MMS Arrives For the iPhone — Will It Crash AT&T's Network?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MMS Arrives For the iPhone — Will It Crash AT&T's Network?

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday September 26, 2009 @01:13AM from the signs-point-to-yes dept.

itwbennett writes "AT&T has said it is already seeing 'record traffic during peak hours of the night' with just the users selected for testing, and so it is 'very nervous' about the spike in traffic that it expects will occur after it launched MMS service for iPhones on Friday. Of course, setting records for MMS traffic isn't that great a feat considering that 'the service in question has been out for years on other handsets and hasn't exactly taken the mobile world by storm. In 2008, MMS made up just 2.5 percent of all messages sent from phones worldwide, meaning about 97.5 percent were SMS text messages, according to ABI Research. ABI expects the MMS share to grow to just 4.5 percent by 2014.' However, the carrier's fears in one respect may have been justified, says ABI analyst Dan Shey: 'Interoperability between carriers has always been an issue, and that's why MMS usage hasn't really taken off.'"

153 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

MMS is pretty pointless after all by sopssa · 2009-09-26 01:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm quite surprised iPhone hasn't had MMS yet. It has been on phones since like 2003.
For that matter it'll never got popular. This is partly because operators overprice MMS and because it doesn't really serve that much purpose. Yeah I could send a pic with it, but meh. Could always show them via computer or otherwise too.

'Interoperability between carriers has always been an issue, and that's why MMS usage hasn't really taken off.'"
I doubt this is really the issue. Where I live MMS has been working greatly since the beginning between operators too. But it still hasn't taken off.
1. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Are you really surprised or are you just karma whoring? Next time say the truth, meaning: "I can't believe that people buy iShit when it doesn't even support simple features like MMS."
2. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not true in the US. I know many people who work at VZW and ones who work at ATT Wireless. The way the networks handle MMS is completely different. My friend on ATT can send me a pic or video, which comes in fine, when I go to forward to another VZW user it reports the MMS is too large.
  Also, I can send a picture to a few people I know.. all but 1 is on VZW. The one who isn't is on ATT since that's who he's working for. Half of the time, all the VZW people will get it, but he will receive a MMS with nothing in it. On some occasions, it will happen when he MMS's a message to me.
  I am glad that VZW->ATT and ATT->VZW texting has finally sped up. It use to take anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour for a text from my VZW phone to any one of my friends ATT phones to make it.
3. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:39 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  MMS had a slow start, and by now just about all phones can send and receive email anyway.
  I don't think even Steve Jobs could get people excited enough about MMS support to make a measurable blip in traffic at this point, but I may be overestimating the average iPhone user.
  Let's see what happens to traffic when Google Wave goes live though. I predict a near perfect target audience match.
4. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Brandee07 · 2009-09-26 01:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  MMS would have caught on with my friends a long time ago if it weren't so crippled by the phones that use it.
  When I received an MMS on my old phone, I couldn't do anything with it but view it. I couldn't save it to my photo library, or set it as the wallpaper, forward the message, or anything, really. It was permanently attached to the SMS it came with, to either clog my inbox or be deleted. Thus, the useful functions of an MMS image are reduced to a) sending pictures of your drunk friends to other drunk friends and b) sending pictures penises to, well, anyone. With the ability of the iPhone to save an MMS photo to my photo roll, and from there send it by MMS or email to someone else, or edit it in an app, or later save it to my computer, I might actually use the MMS feature on occasion.
  So, I feel that the crippled firmware of most phones is to blame for MMSes not catching on. Many of you will claim that the iPhone OS is likewise hobbled by Apple's tight controls, but if you think that the iPhone OS has it's hands tied by software/firmware, than normal phones are wrapped head to toe in duct tape, placed in cast iron sarcophaguses which are then welded shut, buried under several tons of concrete, and placed under armed guard for the rest of eternity.
  Your mileage on phone OSes may vary. Prior to the iPhone, I used a Nokia flip phone that ran the default Cingular OS, whatever the hell that's called.
5. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by plover · 2009-09-26 01:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  For that matter it'll never got popular. This is partly because operators overprice MMS and because it doesn't really serve that much purpose.
  Well, there are a couple of things that you got wrong here. First, overpriced or not, unlimited MMS is included as a part of the data plan you have to buy from AT&T when you have an iPhone. So cost won't matter.
  The other is that one reason MMS hasn't taken off is that it's been hard to use on a lot of phones. On some of them the user has to know to go into a different messaging task, or to say create some kind of special message, and do some weird stuff they've never done before. On the iPhone, they added a little camera icon to the left of the text entry box. Couldn't be easier.
  Since the "barriers to entry" have now been substantially lowered, iPhone users will indeed start to use the feature more.
  
  --
  John
6. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Brandee07 · 2009-09-26 01:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, there are a couple of things that you got wrong here. First, overpriced or not, unlimited MMS is included as a part of the data plan you have to buy from AT&T when you have an iPhone. So cost won't matter.
  No, actually, it's not. It was, back when the first iPhone came out, but now you're required to get a $30 data plan that includes no SMS or MMS messages. I pay for those at the a la carte rate of $.20 and $.30 each, respectively. If I sent more than 5 a month, I might consider an Messaging plan at an additional $5 to $30 a month, depending on which plan. But it's certainly NOT included in the price of the iPhone data plan.
7. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by marmoset · 2009-09-26 01:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  First, overpriced or not, unlimited MMS is included as a part of the data plan you have to buy from AT&T when you have an iPhone.
  Actually the US AT&T base iPhone data plan doesn't include SMS nor MMS. For $5 you can add 200 SMS/MMS. (I'm on the family plan)
  I really don't see myself using MMS all that much -- after all, I've got a full-featured mobile email client. I have some younger relatives with cheapie feature phones that occasionally send us cameraphone snaps, though, and this will beat the crap out that horrible viewmymessage.com torture we had to go through before.
8. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by smallfries · 2009-09-26 02:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Are you kidding me? The phone that I've had for four years is not unusual - it is a bog standard Sony Ericsson model. It's had working MMS since I got it. I wouldn't describe it as hard to use. After taking a picture with the phone one of the menu options that pops up is send via mms. It works to the phones of everyone that I know, regardless of their network: O2, Orange, Vodafone, Three...
  Are you sure that MMS not taking off is not more to do with the US having appalling infrastructure for mobile phones? It seems to work well enough everywhere else in the world...
  
  --
  Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
9. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by jonbryce · 2009-09-26 02:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I was thinking that too. In Europe, *every* phone has MMS, with the possible exception of some older Blackberries which don't have cameras, and the "easy to use no frills phones" marketed to older people. I don't think there are any of those on the market at the moment.
10. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by wizzard2k · 2009-09-26 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  I've been noticing similar effects with VZWATT for years. Glad to know its not just me. Also, sending from ATT, VZW friends usually get my texts, but sometimes successive texts in a row get delayed or not delivered until a new outgoing text is sent.
  Email from the phone is more reliable.
11. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by sam0737 · 2009-09-26 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  MMS itself is actually very complicated. More than SMS with pictures attached.
  A few weeks ago the bank sent me an MMS promotion, which is a timed pictures slide show of ADs.
  
  Perhaps that makes the software vendor (Phone makers) more reluctant in adopting the protocol...and the price was so expensive that stops people really from using it. Hence...a chicken and egg problem.
  
