Slashdot Mirror
iPhone Doesn't Surf Fast Enough for Jobs
ElvaWSJ writes with a link to a Wall Street Journal interview with Steve Jobs and AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson. As you can imagine, they're pretty enthusiastic. Just the same, they address the possibility that the iPhone will slow internet access on Ma Bell's cell network. "Mr. Jobs acknowledged that the company's new iPhone won't surf the Internet as fast as he would like on the network, called "Edge," but added that the device's ability to connect to Wi-Fi hotspots would give consumers a speedier alternative for Web browsing. For his part, Mr. Stephenson said the iPhone represents a broader push by AT&T into Wi-Fi services, including, potentially, mobile Internet calling. The two men also discussed the iPod's "halo effect" and reflected on the origins of their corporate partnership."
Since AT&T was supposedly the only provider who would agree to Apple's list of detailed demands, it's likely they had little choice but to accept their network. It's not like other providers were lining up for a chance at it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Agree. Though the problem is not that GPRS (with or without EDGE) is slow as a network. The problem is that the ubiquity of the Blackberry has largely driven it over capacity in the places where the demand for mobile computing is likely to be the highest - commuter routes and tourist areas.
Here are some number from the UK Vodafone GPRS (non-Edge) network collected on a typical Cambridge to London Commute:
1. Business commuter trains (starting time) 7:15-8:45 and 17:15-18:45 97% downlink packet loss, totally unuseable. Looks like the BB is actually prioritised versus any other traffic to ensure that the people who enjoy a vibrator up their crotch have an instant vibration regularly.
2. Transition period: 8:45-9:15 and 16:15-17:15 - works in some areas depending on cell capacity
3. Non-business commuter trains 9:15-15:45 and after 19:15 - works flawlessly except a couple of holes in coverage. Speed is not great, but quite tolerable. Definitely useable for some minor surfing, checking mail, working on a couple of documents.
I would not expect ATT to be much different. In fact, it is likely to be worse. With or without Edge.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I'm amazed AT&T or any cell company would allow a cell to enter their market that has built in wifi. Won't this cut into their profits? Since anyone can go to McD's and check their email instead of having to pay their provider for the online minutes.
Why did not apple buck the whole system and offere the iPhone as a unlocked device only.
that way you could get your choice of service, your phone is not held hostage by unscrupulous Service providers, and it would have forced a change in the way cellular companies abuse their customers.
a win,win,win situation.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
> If I were running an AT&T competitor right now I would be wondering why Jobs didn't approach me with this opportunity and what I could do to earn his approval. I wouldn't want to be left behind
z on-iphone_x.htm
Unless, of course, you're Verizon who had the balls to stand up to Apple. Right decision in the end or not, at least they stood up for their business.
If someone came to you and said:
1) We want you to agree to sell our product, sight unseen.
2) You have to cut all of your partners out of it.
3) We will tell you whether the phone can be replaced if a customer has a problem.
4) We want a percentage of service revenue.
- does that sound like a good business decision to you? You're going to alienate all of your other partners (i.e. Best buy, Walmart, etc..) You're going to alienate your customers (Sorry, we'd love to replace your handset Mr. Big-Important-VIP-Customer, but Apple said no. Can't help you.), and worst of all, you open the door for *EVERYONE* to take a piece of your service revenue - why wouldn't Motorola/LG/Samsung/etc. ask for the same deal? (You did it for Apple - either split revenue with us, or no RAZR2 for you.)
I agree - I think it would've kicked butt if VZW had the iPhone. A real 3G network (EV-DO) would complement iPhone wonderfully, as would a real voice network (GSM quality is crap. CDMA not only covers more area per tower, but it has a better vocoder as well.)
But can you blame them for turning it down? I would have, given the way Apple approached them.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-veri
EVDO is 3G, and it's available across the US. And my EVDO phone's battery lasts a lot longer than 45 minutes.
The US is 3G ready - it's Cingular/AT&T and T-Mobile who aren't.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Oh noes!! Please don't withhold the RAZR2 from us!! Our customers will die -- all three of them!!
Well OK, the RAZR sold more than three units. I assume. Anyway, the curent economic model between the cellphone manufacturers and service providers sucks. It leads to stupid shit like feature-blocking. I want my cellphone provider to provide service. And usable information about that service. My cable company didn't sell me a TV. My ISV didn't sell me my computer (and if they did I'll bet it wouldn't be one that I wanted.) Sure, I wish the iPhone was usable with all carriers, but it isn't. Yet. One step at a time.
Oh, and P.S. When the RAZR came out it cost $500 as well WITH a service agreement; $800 without. Just saying.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain