Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Crippling BlackBerry for iPhone?
0xdeadbeef writes "BlackBerryCool got a tip that not only was AT&T removing GPS functionality from their version of the BlackBerry 8820, they're doing it so it won't show up the iPhone. While carriers crippling phones to stop them from competing with pay-per-use services is nothing new, this might be the first time they've done it to make their other products seem less diminished."
The new AT&T feels alot like the old AT&T.
A: AT&T
Yeah, I know: old joke. Used to be IBM instead of AT&T. But this story just proves it again! It's funny because it's true.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
That's pretty sucktacular.
It also doesn't make any sense. iPhone is manifestly NOT a business device, by design. Blackberry does not compete with iPhone.
Apple need to get less paranoid.
+++ATH0
And in the mean time, in the rest of the world, crippled phones DON'T EXIST. Because the phone you use is independent from the carrier. Welcome to open standards (GSM).
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Of course other more advanced phones will "diminish" the iPhone. Sorry to upset the Apple crowd, Apple do make some cool products. But this is old tech in fancy wrapping. No 3G, MMS or GPS? No 3rd party application availability? I know it was delayed for long, and it sure looks like it. One year ago this phones feature set might have been more excusable.
If you want the Blackberry 8820 uncrippled, get it from T-Mobile. It's better than AT&T anyway.
Many carriers think they are a monopoly and don't want to have their low end rob the profit from the high end.
b lackberry-carrier-retailers-who-gets-it-and/
They are forgetting something. There is competition. They should strive to make all of their products and services more valuable to consumers.
Here is what we have so far..
1 An i-phone which is cool who's bill comes in a box shipped by UPS Oh and by the way is has a monopoly carrier.
2 A Blackberry. They are obtainable from several carriers, but AT&T cripples them worse than other carriers.
3 A Blackberry on another carrier.
4.. The rest of the market
If you avoid #1 due to the carrier issues and monster bills, you are now likely to avoid #2 for both the service and carrier reputation. Just what were they thinking? They don't hold a monopoly on Blackberries.
http://www.bbhub.com/2006/09/18/rating-the-major-
The truth shall set you free!
I'm not so sure why AT&T would want to do this. Even though I wouldn't think that the iPhone and the Blackberry compete directly, at least prior to this decision AT&T sold one popular device with GPS functionality. Why they would change so that they now sell no devices (at the iPhone/Blackberry level) with GPS capabilities?
I could understand if Apple wanted this to happen... but how does this help AT&T? AT&T doesn't/shouldn't care if people are buying Blackberries over iPhones on the basis of GPS, so long as the Blackberry comes from AT&T. If they believed that GPS was the tipping point, those customers are now buying nothing from AT&T.
Doesn't seem so smart to me.
The GPS in every cellphone I have ever tried was incredibly crappy anyways. The Blackberry GPs's dont get a fix unless you carefully hold them up in the air in an open field, Nextel GPS phones also suck horribly. The iPhone dies not have a GPS for two very good reasons. 1. it's a metal casing phone. 2. GPS modules in phones simply do not work so they left it out. The cheapie Magellan Gold GPS I got for $89.00 on ebay kicks the crud out of every single GPS enabled phone I have ever seen. and yes I have seen lots of them. They can not get a GPS fix from inside your pocket or on your hip, they never work in newer cars as the glare film and other tratements make the windshield electrically conductive so it blocks RF signals.
I am sure they are disabling the GPS simply because the GPS sucks. The is the same company that 3 years ago refused to allow phones on it's network that did not have GPS's in them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I have to say that this seems normal behavior for any phone company the world over. I've never had the full features of any phone I've ever owned from many carriers in several countries.
It's what phone companies do. It's usually a question of finding the provider that sucks the least.
Although, in this case it seems a little back-to-front. I would guess that there may be users who end up with a Blackberry because they can't afford one, or their company prefers that system. I would seriously doubt there are many (non-corporation based) users who actually prefer a Blackberry now. Cost aside.
And, can I ask that maybe it's time to have a moratorium on iPhone stories. Yes, I think it's cool too -- but I am sick and tired reading of about it. The Firehose if clogged with iPhone stories. I want to read about something else now. Thanks.
I don't know what they are worried about, the iphone stomps the blackberry. It doesn't seem "diminished" in anyway in comparison (I own both) Unless diminished now means easier to use and more convenient. Also I don't know why people are so down on edge. I use it in Los Angeles and it's fast for browsing the internet. Yah it's not my 10 megabit home connection but pages load pretty much within a couple secs and sometimes instantly. At&t doesn't need to cripple anything. Ultimately a wider spectrum of ppl will find the iphone easier to use. Especially when it comes down in price.
As long as carriers dictate what phones do or don't do, this is no big deal - it's just typical. I suspect the GPS functionality lockdown has nothing to do with iPhone, it's probably just that AT&T wants to sell their Telenav service and make money from it. The iPhone really doesn't compete in the same segment as Blackberries of any stripe, and they sell at a non-subsidized price - GPS or the lack thereof isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference in the Blackberry/iPhone purchase decision.
It's not like this is rare. Heck, Verizon's locked down the OBEX capabilities on most of their Bluetooth phones so they can sell their wireless sync service. Even Apple had to bite the bullet here - since there's no subsidy on the phone and Apple pockets all the money, don't you think they'd love to sell unlocked iPhones that would work on every GSM carrier? Or sell CDMA models through Verizon or Sprint? Of course they would. But to get AT&T to sell 'em and modify the network (build out EDGE capacity and add the Visual Voicemail system) they had to agree to a multi-year exclusivity deal.
So basically, the 8820 being modified because of Apple? I call BS. And if you want your Blackberry and you want it on AT&T, find yourself an unlocked version and just DIY. It's GSM, you can do that. It'll be unsubsidized, but at least that way it'll be a fair fight with the iPhone.
Wait - even though iPhone is unsubsidized it's still locked. Never mind!
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Comon, this isn't just AT&T. My *Verizon* 8830 phone has been "crippled" for about 2 weeks before the iPhone came out.
I called Verizon and inquired why my phone doesn't have the GPS turned on, and after getting to some 'data expert', I was told that the reason is Blackberry won't turn over some API or something to allow Verizon to enable this.
Now, I doubt that's really the reason, but again - this isn't some AT&T and/or Apple stunt.
Subject says all. Mod up if you agree.
No, GSM is not universally the same. There are at least 3 GSM bands (frequencies escape me). North America has one, Europe another, and (I think) the Middle East has the third. My AT&T/Cingular GSM phone would not work in Europe.
Also, GSM does not prevent a phone company from crippling service. The company can still filter/block your data. Any node on the network can refuse to play fair.
...it sounds more like a Raspberry than a Blackberry to me!
:-(
Sorry
Many carriers think they are a monopoly and don't want to have their low end rob the profit from the high end.
There is indeed competition in some places and in others they just scare you from leaving with their high service termination fees.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I currently use AT&T, and I've got an HTC Wizard.
By the end of the year, I intend to switch to T-Mobile and buy an unlocked HTC Kaiser off eBay.
I will not buy their overrated Scheisse iPhone, and if they think they can fuck with quality PDA phones, they've got another think coming.
is a classic example of the FISS principle: Foot In Self Shoot.
Not the first time our communications carriers have done that, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I'm never one for government regulation, but in view of the very existence of these companies in this space being based on regulation (frequency band reservation), I wonder if we need new antitrust legislation for this, a situation that the original writers of antitrust law could not have readily envisioned or comprehended? It's sort of an inverse product tying and is definitely intended to decrease competition (for example, no one can offer a competing navigation product on this device even though it clearly has the capability).
Or perhaps we need to retroactively apply the Google points on open device access to existing as well as new bands? It can be done by Congress under the ethical directive of protecting the public commons. From a business standpoint, is a legitimate intervention when the existing leasholders of those commons are mismanaging it against the interest of overall economic activity and the public good.