  On the other hand, MMS are just data (GPRS/EDGE/3G...), instead of SMS using system spared timeslot. So I don't understand why MMS will hog down the network much faster than today, when AT&T are providing unlimited dataplan to iPhone user already.
12. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by plover · 2009-09-26 02:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Oh, sorry, you're absolutely right. I was confusing some of the salesman's spiel with some of the things we rearranged on our plan to switch to the iPhones.
  
  --
  John
13. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by mobby_6kl · 2009-09-26 02:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  MMS also works/ed on my SE T68i, which was a slight update of the T68 from what, 2001? I didn't send many messages, but from what I remember it was pretty easy to use and worked well.
  As far as I can tell, MMS didn't catch on here was because they were ridiculously expensive. Vodafone, which I use, prices them at 65 cents per message, independently of the plan you have. Even if you're on the cheapest monthly plan, this works out to over 2 minutes of talk time per message, and gets more silly for more expensive plans. T-Mobile and O2 seem to have slightly more reasonable prices, but not by much.
14. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by lysergic.acid · 2009-09-26 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Does the iPhone's data plan not come with unlimited internet access? If so, MMS seems like just another redundant protocol. Most phones that can send/receive MMS probably support email as well. Of course, there may be a difference in cost to the recipient between receiving an MMS versus an equivalent e-mail.
  For all the resources spent on overlapping cellphone, radio, and terrestrial TV infrastructure, I think we probably could have just erected a nationwide wifi network that would be both cheaper to operate and more flexible—not to mention more open. I know a lot of cellphone providers have deals with one another to share their networks with each others' customers, but there's still a lot of overlap between coverage areas as well as gaps in each network.
  Any internet-capable device would be able to make use of an open wireless network, so we wouldn't have to put up with handsets that have been locked and intentionally crippled by carriers or wait over 4 decades to rediscover email. I mean, it just seems like there's a lot of unnecessary reinventing of the wheel just to bring features/applications that have long existed on the internet to the proprietary cellphone networks. Not only that, but the telecos are able to charge extortionate fees for services that are essentially free outside of these proprietary networks.
  Having to get carrier approval (i.e. make deals with each individual carrier) to develop a device that uses their network also suppresses innovation IMO. In addition to being so specialized towards a single application (imagine if the internet and the TCP/IP & UDP protocols were only designed for VoIP traffic), the proprietary nature of cellular networks has also largely limited development of new applications for cellular networks to the carriers themselves. Even in economic terms, I think there's a lot of technological potential being wasted here. How much of the modern internet (or the history of computing itself) has been shaped by independent hackers, hobbyists, students, etc.? I don't think the transformation the WWW/internet underwent in the past 2 decades could have occurred on a closed/proprietary network.
  Though, I will concede that there may be a few potential upsides to having our current communications infrastructure. In some cases, it may be beneficial to have separate network infrastructures for different applications. For instance, if there is a DDoS on your ISP, your phone lines/cellphone won't go down. And in some cases specialized applications just can't be perfectly duplicated on a generalized network—e.g. emergency operators still have difficulty tracking the location of some VoIP callers. But these issues are outweighed by the benefits of having a more robust, versatile and open all-purpose wi-fi network.
15. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by rdoger6424 · 2009-09-26 03:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I didn't really have problems with vzwatt texting recently, but in my (limited and recent) experience with texting between Sprint and ATT, it's a huge excercise in futility.
  
  --
  "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
16. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Mascot · 2009-09-26 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Slow start indeed. We've had MMS since 2002 here. After seven years it's still barely used.
  As you say, we're moving towards free data plans now anyways so MMS will be rather pointless compared to email and IM services.
17. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by TheRaven64 · 2009-09-26 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised. I knew the original iPhone didn't support MMS, but given that it was one of the first things people winged about in reviews, I'd have thought a firmware update would have added it and I was under the impression that the iPhone 3G came with it from the start.
  That said, my last two (or possibly three) phones have supported MMS and I have only ever received one and never sent any. I don't know what the pricing is like in the USA, but over here it's silly. It costs less to send the picture as an email attachment and, as an added bonus, the receiver then gets a higher-quality copy. I think MMS is charged per-recipient, so it's even cheaper if you are sending a picture to multiple people.
  When I was in Japan (late 2003) it was common to send (postage-stamp sized) pictures from phones via email. That never took off over here, but neither did MMS.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
18. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by kegon · 2009-09-26 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's interesting how you've structured this comment to try to avoid the point you are disagreeing with. The point is, that with every other phone MMS is overpriced and hence has not taken off. Just because the iphone has a price plan that includes unlimited MMS doesn't stop it being overpriced for the "time before iphone" (remember, there was a time before the iphone existed).
19. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by plover · 2009-09-26 04:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Apple's recommendation if you can't get MMS working or don't want to upgrade is to continue to send pictures via email. It's pragmatic but not the best solution for immediate mobile to mobile picture transfers.
  How much people really need an instant mobile to mobile picture transfer solution is a different question.
  
  --
  John
20. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by kegon · 2009-09-26 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  The majority of phones that I have used required some special set up to use MMS and GPRS; usually sending a SMS to register for those services then receiving a message back containing automatically installing settings. Apparently server config for SMS is installed on the SIM as standard but set up for MMS/GPRS/etc was never standardised. I think that's the big reason why so many people don't use MMS, if you ignore the pricing.
  No doubt Apple will add appropriate config in the os for the few networks iphone is officially available for.
21. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Dan541 · 2009-09-26 04:25 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  The iphone is notorious for it's lack of basic features, Im surprised you can even make voice calls.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
22. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by spacecaps · 2009-09-26 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Uhh I'm on an ATT individual plan and the $20 data part of my plan includes 200 SMS.
23. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by riceboy50 · 2009-09-26 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Haha, this tired rant is still so funny. Thanks for making it yet again. Twit.
  
  --
  ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
24. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by SuperMog2002 · 2009-09-26 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  That would be the 2G plan, which does not allow MMS at all. The 3G plan does not come with any SMS messages, but if you add SMS, MMS messages just count against that pool and are not charged separately.
  
  --
  Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
25. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by amRadioHed · 2009-09-26 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously. I'm dumbfounded that they just got copy and paste this summer. How was that possibly not in place from the beginning?
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
26. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by BBandCMKRNL · 2009-09-26 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter it'll never got popular. This is partly because operators overprice MMS and because it doesn't really serve that much purpose.
  My plan with AT&T includes unlimited SMS and MMS and has for several years.
  
  --
  Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
27. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by BBandCMKRNL · 2009-09-26 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, actually, it's not. It was, back when the first iPhone came out, but now you're required to get a $30 data plan that includes no SMS or MMS messages. I pay for those at the a la carte rate of $.20 and $.30 each, respectively. If I sent more than 5 a month, I might consider an Messaging plan at an additional $5 to $30 a month, depending on which plan. But it's certainly NOT included in the price of the iPhone data plan.
  I guess it's just AT&T trying to gouge the iPhone users since my non-iPhone $30 unlimited data plan includes unlimited SMS and MMS.
  
  --
  Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
28. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by refitman · 2009-09-26 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Which is all well and good until you want to send an image to someone who doesn't have e-mail on their phone. I live in the UK and I send/receive MMSs on a semi-regular basis. They are useful for 'dude, check this out' moments.
  
