you mind if I blaze up? Thanks man. *fffffffttttt* Sure, I can spare a spliff. *fffffttt* Sure, I'll show you my Powerbook, man. Check out that widescreen.
And another business PC user is converted.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I am a Cingular/AT&T customer, and have been since 2001. While all of the phones I have received from them are locked to only work with Cingular service, I have had complete control over what I do with the phone in terms of ringtones, java mini-apps, etc.
I used to have a motorola v200 and all I had to do was get a driver off the net and I could load the thing up with custom ringtones and not pay a dime for them. I now have a RAZR, and I still am able to load it up with mp3's, background graphics, java, and have full unlocked bluetooth capability.
I'm not trying to be a Cingular/At&t fanboy, but I think it can be said that some carriers are better than others. There is one carrier (I think it's verizon, but correct me if I'm wrong) that totally replaces the user interface of all their phones with their own in-house one. The new interface apparently locks most of the functionality and is much less usable than the standard interface, and forces the customer to purchase all the extras through verizon.
I got nothin'
How is this different than any other time? For example, if I want to run OSX, I have to buy an Apple computer - even though the hardware they are using is no longer any different than a regular PC.
Apple has never had any qualms about locking anyone into things if it benefits them - same with many other businesses - ESPECIALLY cell phone carriers.
It isn't very nice, but it also isn't "new".
Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
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.
Well, I'll probably get flamed for this, but then what's new?
:)
I like Cingular. I hate the fact that they're called at&t now, but I've had cingular plans with motorola phones for about 3 years now and I have had maybe 5 dropped calls, and about the same number of times when I've been unable to make a call. I do dislike having to unlock my phones, but then again afaik most providers have that problem. The data plan I use is $20/mo unlimited, fairly comparable to other providers, I think. I could be wrong on that...but then I've had so little trouble that I haven't really looked around. I bounced from the old at&t to sprint to voice stream to verizon (that last without me actually doing anything) and finally to cingular, where I've been happy enough to stay. I know a few people who dislike their service, who've had bad experiences with billing/customer support...but I haven't. Maybe it's your region? Or, I suppose...maybe it's mine.
http://xkcd.com/386/
the article describing the limitations on the iphone's wifi cites an 'anonymous at&t store manager'. not exactly an athoritative source.
that the iphone's key features might be disabled without a mobile phone contract is all too believable in light of how mobile phones are marketed by the wireless companies. it's one of the reasons why so many people (myself included) insist on keeping the phone as simple as possible and using a second device for the pda, camera, wifi, and mp3 functions. makes it easy to change carriers also.
however, before completely going ape over this, i'd suggest waiting until someone in authority actually spells out at&t's contracts and service plans for the iphone, or to see how an iphone actually comes out of an apple store.
at&t doesn't really need a contract since the iphone only works on their network. granted, the mobile phone company contracts don't require much of the carrier, but why would at&t make any requirements for itself at all when it doesn't have to?
as for potential ipod users who want iphone features without having a phone contract; i suspect that the iphone is only the first of a new generation of ipods. over the next few years, i expect the entire ipod line will get an iphone makeover sans mobile phone features.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
- Look shiny enough to drum up interest for the iPhone 2.
- Finance the R&D on the (cheaper) iPhone 2.
Like the first generation iPod, it's not about getting a product out that will own the market, it's about getting a product out that will generate excitement and establish Apple as a player in the market.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Sony releases a Good but over priced product with some restrictions our community feels is bad but supports linux : Corprate arrogance, we will never buy this product. Down with DRM.
Apple release a possibly good over priced product with many restrictions through a patently evil telecom : OMG best thing since the transitor. We'll buy it at any price, with any strings. If Jobs gives us DRM We'll grow to love it.
Ahh that RD field is strong as ever.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
the margins in the wireless industry (last I checked) were rather thin overall
It's hard to know what the margins actually are because most of them are owned by parent companies (T-Mo by Deutsche Telekom, VZW by Verizon and Vodafone, etc, etc) and don't report separate results, but even assuming that's the case I don't buy it as justification for this behavior. That was one of the "bad" things that Ma Bell did -- forcing long distance users to subsidize local service. Once Ma Bell was broken up long distance prices dropped like a brick and local service went up to reflect the true costs. In any case, why should my functionality be reduced because of their business model?
Though the amount of features available to the US market sucks
And that's entirely the fault of the carriers. In Europe you don't even typically buy a phone when you get service. You buy a phone at a Nokia store and then find a carrier to get service with. That's also how landline service worked the last time I checked -- I buy a phone (an el-cheapo at Wally World or a $300 one at Staples, doesn't matter) and then get service. The device makers have an incentive to add features to compete with each other. If the carterfone rule hadn't been applied then we might not have ever had analog modems, fax machines, answering machines, etc, etc, etc. Think of the innovation possible with cell phones if the carriers got out of the way.
