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...
Are there smartphones out there that don't require a data plan?
For example, with my Treo I'm forced to purchade the $15/month unlimited data plan from Sprint. It's required for all their smartphones.
So this story seems to be about.... A theoretical contract that is the same as the typical contract and may be unfair if the price is too high (but we don't know the price yet)?
I was never planning on buying one, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting, but it's bullshit like this why I'm not an "early adopter" for technology, despite the fact that I'm an engineer. I'm amazed at how many high-tech products these days have proprietary restrictions in them. I find it ironic that the worst offenders are communication devices. The iPhone costs $600. Usually, companies form restrictive alliances to keep the price down - if product X only works with service Y from company Z, then company Z will usually give a discount for service Y. But the iPhone costs $600, so at that price you'd think that Apple wouldn't need to partner with anyone.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
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.
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
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 :(
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
- 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
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.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
the margins in the wireless industry (last I checked) were rather thin overall
It's hard to know what the margins actually are because most of them are owned by parent companies (T-Mo by Deutsche Telekom, VZW by Verizon and Vodafone, etc, etc) and don't report separate results, but even assuming that's the case I don't buy it as justification for this behavior. That was one of the "bad" things that Ma Bell did -- forcing long distance users to subsidize local service. Once Ma Bell was broken up long distance prices dropped like a brick and local service went up to reflect the true costs. In any case, why should my functionality be reduced because of their business model?
Though the amount of features available to the US market sucks
And that's entirely the fault of the carriers. In Europe you don't even typically buy a phone when you get service. You buy a phone at a Nokia store and then find a carrier to get service with. That's also how landline service worked the last time I checked -- I buy a phone (an el-cheapo at Wally World or a $300 one at Staples, doesn't matter) and then get service. The device makers have an incentive to add features to compete with each other. If the carterfone rule hadn't been applied then we might not have ever had analog modems, fax machines, answering machines, etc, etc, etc. Think of the innovation possible with cell phones if the carriers got out of the way.
Basic service must not be a huge moneymaker for them
I'd dispute that. Voice minutes cost them next to nothing to provide. A friend of mine works at the local university. They have their own telephone switch and telecom department and lease dedicated flat-rate trunks to carry their off-campus traffic. How much do you think they pay for voice minutes to the US and Canada? With the flat-rate trunks it works out to less then a hundredth of a penny per minute. With all the long distance and backbone assets that Verizon, AT&T and Sprint own, somehow I doubt that voice isn't rolling in the dough for them. It may not have as big of a margin as data or SMS, but it makes enough money.
So if all you want is a phone, go with a carrier that uses vendor lock-in to screw their other customers! You'll probably get a better deal.
I'd also dispute that. T-Mobile doesn't use vendor lock-in and they are about the best value in mobility, if you live an area with coverage. Right now they are even offering a promotion of 1,000 minutes for $39.99/mo with full N&W. That's 3.999 cents a minute. Verizon's $39.99 offering is 450 minutes or 8.8886 cents a minute. Granted, it all depends on your needs, coverage and where your friends are (mobile to mobile is nice), but I think it dispels the fact that you need to screw your customers to offer a good price on voice. If anything, T-Mo would have the highest backend cost for voice too, given that they don't own their own backhaul networks in the United States like the other carriers do.
Who pays for that? The people who run up huge finance charges, that's who
Your paying for that as well. Ever hear of the merchant fee? Even if you don't eat finance charges the merchant is eating 1.5-3.0% of every sale when you use your credit card. In fact, I'm helping you to pay for that as well because the merchant isn't allowed to pass that charge along to you -- so the cash users wind up subsidizing the credit card ones. Net result: prices go up, Visa, Mastercard and your bank all get richer.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I 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.
...the guy who bought it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.