You are correct in that it isn't a pure GPS situation in most all phones, but it doesn't mean it isn't interacting with GPS satellite signals, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GPS. GPS takes more time and is more picky about quality signal from satellites. aGPS still has some degree of satellite signal being received at the phone, but either sends that data to the tower which uses it's more optimal GPS situation to provide a lock, or receives the extra data from the tower. In other words, it isn't necessarily any less precise, just potentially dependent on communication with a tower and less time needed from the point of being turned on to being able to pinpoint the location.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This is a bullshit article written to publish the idea that a BlackBerry can show up an iPhone. It cannot, even if you love your push email you are lacking so much other stuff you need a notebook just to read the Web.
Why doesn't BlackBerry put a real Web browser in there to avoid the iPhone showing them up? When you consider necessary features, a Web 2.0 browser comes in way ahead of GPS let's be real. Even audio/video Podcasts are more important than GPS. That gives you radio, TV, training courses.
The lack of GPS in the iPhone is something hardcore nerds complain about so they can keep carrying their antique smart phones. It's not something that most people even know exists let alone need. Never mind that any moment there will be a plug-on GPS for the iPod dock connector and then what? Can you plug Firefox into a BlackBerry?
Of course this ignores the fact that the phones are targeted to different people. The Blackberry is the corporate phone that allows the IT Gods to exert their divine control and the workers to be be 24 hour push leash. The iPhone, which, as we know from all the bitching, does not even have corporate accounts, is designed for the person who just wants to communicate. I certainly have no desire to pay $3k for a blackberry enterprise server when i can pay $100 for a .mac account. And I don't need data pushed to me to read while I am driving.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Anti-competitive monopolistic behaviour anyone/
Just shows up the fanboys who still claim that apple wouldn't be microsoft even if the could.
I thought AT&T disabled some functions of different phones for the favor of China or Canada or France or whatever country we should blame.
I've never heard of anyone I know owning one.
I've never heard of anyone I know even talking about buying one.
I've never seen anyone walking around with one.
The sales figures for the phone so far are embarrassingly low even for a product that you would have thought hundreds of thousands of Mac fans with huge amounts of disposable income would have bought without hesitation.
I can't imagine AT&T doing anything like this for a marketplace flop like the iPhone.
Oh, the irony of those who've seen something too similar with NCR (before/after the trainwreck called AT&T GIS).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Precisely. I doubt that it has anything to do with the iPhone. AT&T has a track record of crippling phones that's almost as bad as Verizon's. If you want a perfect example compare the (crippled) Nokia E62 from Cingular, now AT&T, to the original version of the phone, the E61. Ooh look, no 3G, no Wifi, no SIP client. The only good thing they did was ditch the crappy proprietary Nokia connector and put a mini-usb connector on instead.
:-)
So, I have an E61 and am using it with T-Mobile (just swapped my SIM). There's even some chance the T-Mobile may get to use the "normal" UMTS/HSPDA frequencies and that my phone's 3G may actually work when they roll it out - it worked fine in Germany last month
people were MORE civilized prior to the advent of the cellphone.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The summary makes it sound like GPS is being removed from the phone, but the article says in first paragraph "...the US carrier has been successful in their attempts to lockdown the GPS functionality in their upcoming BlackBerry 8820 so that the only functioning 3rd party software will be TeleNav."
Not the same thing. "Only functioning 3rd party software", means you should be able to use TeleNav and any 1st party software (ie. whatever RIM has.)
Note: TMobile.com doesn't advertise (or even list as a feature) the GPS functionality on the BlackBerry 8800 that it is selling.
Of course there's no doubt this unbiased reporting from "BLACKBERRYCOOL" written by someone who admits to interviewing people while drunk (http://www.blackberrycool.com/2007/05/09/004387/) is totally accurate.
And the great regulators we have who let cell phone companies get away with false advertising and pretty much everything else.
You see, they aren't going to market this as "BlackBerry 8820, GPS crippled edition", they're going to sell it as an 8820.
And then charge you $10 per month to use the GPS.
Just like every other cell phone carrier in the USA has ripped out some features in most of their phones so they can sell some fucking "monthly service" that is vastly inferior to what is built into an uncrippled phone.
In each and every single case, the cell phone companies do not make it clear that you're not actually getting the phone on the cell phone manufacturer's website, but a cripple version.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Look, a lot of people are pretending that this has nothing to do with apple. Obviously this only helps AT&T insofar as it helps Apple. Apple chose Cingular for a reason, and that reason was that it would promote this device in various ways. This is one of them.
Apple probably insisted that AT&T do this. No other explanation makes sense. It's not evil, it's just business. The iPhone is supposed to be the ultimate phone with maximum flexibility. I'm sure to many people, it actually seems that way. No reason to hate Apple for this. It's the way this industry works.
If you really really want your flexibility, you can't buy subsidized products. These companies are paying for your phones so they can have some control over them. If you don't mind, then it is win-win.
If you do mind, just buy an unlocked phone and use a carrier that supports your phone.
If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine, you get sewage.
The rest of the world's version of the RAZR V3xx has GPS as well, but not the AT&T version.
So does this mean that AT&T are denying a market for third party products like Garmin Mobile on Blackberries? If so, I imagine that Garmin might set the lawyers on AT&T.
This is obvious nonsense. AT&T has no financial incentive to steer people away from BlackBerries (quite the opposite, in fact, BlackBerry service plans are more expensive than the standard iPhone plans), and if an agreement with Apple is forcing them to do it, then that agreement would likely be illegal and probably doesn't exist.
It seems as if none of the major carriers are willing to embrace the Blackberry line fully. Verizon, for instance, not only disabled the GPS, but also removed the OBEX Bluetooth profile (for one thing, you can't exchange phone books with in-car phone systems) and locked the SIM slot to work with Vodafone only - all measures I'm sure in some way in Verizon's corporate consciousness make sense to their bottom line. From the users' perspective, however, our bottom line is somewhat different. Some of us purchased the Blackberry 8830 precisely because we were told that it had a functional GPS. Some of the purchases were driven by the fact that this is much more of a business tool than a BREW-enabled plaything ("Get It Now"? Get real...) And some of us were convinced that this would truly be a world phone but came to find out that it's Vodafone's world or nothing (unless we want to cough up the balance of the full retail price for the phone, fill out some paperwork, and wait patiently for the SIM unlock code). One of my destinations, Costa Rica (where, by the way, I was told that the 8830 would work just fine), has a state-run monopoly whose name is not Vodafone. Unless I want to cough up another US$250 or so, I'm once again without phone while on international travel.
So, no, I don't really believe that AT&T crippled the Blackberry to make the iPhone look better. I believe they crippled the Blackberry because they're no more in touch with their users and their needs than any of the other major carriers and they're just after another buck and haven't figured out
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Why does AT&T feel the need to do this? Everybody knows that Apple was more than confident that they didn't need to compete in features, because they have a great UI.
Some "guy" who works at at&t told some "blog" something was crippled as to not show up something else.
Fancy pants reporting there!
--- I do not moderate.
Well... nothing's really yours until you're able to make it yours. This is why I would bite the bullet and buy an unlocked phone where the carrier cannot sabotage my phone's capabilities. Speaking of unlocked phones, who's looking forward to the Neo1973?
Oh, yeah... the ownership of an iPhone is the equivalent of wearing a shirt that says "SUCKER" in big letters. Have fun with your huge phone bills and a defective by design device! ^^
That's why I stick with AT&LOVE
I wonder...is Steve Jobs running at&t wireless now too? You can't help but admire how far his reach has expanded, especially given the relatively short time it has taken. Assuming, of course, he had anything to do with this. But I wouldn't be surprised if he flat out told them to cripple the Blackberry. I wonder if GPS capabilities will make a miraculous comeback after iPhone 2.0...
We've just received word from one of our friends inside AT&T that the US carrier has been successful in their attempts to lockdown the GPS functionality in their upcoming BlackBerry 8820 so that the only functioning 3rd party software will be TeleNav.
TeleNav. That would be the mapping service that AT&T will allow, rather than one of the third party ones that one can get for free or at minimal cost, often using Google Maps.
I wonder if there is a reason AT&T might prefer TeleNav? Perhaps because it is a product that AT&T sells?
http://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/popup/
I don't know. Does anyone here think that there might be a profit motive involved, instead of this whole 'won't show up the iPhone' wankage? Probably not. I can't see a company as altruistic as AT&T doing something for profits. Can you?
Yet another rumor dissing AT&T and the iPhone. I'm just going to wait for this one to prove false like all the others, but I won't hold my breath for Slashdot to post a follow-up story saying, "Hey, that previous blog rumor was wrong! Just like all the others!"
I love my sig.
If Apple is actually pressuring a retailer to cripple a competitor's product, they could end up in serious hot water legally.
But it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't benefit Apple and it doesn't benefit AT&T. AT&T is not the only game in town. People don't choose the iPhone because they prefer AT&T, they are going to AT&T to get the iPhone.; if AT&T is crippling a product that customers prefer at Apple's behest, the customers can just go elsewhere. Driving customers away from their retailer is hardly in Apple's interest. And of course, it is even less in AT&T's interest.
AT&T wants to do this because AT&T sells the navigation software that does work with the GPS that is enabled in the device mentioned in the article. See below.
Basically, this is a complete non-story. Some Blackberry fanboi got all upset because the iPhone is better than the Blackberry (in cost even) but could not think of any way to get back at the bad, evil Apple other than misrepresenting the actions of AT&T.
Vista is a very good operating system from Microsoft.
I agree, but the problem is not the market - the problem is the average US consumer is too brand-oriented, and will happily pay out (and upgrade) again and again without thinking what s/he is buying and without shopping around. These people allow monopolies to develop by not playing their part in the market. I used to think it's an excess of disposable income, but after seeing the iPhone phenomenon, I changed my mind.
Here in Europe there's no stigma about not buying brands. We'll buy what works well enough for the least money, which is why you'll see way fewer Apple products, not to mention the other "major" brands.
Of course we're still locked into MS like everyone else, but Eastern Europe is famous for it's pirate "industry" which provides competition, driving down prices. It's interesting to note that Windows is generally cheaper to buy anywhere in the world you can get a cheap copy.
A Blackberry-fanpage "received word from one of our friends inside AT&T"? Come on ...
If it is possible to even STAY in the market by wilfully switching on or off cell phone functions, it means one thing and one thing alone: Cell phones nowadays have no real killer application. There is no clear benefit on one over another phone. Were there a clear benefit, it would not be optional to switch it off. For example, no one would even remotely dream of stripping a cell phone of its telephone functionality. Or a car of its steering wheel. So basically this is showing them up as somewhat lost, somewhat clueless.
So, what do you really want your cell phone to do? That is the question to ask. And the answer will easily tell you what phone to get.
I do not require any web browsing functionality, and GPS is also no requirement. I do need the occasional free board game for short waits. Otherwise I am fine with the lower end of the current cell phone models, and I enjoy them for what they are: very affordable, lightweight, and no object for battles between phone companies.
Phone carriers are oligopolies. They price accordingly. It's not a free market -- legislators know that, the industry knows that, everyone seems to know that except slashdot readers. (Not a flame, its just true.)
There is a long study of this behaviour by firms by economists, it often goes under the heading "industrial organization".
Is oligopoly bad? Well, no. Try having perfect competition corner stores create a national cell network. No going to happen.
Should it be reasonably regulated? Of course.
Anyway, please just stop trying to fit every economic scenario into the perfect competition mold. It just doesn't make sense.
All the best.
When the UK government caught on that we were going that way they made it illegal for phones to be permanently locked, your provider has to unlock them on demand at the end of the contract. Possibly before, I'm not sure.