Basic service must not be a huge moneymaker for them
I'd dispute that. Voice minutes cost them next to nothing to provide. A friend of mine works at the local university. They have their own telephone switch and telecom department and lease dedicated flat-rate trunks to carry their off-campus traffic. How much do you think they pay for voice minutes to the US and Canada? With the flat-rate trunks it works out to less then a hundredth of a penny per minute. With all the long distance and backbone assets that Verizon, AT&T and Sprint own, somehow I doubt that voice isn't rolling in the dough for them. It may not have as big of a margin as data or SMS, but it makes enough money.
So if all you want is a phone, go with a carrier that uses vendor lock-in to screw their other customers! You'll probably get a better deal.
I'd also dispute that. T-Mobile doesn't use vendor lock-in and they are about the best value in mobility, if you live an area with coverage. Right now they are even offering a promotion of 1,000 minutes for $39.99/mo with full N&W. That's 3.999 cents a minute. Verizon's $39.99 offering is 450 minutes or 8.8886 cents a minute. Granted, it all depends on your needs, coverage and where your friends are (mobile to mobile is nice), but I think it dispels the fact that you need to screw your customers to offer a good price on voice. If anything, T-Mo would have the highest backend cost for voice too, given that they don't own their own backhaul networks in the United States like the other carriers do.
Who pays for that? The people who run up huge finance charges, that's who
Your paying for that as well. Ever hear of the merchant fee? Even if you don't eat finance charges the merchant is eating 1.5-3.0% of every sale when you use your credit card. In fact, I'm helping you to pay for that as well because the merchant isn't allowed to pass that charge along to you -- so the cash users wind up subsidizing the credit card ones. Net result: prices go up, Visa, Mastercard and your bank all get richer.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The free market will take care of that. People already choose providers based on the features they provide. If you don't like the restrictions your carrier places on your phone, choose another one, don't go crying to the government.
We don't have a free market for cell phones! That's the whole point that nobody understands. Four carriers is not competition. It's an oligopoly. How is it competition when they all raise their SMS prices within three months of each other? How is it competition when none of them will allow unsigned applications to run on their phones? How is it competition when nobody new can break into the market because of the combination of start-up costs (billions) and a lack of available spectrum?
The government will only make things worse. Witness the Cable Card debacle for a good example of the government attempting to do something like what you're demanding and failing miserably at it.
Yes, because the carterfone decision can be compared to the Cable Card clusterfuck. The carterfone decision never led to open devices or consumer choice. Ma Bell still has a lockdown on the POTS network and won't allow you to use a phone unless you get it from her. Oh, wait....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I think carrying around my entire music collection is a dumb idea. Because there are many things in my collection I know I'll never want to listen to while I'm out galavanting around. Besides the fact that it's just an enormous amount of music that would take an impractical amount of time to navigate around to find what I listen to, the total runtime of the collection would eclipse battery life by a factor of 1000:1 likely.
I understand that some people love to tote around everything they have, but I think this is a waste of time and effort.
As for the data plan, I'm very happy that you have WiFi available where ever you go around your home town. 99% of America I'd say does not. So for alot of people, like me, I'm sure they'll happily sign up for a data plan they'll need anyway. I'm not sure why people wouldn't want a data service anyway as at least a back-up in the same vain that I'm not sure why people want to take their whole gigantic music collection around with them.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
I thought people were complaining because WiFi wasn't prevalent enough and so EDGE was too slow. Now people are complaining because WiFi is everywhere and they don't want a data plan. Give it a rest! sn't it possible that having data wherever you go, sometimes faster and sometimes slower, via different means, is the best of all worlds?
Where I live we don't even HAVE 3G yet, so I don't need it. But I welcome the realistic combination of WiFi and EDGE to get the widest possible network coverage and the best possible battery life (3G currently really chows down on batteries). All these things add up to actually being able to make full use of data on the device, instead of carefully hording limited battery or data amounts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple is not forced to sell through a carrier. All they need to is produce a GSM enabled phone with a SIM slot and they can sell these things through their store like any other device. Let the consumer choose their own carrier.
Is someone who is willing to part with $600 for a great music player cell phone "price sensitive?" Come on.
...the guy who bought it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well, to start with it's not clear if the WiFi will really be disabled without an EDGE service plan, or exactly what the AT&T service plan for the iPhone will be, so it seems a little premature to be issuing the big FU to the one guy on the planet who's trying to fix the cell phone industry. Recall, this is the same guy and the same company who tried to save the music industry from it's own stupidity. (Reference EMI's evolving position on DRM). You might want to give this a little time. Apple cannot fix the entire cell phone industry overnight, but they can fix some things up front, gain influence in the market, and use that influence to fix other problems later.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
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?
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?