  --
  First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made Jack Thompson.
29. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by HeronBlademaster · 2009-09-26 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  This. I pay $30/month for unlimited messaging across five lines - that includes both MMS and SMS messages.
  The iPhone already gets unlimited data. MMS messages are sent on the same data channels as other data - at least, they are on my phone. I don't really understand why they never allowed MMS messages for iPhones (until now). The only explanation I can think of is "we don't get enough money from iPhone users yet".
30. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by hitmark · 2009-09-26 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  SMS needs no configuration as its built into the base GSM system as part of the control channel, GRPS builds on that and leave a lot of the config on the phone (DNS/DHCP), MMS is basically a special SMS (that the user will never see unless they use a very old phone in the GSM sense) that results in a download by GPRS from a carrier operated server...
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
31. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by hitmark · 2009-09-26 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  funny, unless my memory is faulty (one never knows) my latest 3 sonyericsson phones where fully able to do all those things from day one...
  meh, what "killed" it was the overly complex editors, that it was "played" not displayed, and it was basically priced to oblivion...
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
32. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by hitmark · 2009-09-26 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  and interestingly enough, my last couple of phones have had a setting that allowed them to use the GPRS connection to handle SMS, rather then the GSM control channel...
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
33. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by hitmark · 2009-09-26 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  could have something to do with MSS being built on GPRS that again built on GSM, while VZW uses CDMA2K/EV-DO...
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
34. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by macraig · 2009-09-26 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  You must have gotten a pink slip a week ago, for you to so suddenly become first-to-post on nearly everything that hits the Slashdot Firehose. In the last week or so I've been seeing your username appear in comments of virtually every article I read, and now I'm finding that applies even to the ones I've been skipping. Is there any topic for which you don't feel a compulsion to share an opinion?
35. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-09-26 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah it was two things - overpricing (although it's not so bad now, at least in the UK) and poor marketing.. they kept calling it 'picture messaging' when for example it has a much larger text limit - so if you had a long SMS to send it often worked out cheaper to send it via MMS (roughly double SMS cost) rather than 5 SMS messages for example.
  I've received and sent quite a few in my time, going right back to 2000 and before - I remember when MMS first came out it was free for a few months because the carriers couldn't work out how to charge for it :p
36. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-09-26 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  If so, MMS seems like just another redundant protocol. Most phones that can send/receive MMS probably support email as well
  Phones that support MMS - pretty much every phone produced since 2000 (except those by a certain fruit based manufacturer).
  Phones that support email, at least meaningfully (that means without having to get a geek to spend 20 minutes fiddling with settings to get even rudimentary support - Symbian need not apply). The iphone and blackberry and a few Windows Mobile phones.
37. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-09-26 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think it was designed for the US market, where before the iphone you could just about dial a number of you hit the thing hard enough (and sometimes not even then). The idea of phones being communications devices was alien to them.
  Hell, I keep hearing stories that even basic calling doesn't work in cities over there..
38. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by lysergic.acid · 2009-09-26 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  That comes as quite a surprise to me. With WAP and mobile internet access having been available (and heavily marketed) on even the cheapest of phones since 2000, I would have thought that e-mail would be one of the first standard features to implement—it's certainly easier than trying to render a webpage on a tiny 2~3" screen. I'm pretty sure my Motorola RAZR had a built-in email client. I would think that most Sidekicks & Sidekick-type phone would also support email as well. Even my cheapo Samsung T629 can send/receive email—though it's not completely straightforward. First off, when you go to the tools menu, there's a mailbox with an @-sign on its side, and some envelops going in and out of it. Well, that's really just the SMS/MMS message tool. You can't really receive email from it, but you can send emails from it by filling out the email field in the recipient form rather than the phone number box. To check your email, you have to go to T-zone. There are supposedly a lot of 3rd party apps that also let you send/receive emails (using POP3 or IMAP) on many popular phones, but that's really beyond what can be expected of the average user.
39. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Dan541 · 2009-09-26 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  The iPhone is just a fashion accessory, I even got modded down for bagging it. That's how powerful the Apple brainwashing really is.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
40. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Dan541 · 2009-09-26 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's definitely designed for the US market. I feel sorry for Americans, they are always getting fucked over by either telco's or ISPs.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
41. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  MMS is just an SMS containing the WAP URL of the file. It's likely that the WAP browsers on most phones just suck.
42. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Savage650 · 2009-09-26 20:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  First of all: as a technology, MMS is just "emails with multimedia attachments". Thus, it becomes is pointless once the majority of handsets that can send and receive mail either natively or by accessing a webmail server.
  
  The majority of phones that I have used required some special set up to use MMS and GPRS; usually sending a SMS to register for those services then receiving a message back containing automatically installing settings.
  What happens when you "register for MMS" (either explicitly or implicitly by sending a MMS using the known settings) is that a MMSC (MMS Center, one of possibly many your carrier operates) is assigned to you (or rather, your Subscriber ID). Once that assignment is committed to the HLR database, incoming MMS for you will be forwarded tho that specific MMSC; without this assignment, you will only get a text message ("A MMS was received but we don't know how to reach you").
  Sending a MMS is simply a "HTTP post" that uploads a "MMS Send request" (including your content as as MIME-Multipart Message) to the MMSC (Which then has to figure out how to forward it to the recipient(s) listed).
  Receiving a MMS is the hard part: the MMSC sends a binary short message to your mobile, telling it "please fetch MMS at "http://$addr-of-mmsc/some-unique-but-hard-to-guess-id". (Insert lots of cursing about MMSC vendors whose software creates URLs so bloated that the Notification message gets longer than ~120 Bytes, causing it to be split into two SMS that need to be reassembled on them mobile).
  If/When you decide to download the message
  
  the mobile will do a "HTTP GET $theURL" (including headers describing the Capabilities and limitations of the UserAgent (i.e. your mobile)
  
  the MMSC tries to re-encode the Message to conform with those limitations (e.g. by shrinking or transcoding images and videos)
  
  your mobile receives the transcoded Message (as the response to the GET)
  
  your mobile must upload a "receive confirmation"; otherwise the MMSC will keep sending those notifications.
  
  your mobile might send a separate "read confirmation" when the message has been displayed.
  
  The MMS protocol contains a lot of functionality (message forwarding, permanent storage for messages, reverse charging, user selectable send/expiry times, ...) that never reached the customer. And with the limited features offered by the carriers (at premium prices nonetheless) MMS was dead in the water even before the advent of email-capable mobiles and "unlimited data" options.
43. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by spacecaps · 2009-09-27 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I hate ATT a little bit more now. :)
44. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-27 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  The iPhone is just a fashion accessory, I even got modded down for bagging it. That's how powerful the Apple brainwashing really is.
  Translation: "I can't afford an iPhone"
45. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by T-Bone-T · 2009-09-27 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Many carriers assign an email address to each phone number. I send my wife MMSs all the time by emailing a picture to the appropriate address.
46. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by Dan541 · 2009-09-27 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want an iPhone.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
47. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by RMH101 · 2009-09-27 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  in the UK, on O2, one MMS counts as four SMS as part of your allowance. Actually seems kind of fair. Contrast with the additional £15 a month they want from you before they'll allow any tethering.
48. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by RMH101 · 2009-09-27 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Many don't. Certainly in the UK this isn't normal. And you have no way of telling if a receipient's network has this feature, making it unlikely to be useful.
49. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by ls671 · 2009-09-28 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  > You must have gotten a pink slip a week ago,
  Or maybe he/she just GOT a JOB ;-) Not being busy looking for one anymore and having easy access to a computer 8 hours a day ;-)
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
50. Re:MMS is pretty pointless after all by ksheff · 2009-09-30 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  I have some friends and relatives that aren't all that computer savvy and that's how they share pictures most of the time. Especially if some of them are out at a bar.
  
  --
  the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
No. by jafiwam · 2009-09-26 01:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Judging by the number of AT&T Sales-shitheels cold calling my customers and trying to confuse them deliberately, no. AT&T must have plenty of extra capacity sitting around.

They would simply prefer that users use their minutes and do things that can get them charged more money, rather than using efficient asymmetric communication methods.
Sigh, AT&T... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

...when will they learn that by being d***-**s cheapskates trying to "earn" (save) a few pennies by not spending money on expanding the capacities of their network to allow more services, they will never reap the tremendous money involved in customers' spending in that area (or to put it differently: they won't have a chance to rape the customers with sky-high traffic fees per single MMS).
Just look at the operators in europe, and the money they are making by making sure their customers can actually send MMS' and use network access etc. Gee, who'd figure it'd pay off?! Not the dumb-greedy suits over at AT&T anyway, that's for sure. Sigh.
If it crashes AT&T's network... by hamburgler007 · 2009-09-26 01:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

...it's their own damn fault. Considering how long mms has been around, and how long this has been mulled and they have had to prepare for this.
1. Re:If it crashes AT&T's network... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 04:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If they are nervous their networks have serious undercapacity. Around the globe in other countries NO operator has been nervous about running out of capacity, ever.
2. Re:If it crashes AT&T's network... by Eternauta3k · 2009-09-26 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Around the globe in other countries NO operator has been nervous about running out of capacity, ever.
  Well, I don't think they care (so they don't worry either), but in my country every so often you can't make cellphone calls because there isn't enough capacity (and, once in a while, you call a person and get connected to another one).
  
  --
  Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
3. Re:If it crashes AT&T's network... by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-09-26 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  In this country we get that at things like new years eve - but I've never seen it happen on a 'normal' day... the capacity is there. Given that these days they're giving SMS/MMS and Internet away free on most plans they don't seem to be worried about it either.
Just a thought by hedwards · 2009-09-26 01:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps AT&T should spend the time it spends fucking up my voicemail to fix the network. Or god forbid actually invest in infrastructure. Given the ridiculous overpricing that mobile providers commit, one would think that somebody would have money to actually service the equipment and increase bandwidth. I mean they do it other places just fine with less cost per customer.
1. Re:Just a thought by jltnol · 2009-09-26 02:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Agreed. Companies today don't provide a service OR a product. They supply profits. Service and products are just the ugly, messy way of moving money from the bottom to the top of the financial pyramid.
2. Re:Just a thought by DaMattster · 2009-09-26 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps AT&T should spend the time it spends fucking up my voicemail to fix the network. Or god forbid actually invest in infrastructure. Given the ridiculous overpricing that mobile providers commit, one would think that somebody would have money to actually service the equipment and increase bandwidth. I mean they do it other places just fine with less cost per customer.
  Well said!!
Let it break by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:31 · Score: 0

AT&T (or should I say Cingular) has always been a company more concerned about profits than service. Having been a customer for dam near 10 years now (not entirely by choice) I can honestly say that this is one of the worst big companies for customer service and product offerings.
But I suppose the larger issue is simply the cell phone provider market in the US. A lack of competition, too much exploitation, and weird regulations have all helped to screw up the market.
Don't use MMS by trawg · 2009-09-26 01:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

MMS just helps cell/mobile telcos perpetuate the myth that they're now anything other than mere purveyors of wireless data connectivity. The iPhone has done so much to help break this pattern, it'd be a shame to go backwards.
1. Re:Don't use MMS by ceoyoyo · 2009-09-26 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. SMS and MMS and any other xxS should be going the way of the dodo. As soon as a significant number of people have data-enabled phones everyone will just use free IM networks and skip the expensive Frankenstein monster that is the xxS system.
2. Re:Don't use MMS by Ma8thew · 2009-09-26 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think the world would be better without MMS, but not SMS. Text messages do not require as strong a signal as is needed to make a voice connection, let alone a data connection.
3. Re:Don't use MMS by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. SMS and MMS and any other ASS should be going the way of the dodo. As soon as a significant number of people have data-enabled phones everyone will just use free IM networks and skip the expensive Frankenstein monster that is the ASS system.
  or thats how i read it anywho.
4. Re:Don't use MMS by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-27 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  My flatrate includes voice, SMS, MMS and data. Since almost everyone in Europe can receive MMS without cost it is the preferred way for me to send "electronic postcards" when I'm out on the move.
arrives? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

MMS Arrives For the iPhone
MMS arrived for the iphone with the release of 3.0, which happened months ago, which means most of us have had MMS for months now. it's just you american peasants who are newly getting it. headline should read, AT&T finally allows MMS on american iphones
1. Re:arrives? by Dan541 · 2009-09-26 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  which means most of us have had MMS for months now.
  
  While the rest of us have had it for years.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
2. Re:arrives? by mikael_j · 2009-09-26 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes, I had MMS on the two phones I owned prior to my iPhone 3G and I believe I sent a total of two or three images using it, I also received maybe half a dozen images. Amazingly I didn't really miss MMS on the iPhone prior to iPhone OS 3.0, I was mostly thrilled to finally have a cellphone with a decent email client that didn't explode when trying to connect to an IMAPS server, and that didn't squeeze the input field for new mails into some ridiculously tiny space. Oh, and the iPhone actually supports signatures (my previous Nokia smartphone claimed to support signatures but would mangle them to death so it was easier spending a minute or so manually adding my sig to every mail I wrote, not that I wrote all that many since the mail client sucked (Also, connecting to 3G required entering a menu, choosing to connect, choosing a network to connect to, waiting for it to connect and then quickly going back to the main menu before the phone auto-disconnected due to inactivity, gotta love the userfriendliness).
  /Mikael
  
  --
  Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
3. Re:arrives? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  you've had mms for the iphone for years? oh, you were jusr trying to be a smart arse? how about you STFU and learn to comment in context
4. Re:arrives? by Dan541 · 2009-09-26 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have an iPhone, which means I get the features that iPhone users can only dream of.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I won't be doing it. by J.+T.+MacLeod · 2009-09-26 01:33 · Score: 1

I enabled tethering on my iPhone. To enable MMS on AT&T, I'd have to update, which would break tethering. I don't see the trade being worth it by any means, especially since this sucker is my primary internet connection.
Perhaps it is time to jailbreak.
1. Re:I won't be doing it. by schnikies79 · 2009-09-26 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  There are modified carrier files out there that are MMS enabled with tethering. I don't have much use for tethering, but I have it if I ever need it.
  
  --
  Gone!
2. Re:I won't be doing it. by e4g4 · 2009-09-26 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  As best I can tell - jailbreaking won't allow you to get the MMS update and tethering working at the same time (yet, I'm sure it's just a matter of time). Apple has changed the way carrier profile files are handled on the phone, now requiring them to be signed (meaning the downloadable ones that enabled tethering will no longer function).
  
  I'm in the same boat as you - tethering is far more valuable to me than MMS - I won't update until i can have both (on my already jailbroken phone).
  
  --
  The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
3. Re:I won't be doing it. by Voyager529 · 2009-09-27 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  SwirlyMMS is available on Cydia for $12, and worth every cent. In my opinion, SwirlyMMS is a better MMS client than the native iPhone functionality.
4. Re:I won't be doing it. by MachineShedFred · 2009-09-27 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly why I haven't installed 3.1 yet. When this stuff came out, I had already booked a cross-continent trip with a layover in a city known for charging the shit out of everyone for everything. Wasn't gonna give up free connectivity for my laptop until after I got home.
  Luckily for me, Delta was handing out cards at the departure gate for a free try on their in-flight WiFi thingy, so I'm actually posting this from 34,000 feet.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
5. Re:I won't be doing it. by notxarb · 2009-09-27 16:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Maybe soon someone will create a hack to enable tethering with the new firmware. Most patches Microsoft comes out with for WGA and other things are broken quickly. I'm sure people can do the same with the iPhone.
6. Re:I won't be doing it. by RMH101 · 2009-09-27 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  You can get them working at the same time: I've done it. For MMS to work, you need to be running the 3.0 firmware. If you jailbreak this (and you can't jailbreak 3.1 so don't use that) then you can get hacked carrier files that enable tethering. For MMS you *also* need the carrier to enable MMS on your account. This should do it.
  I am presuming that currently any 3.0 or above iPhone users on AT&T have the GUI options to send MMS, but that they just don't work yet as the subscriber's account doesn't have MMS enabled?
Limited by cost? by FriendlyPrimate · 2009-09-26 01:39 · Score: 1

AT&T has offered MMS support for a while (at least I've been being billed for it....20 MMS messages for $2.99/mo, then $0.25 each additional message). Would the MMS support for iPhones require this additional 'feature' be added to your plan? And if so, who's going to pay $0.25 for each message (I assume the first 20 would go rather quickly)? That seems like it would prevent many people from actually using the feature.
MMS? But surely no one wants that, you said? by mdwh2 · 2009-09-26 01:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

But how could it crash anything? - Surely, for years we've been told that the no one needs MMS anymore, certainly not Iphone users, and no one would possibly want to use it. So why is it news that it now has MMS - let alone the wild claim that it might crash a network?
Seriously, it's not news, unless you count taking so long to add the feature. We don't have news for any other phones adding features that have been around for years. The idea that MMS, which has been around for years, might suddenly result in a spike in usage in 2009, enough to cause a network to crash, is ludicrous - if Iphone users were so desperate for that feature, why did they buy an Iphone? (And remember that the Iphone is still a minority of all phones sold - yes, you can redefine the market to "smartphone" and say it's doing well there all you like, but the market here is that of all mobile phones which can send MMS, which is billions - so even if all Iphone users started using MMS, it wouldn't make any significant difference in the global usage.)
I thought this was news for new technology, not news for old technology... I bet in a few months time, we'll be hearing people say "Well it doesn't matter that other phones had MMS for years, people only started to use it with the Iphone" - despite the fact that, for years, all we heard was from those same Iphone fans "But why would I have the need for something outdated like MMS?" No, this is just another trumped up Slashvertisement for the Iphone, where a wild speculation is made as if Iphones were 90% of the market, and perpetuating the myth that no one uses anything until the Iphone does it.
1. Re:MMS? But surely no one wants that, you said? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like you picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
2. Re:MMS? But surely no one wants that, you said? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like you picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
  Looks like you're an idiot.
3. Re:MMS? But surely no one wants that, you said? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  Crash the network may be an exaggeration, but smartphone (and thus iPhone) usage has already caused noticeable damage to ATT&T's network. With a quick google search you will find many articles regarding high iPhone density areas and how awful service becomes, not just for internet data traffic, but normal voice and text traffic as well. If you take an iPhone to certain areas of NYC (and not obscure times or areas, but say union square at 5pm), you might not be able to receive messages for an hour (personal experience, led to angry girlfriend). So the addition of MMS to the iPhone could cause further connection issues. You write this story off to quickly when you call it a "Slashvertisement for the Iphone". Yes, MMS is old, yes, no one cares about MMS capabilities on other phones, but when new capability is added to a device that is already slowing down networks, then it's worthwhile to ask if further service disruptions are possible.
4. Re:MMS? But surely no one wants that, you said? by Nethead · 2009-09-26 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I thought this was news for new technology, not news for old technology...
  It's news for nerds. Now get off my lawn while I bring up the autopatch on my local 2m repeater and call my XYL.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
Will It Crash AT&T's Network? by willyd357 · 2009-09-26 01:44 · Score: 3, Funny

We can only hope.
1. Re:Will It Crash AT&T's Network? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:54 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Nonsense.
  AT&T has one of the most robust cellular networks in the nation. To think that MMS would take down their infrastructure is simply silly.
  -- posted from my iPho{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER")
2. Re:Will It Crash AT&T's Network? by willyd357 · 2009-09-26 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  All I meant to say was that... ah, I see what you did there.
.... only in the US by khchung · 2009-09-26 01:52 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm quite surprised iPhone hasn't had MMS yet. It has been on phones since like 2003.
Not surprisingly, this is only the case in the US. Same with the AT&T lock-in.
Here, iPhones can send/receive MMS just fine for a long while already, and I can plug any SIM card in it and it just works.

--
Oliver.
1. Re:.... only in the US by ptbarnett · 2009-09-26 02:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here, iPhones can send/receive MMS just fine for a long while already [....]
  Since June 17th, 2009 -- approximately 3 months ago.
2. Re:.... only in the US by herojig · 2009-09-26 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! We've had it for years (Nepal, India, Thailand, etc.) or at least since it started showing up in smart phones. What's the big deal? I think the analysis is right however, it has not taken off, but probably will as more people learn how to use it. However, our pre-paid cards charges us for MMS while SMS is free, so that will deter us folks in "developing countries." But on an unlocked jailbroken iphone with some of the mms apps from appulous, it's pretty darn cool.
  
  --
  I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Moot point, as iTunes is getting crushed. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 01:56 · Score: 0

Presently Apples iTunes servers are overwhelmed simply providing the iPhone 3.1 firmware and carrier update. Any fallout that will happen to AT&Ts network will take a few days to be realized, as most iPhone users appear to be struggling just to get the necessary updates downloaded & installed.
1. Re:Moot point, as iTunes is getting crushed. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  Um, this is horseshit. Seriously. The carrier settings file is > 33kB and downloaded in less than a second on the two phones I installed it on. I know of no one who had any problems getting it.
Slow messages in far North Chicago suburbs by djtim21 · 2009-09-26 02:00 · Score: 1

Several co-workers have iPhones and reported delays (up to 30 minutes) in receiving text and MMS messages yesterday. I think this is just the effect of "ooh - I need to text friends with pictures". Let's see what happens over the next week or so. This will tell the whole story if AT&T's network is crappy (Which I believe it is).
Non-Open Networks by Cytlid · 2009-09-26 02:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wow if cell phone networks were open like the internet, there wouldn't be these types of problems.

--
FLR
1. Re:Non-Open Networks by troll8901 · 2009-09-26 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. You won't receive junk messages with fake sender IDs, unlike emails.
  Oh wait ...
Yes. by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-09-26 02:15 · Score: 1

Judging by how pitiful AT&T service has been, it's got to be one of the shittiest networks ever designed.
Not that it should cause problems for anyone -- it's not as if they didn't see this coming -- but I wouldn't be surprised.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Partying like it's 2002 by Vandil+X · 2009-09-26 02:18 · Score: 1

I updated my carrier settings, rebooted my iPhone and sent my first iPhone MMS (a pic) to a friend with a Verizon phone. The friend promptly sent back an MMS (also a pic) who was pretty much rolling her eyes over the fact that I just got MMS and she's had it on various Verizon phones for years.

Then all the excitement of being able to MMS pretty much fizzled out.

Still, it's good to have the option now.