As for being crippled, not to my knowledge. I've been able to do things like transfer music back and forth freely over cable/IR/BlueTooth for many years/phones.
Most UK/euro mobile phones are now quad band.
Many are using 3G now as well (another thing the iPhone missed), the US really is a ways behind on this due to mistaking a cornered market with a high entry boundary (national network) for a free market.
Sometimes regulation is good.
They did this with the HTC 8125 claiming that in only had WiFi 802.11b, when in fact, the hardware was 802.11G. AT&T didn't want people to know that WM6 enabled G, so that they could sell the next generation model, which isn't that much more advanced.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
The iPhone is great, but there are a lot of features in my Sprint PDA (Windows Mobile) that make me look at the iPhone and say "So what?"
It reminds me of when Windows was released and people were going gaga over a Graphical User Interface but those of us who had been using Apple Macs went "So what?"
2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
Hi, you forgot option #5:
- 5. Buy a non-broken phone, such as OpenMoko's Neo1973, and then use it with any carrier (AT&T included!)
That's what I did and now I'm using a CellOne (soon to be AT&T) SIM card in my Neo1973, great phone, nothing is broken on purpose, I have full control over the phone and I in addition to having full access to all the hardware on the phone (nothing is disabled) I can in ease issue AT commands over my local network to the phone. That's what I call convenient!somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
if(color==blue){speed--;}
When you buy an iPhone, you get $600 worth of hardware and make a commitment to use AT&T. You also get a commitment from Apple to deliver you regular security updates and new applications for it.
When you buy a New1973, you pay for the hardware from a Chinese company called FIC, and have no commitment to anyone but the GSM provider "of your choice," which in the US means AT&T. The only other GSM provider is T-Mobile, which doesn't have GSM coverage on standard frequencies; they may be able to resell AT&T GSM service to you on slightly different terms. That's the extent of your real "freedom."
The other "freedom from commitment" you have is the freedom to write your own software. In fact, you have no choice, as FIC doesn't want to bother to write it, they insist you do. You are entirely dependent upon the community to deliver your phone software, because FIC isn't going to do anything for you.
The FIC phone also lacks significant features, including functional WiFi and the ability to place calls. Who's the "sucker":
- Those who buy a functional phone that works from Apple, which will continue to work and get better over its lifespan
or
- Those who buy a non-functional phone from FIC and are stuck having to fiddle with crap that doesn't work?
To complicate this connumdrum, there is another complicating fact: one can also write their own software for the iPhone.
There are already more people working on (and interested in) hacking software for the iPhone than for OpenMoki. There is a development toolchain available, and people are writing apps on Apple's foundation. If you had the time and inclination, you could even start from scratch and port Linux, or DOS or whatever floats your boat. Of course, you have to choose between whether you want to have a slick phone that just works, or a hobbiest hacked iPhone that might have problems related to your own hacking.
That's a freedom you don't have with FIC's phone. The only choice you get is crap that doesn't work. That's the same reason Linux for the desktop will never get past $300 WalMart PCs. Good luck dicking around with a lame Chinese knockoff with "software you can write yourself!" Just don't be so arrogantly dismissive of those who chose to use things that actually work.
That's nuts. I got Co-Pilot for free when I got my Nokia E61 through T-Mobile in the UK. It really does seem like big business is crippling the use of technology in the US.
No need to censor me. I wasn't criticizing Apple, but pointing out its conventional business practice. By allowing one provider only to have the elite iphone, Apple expected to receive some special treatment to maximize sales.
Too bad that some people view Apple as the "good guy' rather than as a company whose products they prefer.
And companies end up in hot water all the time. Saying that Apple could get in trouble is not a very good piece of evidence that I'm wrong. And you never made clear exactly how Apple could get into trouble.
