Slashdot Mirror
Apple and AT&T Announce iPhone Service Plans
daveschroeder writes "Apple and AT&T today announced service plans for iPhone, 4 days before its release in the US at 6pm local time on Friday, June 29. The plans are $59.99/mo for 450 minutes, $79.99 for 900 minutes, and $99.99 for 1350 minutes, and all include unlimited data, 200 SMS messages, rollover minutes, and unlimited mobile-to-mobile calling. Any other standard AT&T service plan may also be used. A two year service plan is required, with a $175 cancellation fee if terminated early. In addition, activations are done via iTunes, so only the hardware is purchased in the store. Interestingly, activation of a contract via iTunes is required to enable the iPod/syncing functionality of the phone as well. (It will remain to be seen whether there are workarounds for this for those who only want the iPod functionality of iPhone, and whether the iPhone is easily unlockable for those who wish to try it on alternate carriers, and so on.)"
So? Some people need to build up karma buffers for when they want to criticize sacred cows. I would know. Nothing wrong with building up karma of course, but there's a reason they call them "karma whores".
Again, since the karma index maxes out, and I'm (probably) already at the max, why do I need more karma, again? If you can explain that, I'd be grateful.
Right, because there has never been a story that had a "read the remaining 28084 bytes" on it.
I wasn't writing a book review or a journal entry; that information is superfluous to the main point of the submission, which is that Apple and AT&T finally released information on plans.
Strawman. The problem wasn't that you posted something informative, but that you intentionally delayed it for a vanity/karma post. It's not something you necessarily should apologize for, but intentionally withholding information from the original posting -- that most people will read -- so you can post it later and get karma, is sleazy.
All of your arguments seem to be based on you thinking I'm trying to "get karma" for the purpose of "criticizing sacred cows". If my karma is at the maximum, why do I need more karma? In other words, maybe I just posted because I actually wanted to, and the reasons why I said I posted it in my response to you are accurate on their face? Not everyone who posts things that get modded up quickly are "karma whores".
And if you want to bring logical fallacies into it, yours is one of
Yes, it's anticipated because some sites hype it up. As an advertiser I would love for my product to have this kind of free promotion. It necessarily has a network affect whereby hype generates hype.
Well, since this has been my first and only submission about anything related to this on this site or any other (other than the occasional traditional discussion forum), I fail to see how it's my fault that this submission itself was anticipated. I don't care how much hype there is, and if Apple and AT&T purposely delayed releasing the plans for hype value, or if they really just finalized them hours before the press release: it's still a piece of information people want to know, and again, I fail to see how it's inappropriate for slashdot.
If you're speaking to the larger point, yes, Apple works the system very adeptly. They get millions of dollars in free advertising (TIME covers, etc.) by managing the hype machine well. That doesn't change the fact that iPhone plans were a much anticipated piece of information. If you want to argue that posting them is "part of the problem", sure, I guess I'd agree with that, but no matter the reasons for the plans being highly anticipated, it still stands that they were. And therefore, the release of the plan information is noteworthy.
I'm just saying, maybe work on including definite articles in your writing?
Assuming you're being serious about my grammar for a moment...
It's appropriate to refer to many branded products such as iPhone as "iPhone" or "the iPhone", and I specifically choose to use the former. Some people take issue with others doing it because "that's what Steve Jobs does" (calls it "iPhone" instead of "the iPhone"). But, even that actually has some merit...if that's how the vendor itself refers to the product, I don't see the problem with referring to it as such. It doesn't give it any more credence or do anything for them whatsoever by calling it "iPhone" vs. "the iPhone".
IF a) I believe your karma index has maxed out and IF b) Slashcode is transparent enough that it does what they claim it does (!), and IF c) you have control over when a topic comes up where you're going to say something unpopular, THEN you have nothing to gain from karma whoring.
However, a) I don't, b) it isn't, and c) you don't.
Ok, so, out of all this, you still think I posted to karma whore. It is my firm belief that my karma was already maxed out when I posted that. It is irrelevant whether I can "prove" to you that it was maxed out, or whether slashdot's code is transparent enough for me to tell that (interesting you you also imply slashdot may be lying about how karma works, but only because it helps your point). Whether or not stories may come up where I want to say something "unpopular" is irrelevant. If my karma is already at or near max - or even if I simply believe it to be - there is no reason karma whore.
Right -- in other words, you didn't want to. I know you didn't want to. That was the whole point! You didn't want to include that information upfront, so you could karma whore. I get that.
See above.
No, it's not based on any one reason for karma whoring.
Well, that's the example you used. But for ANY reason, karma whoring is still not necessary if you have no reason to believe you need any karma, which is my case.
Of course, you can claim I'm lying, and secretly trying to hide the fact that I am karma whoring.
Or you could say that even the satisfaction of posting information that others may find useful, and having that information modded up, could also be "karma whoring".
In fact, at this point, it's clear you believe that my only or primary purpose was to karma whore, when in reality, it was to post the information I posted, and have people see it, irrespective of my slashdot karma. Most of the information in that post is utterly irrelevant to the release of plan information, which was specifically why I didn't include it. I also didn't want to waste a bunch of time with the submission, as slashdot's first come, first served submission policy often results in total garbage being published first, and more comprehensive submissions being rejected. So, if you really want to know the exact reasoning, that's one of my purposes for keeping the submission concise and on-topic. Did I want to say more about a couple of other related topics? Absolutely. Which is why I did. But, unfortunately, it wasn't for slashdot karma.
Sure -- just the people who deliberately degrade the usefulness of their posts so that they can spread the information across several and get more karma.
No. I said I didn't include information that wasn't appropriate for the submission. I didn't say that I deliberately degraded the usefulness of the post, either, nor do I believe I did. I kept it exactly on topic for what the submission was. Posting a comment in the article doesn't have to be for karma. Your premise is flawed.
Which [logical fallacy] did I make?
[Y]yours is one of, "All A are in B. Therefore, all B must be in A."
Cool, thanks for the clarification. Now, for the hard part: define A and B, and say where I made such a statement.
That's the easy part: it's the part where you implied that because karma whores post to get modded up, that any post (especially posted by the submitter) that gets modded up must be made by a karma whore.
A = karma whores
B = posts that get modded up
Since (I believe) my karma was maxed out, why, again, would I need to karma whore? If the answer is just because you think I must be karma whoring, save it. I'm telling you the reasons why I didn't include the other miscellaneous stuff in the submission, and that I didn't post for karma. You obviously don't believe that. The discussion is then likely over.
I was claiming the(!) iPhone was anticipated, not the submission.
You said:
"it's anticipated becuas
So what? I don't care what you claim to believe. It doesn't matter what motivates you to make posts like you did. It could be for karma. It could be to see yourself get modded up early. It could be to get your name out there and get your beloved geek cred. I don't know what motivates you to karma whore (or more specifically, make posts that get modded up regardless of net karma contribution), and I don't really care which motive you chose. You deliberately withheld information so that could be ride in and be "informative".
/. being used to advertise a product.
/. turning into advertisements.
No. I "withheld" (poor choice of word, on your part) the additional minutiae for exactly the reasons I explained. Namely, to keep the submission concise and on-topic, with a greater chance of being accepted for reasons of both timeliness and accuracy.
Ah, nothing like seeing the condescending invocation of a logical fallacy unravel!
Wrong. That that was the implication of the statement you made. Which is why I had the word "implied" in bold.
That wasn't the argument. As others and I have pointed out to you, it wasn't the "posting informatively" that makes you a karma whore; it was degrading the content of your submission so you could include it in a later karma-allowable post. And it was based on logical probability, not logical necessity.
No. No one has pointed that aspect of it ("degrading" the content of the submission) but you. And I already said I wasn't posting for karma. And it wasn't degrading anything, as I've already explained several times now why I submitted what I did, and why I posted additional miscellanea as a comment. And it wasn't for karma, no matter what you think. Sorry.
And if I cared about karma, would I keep responding to you, and getting my posts modded down as offtopic, especially since downmods seem to count more against karma than upmods count for it? (This is anecdotal, but over the years has seemed to be true.)
No, I can't. If you had enough attention span to read things in context, you'd see my complaint (from the beginning) was about
Sorry, you're wrong. Your were DIRECTLY responding to me saying that iPhone plan pricing is one of the most anticipated items, and you said "it's anticipated because [...]"
I believe you "meant" iPhone, but in context, it is absolutely reasonable to think that you were also referring to iPhone plan pricing being anticipated, considering I had just said exactly that, and that's the sentence to which you responded.
You're digging yourself in.
Yeah -- if your attention span doesn't reach back to my initial post, part of which complained about
No. That's a whole other argument than karma whoring. Notice that's what I'm taking issue with, and not the slashvertisement thing so much?
Each tiny detail is "notable" because people like you feed the hype and make it news. Again, why apply the advertising outrage selectively? Wouldn't it be just as bad to report "special discounts" coming up on Dell systems?
From the 50,000 foot view, yes.
In reality, no, because far more people currently care about iPhone plan pricing than special discounts on Dell systems. Again, slashdot didn't have to accept my submission.
Projection, much? I respond because I don't like to see idiots get away with ridiculous arguments that appeal to the biases of the readers. Less obviously-flawed arguments? Fine. Flawed arguments that don't appeal to pre-existing biases? Fine. Obviously-flawed arguments that appeal to pre-existing biases? Not so fine.
Just because you assert that I'm using flawed arguments doesn't make it so. I told you EXACTLY why I submitted what I did and posted what I did. You don't believe that it wasn't for karma. Fine, I get it.
Of course -- just not in the original submission where more people would see it and you couldn't get modded up.
Asked and answered.
And in case you didn't get it yet: I didn't post, or separate information out of the submission, for karma.