--
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Will It Crash AT&T's Network? by rsmith-mac · 2009-09-26 02:34 · Score: 0, Troll

Kudos once again to Slashdot for being so on top of things. MMS was launched nearly 24 hours ago, if it was going to crash AT&T's network it would have (notice the use of past-tense), not will it. This is an interesting topic, but don't post an article speculating about some future event some 24 hours after it happened.
Anyhow, for the matter at hand, did it crash AT&T's network? No, but it got close. Where I am 3G was damn near unusable all Friday afternoon, and even EDGE was slow. I'm told by the silly people that actually pay AT&T's exorbitant fees for their it's-not-quite-data services (SMS/MMS) that SMS and especially MMS have been unreliable today. People are able to send, but not necessarily receive. Some of this I'm sure goes back to network issues, while other parts are probably just AT&T's SMS/MMS servers being overwhelmed.
Although to be fair to AT&T, I doubt anyone could have done significant better. Certainly there's room for improvement, but iPhones are data-hogs. Anyone else (e.g. Verizon) would be facing similar network issues if they suddenly flipped a switch that let nearly 10 million hogs suddenly consume even more bandwidth.
So... let me get this straight... by denzacar · 2009-09-26 02:37 · Score: 1

You buy an iPhone, pay through the nose for it - and it still lacks basic functions available to "dumbphones" for years already.
Then... they discontinue THAT iPhone, and bring out a newer, improved and cheaper version - and you get a coupon for half of the discount.
Then... You buy ANOTHER iPhone and it still lacks basic functions, it still costs an arm and a leg - and its camera sucks and it can't record video.
Then... You buy YET ANOTHER iPhone, and this time camera finally can record video. At 30fps. And upload it directly to youtube.
Which would be nice, had it came out in 2007.
And still... More months pass before you can finally use MMS on it.
Wow! Surely that is the cutting edge of both service and technology.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:So... let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  You don't like Apple, we get it, but your rant isn't in any part a response to anything in the post you replied to.
2. Re:So... let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  I would replace a few of your words with things like 64 bit, reliable, secure, then replace the Word "iPhone" with "Windows" and could have the same argument. Pre-Order Windows 7 yet?
3. Re:So... let me get this straight... by Dan541 · 2009-09-26 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Don't sound so surprised, these are Apple customers we're talking about here.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
4. Re:So... let me get this straight... by cyber-vandal · 2009-09-26 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I like the apps idea and that's probably why it's so popular. It did make me laugh to see the ads for the 3GS saying how amazing being able to record video was. My first thought was "well done for being 7 years behind the times".
5. Re:So... let me get this straight... by shmlco · 2009-09-26 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  You have one too many phones in your rant. iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS. The "half" discount was on the 3G.
  And personally, I'd much rather have been using my iPhone over the last two years, "crippled or no," instead of Apple having waited two more years to develop and ship the "perfect" phone.
  Did I miss copy and paste? Occasionally. Will I use MMS? Occasionally. Did I use SMS and email and weather and Google maps? The clock and movie times and Stanza and Kindle and OmniFocus and, OMG, how did I forget, the built-in video iPod?
  Constantly.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
6. Re:So... let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, it's really funny how the Motorola bagphone your mom used every night to help pay the rent supported all of those features back in 1987, but they never actually took off and became useful to the majority of customers until the iPhone supported them.
  I guess we iPhone users are the real suckers with the overpriced "dumbphones," huh. Oh, well.
7. Re:So... let me get this straight... by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-09-26 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Even the apps wouldn't have happened but for users bitching - remember Steve-o said that web apps were all you needed? Easy to forget that for ages to run apps you needed to jailbreak the thing..
8. Re:So... let me get this straight... by Fred_A · 2009-09-26 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! Surely that is the cutting edge of both service and technology.
  Come on, it actually has cut and paste. They even made a TV ad specially to mention the fact since it was so awesome.
  (Which must have been the most bizarre thing I've seen lately "Welcome to 2009, We have cut and paste !")
  And I still don't see what the fuss is about the iPhone. But then I'm not really that fond of cell phones in general.
  
  --
  
  May contain traces of nut.
  Made from the freshest electrons.
Will it crash? That is the question. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 02:46 · Score: 0

Will it crash? That is the question. *cue catchy theme tune*
Yes, it will crash! :)
Get a PC.
No, it will CASH AT&T's network by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 03:02 · Score: 0

All this FUD about MMS crashing the network is just a clever enticement for AT&T to get iPhone users to send some MMSs at $0.30 a pop. SMS and MMS are ripoffs.
MMS is not advanced SMS by rcolbert · 2009-09-26 03:14 · Score: 0

Just like YouTube didn't replace email, MMS will never replace SMS. People can send an SMS message in 10 seconds. Most people don't want to add 2 minutes to check their hair and pick the spinach out of their teeth. MMS seems like a great idea for the occasional postcard from vacation, but doesn't have the efficiency of SMS. Comparing MMS to voicemail rather than SMS probably makes more sense.
1. Re:MMS is not advanced SMS by Dan541 · 2009-09-26 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  When I was buying counterfeit handbags in Thailand earlier this year it was really useful to be able to send photos back home to get some feedback on the designs. MMS will always have it's place, email won't replace it just as it won't replace SMS. Each one of these platforms of communication has it's own unique place.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
2. Re:MMS is not advanced SMS by rcolbert · 2009-09-26 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  That's a perfect use case for MMS.
crash, lol by shentino · 2009-09-26 03:29 · Score: 1

A friggin superbowl could crash the network.
Come on AT&T, beef up the pipes!
1. Re:crash, lol by MachineShedFred · 2009-09-27 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't even take a superbowl. A NCAA Division-1 football game that isn't even sold out will do it.
  Truly pathetic. I can't even send a text message from 30 minutes before kick, to 30 minutes after the final whistle. Then, when their horseshit network catches up, I get a machinegun of stuff that was supposed to be delivered to me over the last 4 hours.
  What a joke.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
transparent migration needed by dwater · 2009-09-26 03:42 · Score: 1

MMS should die, but it can't because people with new phones need to be able to interact with people old phones, and the people who use old phones tend not to have the alternatives (eg email) probably because they require data plans.
What keeps MMS going is that it is convenient. On S60 phones, which are very prolific, it's just a menu option on the camera. I've not seen a phone before iPhone that couldn't receive, so you could send to anyone. It's relatively popular in Asia, I understand - still not often used, but enough to influence a purchase decision, I think.
So, any replacement needs to be as convenient as MMS and it needs to convert to/from MMS in a transparent method. Surely there is something that could do this...

--
Max.
1. Re:transparent migration needed by ceoyoyo · 2009-09-26 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, all it needs is for someone to set up an MMS to IM gateway. There are are SMS to IM gateways already. It's just a bandaid though, until everyone has a phone with data access.
2. Re:transparent migration needed by dwater · 2009-09-26 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, I've about those. There's even an open source one iirc.
  my impression is that it's not exactly transparent...
  
  --
  Max.
3. Re:transparent migration needed by ceoyoyo · 2009-09-26 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's not likely to be, without telco cooperation. And how likely is that?
My own 0.02 by DaMattster · 2009-09-26 03:44 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I hope it does crash the AT&T network and its customer base demands massive credits for the outtage. Fine, call me a flame baiter or a troll. Any company that willingly cooperates with the Bush warrantless wiretapping scheme deserves it. AT&T has behaved so egregiously that it would be just about mot just to see this happen. Serves the company right for being a bandwidth hord instead of doing something like actually upgrading the network to take full advantage of modern wireless commnications protocols. I would feel sorry, honest and truely, for those who would be affected by such an outtage but an outtage like that would put the power back in the consumer's hands, where it belongs.
Ripples by UttBuggly · 2009-09-26 04:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I couldn't care less about MMS. Don't use it, won't use it.
Unfortunately, I'm in the minority, based on AT&T network behavior since late Thursday. Typically, I DON'T get dropped calls or "unable to contact mail server" or text messages that take hours to send/receive. Since early Friday a.m., I've gotten all of that and both of our iPhones have gone "brick" on us; won't make or take a call.
Might be coincidence, but doubtful. We did get iPhone OS 3.1 and iTunes 9.0.x in the last 2-3 weeks, so there may be some issue there. Again, I don't think so. Several of my friends with iPhones and folks WITHOUT iPhones, but on AT&T have had issues. I've also noticed the DNS servers at AT&T are flakey as hell right now. Did some WireShark caps and offered to send them to AT&T Support, but so far, no takers or response of any kind. Straight NSLOOKUPs are timing out, which is annoying to say the least.
So, I think there are some ripples in the network pond and they (AT&T) SHOULD be nervous.