AT&T is the largest provider because it is more competitive on a cost basis and service basis in the United States. By making the iphone superior to other products, I can absolutely guarantee that iphone sales are enhanced. YOu claim that customers can go elsehwere is also true. Some will, some won't. So you're obviously wrong that this doesn't help Apple. And does it help AT&T? AT&T thinks it does, or they wouldn't have done it. How does it help them? Because they get to sell the most interesting phone on the market, and no one else gets to. All this stuff is obvious. Change Apple to Sony or Microsoft and many more would admit I have a point.
The practice of crippling phones is standard trade practice, and it's extremely unlikely that AT&T or Apple is going to get into any trouble over this instance of it. For one thing, it's just product differentiation. You can't have too many products at the same level. If you spread out the quality and price, you attract more sales.
Again, of course this helps Apple. Just as much as it helps BMW not to be next to a Mercedes dealership, or if it is, if that Mercedes dealership doesn't offer repairs but the BMW dealership does.
Anyway, I find it amusing that people don't accept the obvious. It's not even that big of a sin.
AT&T is not that popular. The biggest complaint people have had about the iPhone is that you have to deal with AT&T. If this is a feature that people want, they would go elsewhere to get it. Except that it turns out that some other cell companies--companies without iPhones to push--are also disabling this feature. Which suggests that there are other reasons to do that besides selling the iPhone.
I can certainly think of a lot of reasons why AT&T and other companies might think that disabling this feature helps them, reasons that have nothing to do with trying to influence customers to buy one of their cell phones and not another (which they could easily do simply by adjusting prices, if they wanted to). Every feature is going to generate some overhead in the form of customer service calls, so the only reason why a company would enable a particular feature is if they think the amount of revenue that it will generate in the form of additional customers is greater than its customer service cost. Or they could be working on a plan to charge for GPS, and they don't want to roll out service until they have the details worked out, because people are a lot more annoyed if you start charging them for something that they formerly had for free than they are if you offer them something additional, and by the way there's a small charge.
Not if AT&T is doing it for good business reasons (of which, as we see, there are several) and not to hurt one particular company in order to help their competitor.
Produce differentiation makes sense for a manufacturer, because each additional product has costs associated with it, so redundant products that offer no unique appeal to the buyer end up costing the company money, and adding features to a cheap product can make your high-end product redundant, which is not a good thing for the bottom line. But AT&T is not the manufacturer here, they are a retailer, and retailers gain by offering customers what they want, and charging accordingly. They don't gain by driving customers away from any product that they do offer--unless Apple is directly or indirectly bribing them to do so. Which would be illegal.
Such a long comment. But you're wrong, pal. AT&T is that popular. You're just being obnoxious to deny it. They dominate the industry.
You are twisting your thinking around radically. Why? It's ridiculous.
Apple didn't just give the iphone to AT&T and say "Hey! do whatever you think is best here!" Not at all. They spent weeks or months contracting out every detail. Apple knew this would happen. It's absurd to assert they don't have some responsibility for the actions of AT&T that affect the iphone. If Apple didn't act this way, they would be in utter breach as fiduciary. Why assert that this action was only AT&T's doing?
I don't care that Apple did this, but obviously Apple sees the blackberry as a competitor and used its power to cripple its functions. Of course they would do this. It's important to be the largest providers best product in this category. You will never see an Aston Martin sold next to a BMW M6. Aston Martin will refuse to sell inventory to a dealer that does this. Normal everyday common sense business.
You keep throwing the word "Illegal" around. What the hell law are you talking about? Say Apple demanded that no other device be as well supported. That's totally ok. If Apple says that AT&T can either cripple the Blackberry or not have the iphone, that's not illegal in any way. You're just making stuff up. And if it were illegal, that's not proof that Apple didn't do it, as companies break laws and settle cases all the time. You seem to be attaching some kind of virtue trait to Apple. Why?
You gonna fisk me again? Why not actually say things that are true this time. Apple is a great company because they aren't retarded. Not dealing with the blackberry or carefully contracting the major aspects of its relationship with AT&T would be retarded. And insofar as it is clearly foreseeable and a fiduciary breach, illegal (since you seem to think that's an argument).