--
I am my own gestalt.
1. Re:Ripples by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  My iPhone's data service is slower but still usable here in the Seattle area. So far we've been lucky not to have the same slowdowns, call drops, and network outages that seem to plague other iPhone users in NYC and the Bay Area. If it's noticeably slower here I can imagine that people are hating life in those places. :(
2. Re:Ripples by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Some of this could be the recent availability of refurb 8G iPhones for $50. A wave of bargain hunters (myself included) is probably gumming up the works right now. I can't say I've had any problems updating or surfing - although I have gotten some unusual timeouts that won't pull data without exiting the browser or store and restarting the app.
3. Re:Ripples by swb · 2009-09-26 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  IMHO, 3.1 is slightly flakier than 3.01 was, but only slightly.
  I *have* noticed, though, that they have really cranked up voice compression. I had to ask a colleague if he had a cold or the flu as his voice started sounding funny. He laughed and said no and then I noticed that several other people sounded as if they had a similar "disorder". At that point I put 1+1 together and assumed AT&T was trying to shave a tiny bit of extra data off of every voice call to try to create some spare bandwidth for iPhone MMS, at least during the initial onslaught of "because I can" MMS transmission.
4. Re:Ripples by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  I *have* noticed, though, that they have really cranked up voice compression. I had to ask a colleague if he had a cold or the flu as his voice started sounding funny. He laughed and said no and then I noticed that several other people sounded as if they had a similar "disorder". At that point I put 1+1 together and assumed AT&T was trying to shave a tiny bit of extra data off of every voice call to try to create some spare bandwidth for iPhone MMS, at least during the initial onslaught of "because I can" MMS transmission.
  You're buying into AT&T's bullshit. The iPhones come with an youtube app and unlimited data. Do you have any idea how many mms you'd have to send to equal watching ONE average youtube movie?
  They just want to justify high costs, their network is fine.
Insightful? Really? by ZxCv · 2009-09-26 05:41 · Score: 1

You started off insightful and went full-steam ahead straight into Troll.

--

Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Text as MMS by DavidD_CA · 2009-09-26 05:55 · Score: 1

It wouldn't surprise me if half of those MMS messages are just text, with no photo/video/sound attached.
I found out that if someone sends me an MMS message, and I just hit "reply" without thinking about it, my reply is sent as an MMS even if I don't insert any media.
This may just be a "feature" of my phone (HTC + Windows Mobile) but I was doing this for quite a while until I realized it.
Thankfully, I have the unlimited plan for messages no matter how they are sent.

--
-David
2.5% is a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 06:01 · Score: 0

Sure, it sounds like MMS has fizzled with it's tiny 2.5% share. But 2.5% of the mobile combined SMS and MMS market probably means that there are more MMS messages sent than traditional postcards.
By the way, I got an MMS a couple of hours ago. Yes. Your guess is correct; my mom knows how to MMS. I always use SMS myself, or email. So does my girlfriend. But I might use it if I had a better camera on my phone and the GF would certainly use it if she had a better camera.
Yeah, all right. You're right. I lied. It would have been truer to write: my "it's complicated" uses SMS. Sigh...
Does anyone care? by rinoid · 2009-09-26 06:03 · Score: 1

It's 2001, your crappy phone called and wants its MMS back.
There are so many other ways to send photos and video why bother with something ATT will bill you for?
Watch as we witness the slow and long fight for unlimited pipes vs. limited, fee based services.
1. Re: Does anyone care? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  And in the middle of this shitstorm, nobody will have the bright idea of a bill scheme like every other fucking public utility on God's green earth.
  Don't let the stupid ass carriers convince you it shouldn't be that way.
Sheesh... by Anachragnome · 2009-09-26 06:31 · Score: 1

Is it REALLY so hard to actually spell out a few words to explain an acronym in the summary?
Not once in the summary do we actually find out what MMS means.
Or is the article ONLY for those in the know?
Until then, I'll have to just assume that the Malaysian Mussel-fishers Society has problems with AT&T (Asynchronous Titillation & Torment).
1. Re:Sheesh... by socsoc · 2009-09-26 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  On this site, spelling out MMS makes about as much sense as spelling out DOS or CD-ROM.
  AT&T, Inc. is the company's official name. Just like it's HP and not Hewlett-Packard anymore. Troll fails hard.
2. Re:Sheesh... by Anachragnome · 2009-09-26 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  OK. I had to Google it (go figure).
  Now I get it.
  As an outsider (that is to say I don't spend my waking hours dependent on the adulation of my peers via twitter, or any other such nonsense, to validate my existence), I wasn't supposed to understand in the first place. Forgive my intrusion.
  Fucking technology. STILL can't tell me when I am outside of my social standing.
3. Re:Sheesh... by Mike+Buddha · 2009-09-28 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=MMS
  
  --
  by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
MMS has potential if done right by Viral+Architect · 2009-09-26 06:53 · Score: 1

I have an LG Vera and sending media messages is as easy as sending a text and I can save them to my phone as well. The problems with it are: A) When sending to an email address, it doesn't just have the media and my message, Verizon or Sprint or whoever sends an HTML email with a link to the gallery on their website which sucks royal ass. B) It's treated as another form of messaging. I say just have an option "Send Message" and if you don't embed any media, send the text via SMS automatically, otherwise, use MMS without asking specifically what kind of media, if any I am embedding. The phone can tell the difference between sound, video, picture, and nothing. Simple IF-THEN statements will do the job. Instead every time I go to text, I am asked to specify the type of message. Unify the messaging system, at least on the surface and you'll probably see more use of it.
Pay more for MMS or Facebook for free? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 08:16 · Score: 0

Why would anyone need MMS on an iPhone? That's what Facebook is for.
It's an "experimental peak" by gilgongo · 2009-09-26 08:18 · Score: 1

The same thing happend in the UK with Vodafone when they launched MMS: people give it a go, send a couple to their friends, then never send any more ever again once the short-lived novelty wears off.

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
1. Re:It's an "experimental peak" by hitmark · 2009-09-26 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  i use MMS when a image can say a thousand words...
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Stand back, I'm going to try MATH! by sootman · 2009-09-26 08:44 · Score: 1

In 2008, MMS made up just 2.5 percent of all messages sent from phones worldwide, meaning about 97.5 percent were SMS text messages...
So that's a ratio of 1 MMS to 39 SMSs. BUT... I'll be willing to bet that the average MMS is more than 39x larger than the typical SMS. Just to be nice, let's say that the average text message is the full 160 characters (160 bytes) allowed. (Ignoring overhead, compression, concatenated messages, etc.) 39x160/1024 = about 6 kilobytes. And let's be REALLY nice and pretend the average MMS is 6kb. (That's probably low by a factor of at least 10.) If that's the case then the amount of data sent via SMS is the same as the amount sent by MMS, even if one outnumbers the other 39 to 1.
So if a bunch of iPhone owners are SO HAPPY to finally have MMS and send one as a celebratory test and the number of messages momentarily doubles, then that would add 50% to the usage of their network. (At least as far as SMS/MMS traffic goes.) Going with more realistic numbers means that AT&T could easily be experiencing 10x or maybe 100x the amount of SMS/MMS data that they're used to.
I'm not saying that there aren't a million other issues at hand, just pointing out that a bunch of people sending an SMS all of a sudden could indeed put a strain on their network.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Multimedia Messaging Service by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · 2009-09-26 10:53 · Score: 2

SPELL OUT ACRONYMS THE FIRST TIME YOU USE THEM!
Lazy bastards.
t his is f1or the l ameness filter 1th is is fo2r the la meness filter 2thi s is for3 the lam eness filter 3this is for 4the lame ness filter 4this is for t5he lamen ess filter 5this i s for th6e lamene ss filter 6
this is for the7 amenes s filter 7this is for the 8lameness filter 8this is f or the l9ameness filter 9this is fo r the la0meness f ilter 0this is for the lamaeness fi lter -this is for the lamesness fil ter =
this is for t he lamendess filt er athis is for th e lamenefss filte r sthis is for the lamenesgs filter dthis is for the lamenessh filter f this is for the l ameness jfilter gthis is for the la meness fkilter h
this is for the lam eness fillter jthis is for the lame ness fil;ter kthis is for the lamen ess filt'er lthis is for the lamene ss filtezxr ;this is for the lamenes s filter c'this is for the lameness filter hjj
this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter
this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter
this is for the lameness filter this is for the lameness filter

--
The latest Slashdot meme.
What sort of second grade network do they run? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-26 11:50 · Score: 0

Here in Australia, we've had 3.5g networks for...getting on 3 years or so now. Even our 3rd tier ISP's have a wireless broadband product that doesnt cripple the networks.
That's not to say there arent congestion and coverage issues, but hell, noone was scared of petty mms' taking down the networks.
No mms could never hope to compete with the outages caused by backhoes and buggy core switching software crashing - albeit once, but it took down one network for half the country until, literally, each tower was powercycled. (BIG name vendor here)
Is it worth it? by lookingooddeucy · 2009-09-26 16:13 · Score: 1

I was amazed when I found out iPhone users couldn't send MMS messages. Although, AT&T already has tons of problems with its network, so with any increased traffic, I can only imagine how the service will decrease further. I wonder if its worth it for them.

--
No one hugs a pimp anymore.
iPhone MMS by Voyager529 · 2009-09-27 04:38 · Score: 1

My thoughts, in no particular order:
1. it doesn't surprise me that picture/video messages are in the significant
minority vs. text messages. In addition to the fact that I personally
send/receive between 400 and 600 SMS's and 1 or two MMS's, if I send a picture
to a friend, they're not going to respond with a picture, they're going to
respond with a text message. While texts go back and forth, easily racking up
20-30 messages at a clip, picture messages rarely merit a response in kind.
2. As a T-Mobile USA subscriber (and an EXTREMELY satisfied one at that),
I've never sent an MMS to anyone who either didn't reply or state that they
didn't get it. Whether it's simply luck or that T-Mo did something right with
regards to the infrastructure, I personally haven't experienced issues with
infrastructure with regards to MMS.
3. When MMS first started being marketed, camera phones were new (i.e. you
bought a phone specifically BECAUSE it had a camera in it). Today, finding a
phone WITHOUT a camera is more of a challenge. Camera phones took 320x240
pictures, and 160x120 video @ 10fps, at best. Today, it's possible to get a
camera phone with 5 megapixels. As such, even if photos are scaled down to meet
spec (my HTC Touch Pro2 says that the max I can send is 300k), it's alot easier
to hit that max spec than it was on the advent of MMS. It's quite possible that
a desirable solution to the issues with MMS would be to have a more standard
spec that could handle higher message sizes (1-2MB, for example) and a more
stringent spec . At the same time, that doesn't solve the standing issue of ALL
the telco's needing to work on their throughput.
AT&T should be more cautious in the beginning by intelligentlife · 2009-09-27 15:38 · Score: 1

As AT&T opened this feature to iPhone users in the U.S., it should be cautious in the beginning as people will test and play with it. However, with the availability of easily sending media via email, iPhone users will not use MMS feature as much as users with other smartphones. MMS was a priority for Apple, however, there were still 9 million iPhone users without it.
MMS Arrives For iPhone by jonesmil · 2009-09-27 15:39 · Score: 1

I can say that I was pretty shocked that AT&T allowed MMS messaging on their network late last week. I wasn't aware until I received a text from AT&T telling me to update my software on iTunes. After updating my phone, it took forever for me just to send one picture messaging, I'm pretty sure it was because many other people were trying at the same time. Then, I tried it again Sunday night and it seems to be running a lot faster and smoother. I am glad that AT&T finally allowed picture messaging for the iPhone. I am very satisfied with the upgrade.
AT&T is slow... by FireBreath · 2009-09-27 18:17 · Score: 1

Rogers Wireless in Canada has had MMS enabled on iPhones since 3.0 software came out (July 17th 2009)... and has seen no negative impact on the network. In fact, because MMS is such an old technology and only allows messages up to 300k to be sent (600k on WAP 2.0, but not on iPhone), images must be compressed and shrunk. For this reason, most users will still prefer to attach a photo or sound clip to an email and send it that way... I'm really not seeing a reason why AT&T has been so slow to join the game.. and ontop of that, why they're seeing such a huge impact to their network. MMS was never originally included on iPhones because of it's limitations and backwards thinking.. Apple assumed people would smarten up and just use email. They caved and introduced MMS in software 3.0 because of user complaints.. but I'm still not seeing why anybody would use MMS nowadays.
I 3 Wikipedia? U? by denzacar · 2009-09-28 06:51 · Score: 1

Price drop outcry
On September 5, 2007, the 4 GB model was discontinued, and the 8 GB model price was cut by a third.[46] Those who had purchased an iPhone in the 14-day period before the September 5, 2007 announcement were eligible for a US$200 "price protection" rebate from Apple or AT&T. However, it was widely reported that some who bought between the June 29, 2007 launch and the August 22, 2007 price protection kick-in date complained that this was a larger-than-normal price drop for such a relatively short period and accused Apple of unfair pricing.[47][48]
In response to customer complaints, on September 6, 2007, Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote in an open letter to iPhone customers that everyone who purchased an iPhone at the higher price "and who is not receiving a rebate or other consideration", would receive a US$100 credit to be redeemed towards the purchase of any product sold in Apple's retail or online stores.[49]
[edit] iPhone 3G pricing model changes
With the July 11, 2008 release of the iPhone 3G, Apple and AT&T changed the U.S. pricing model from the previous generation. Following the de facto model for mobile phone service in the United States, AT&T will subsidize a sizable portion of the upfront cost for the iPhone 3G followed by charging a moderately higher monthly fees over a minimum two year contract.[50]
Or did you mean that I am actually missing a couple?

On July 11, 2008, Apple released the iPhone 3G in twenty-two countries, including the original six.[29] Apple has since released the iPhone 3G in upwards of eighty countries and territories.[30] Apple announced the iPhone 3GS on June 8, 2009, along with plans to release it later in June, July, and August, starting with the U.S., Canada and major European countries on June 19.[3] Many would-be users have objected to the iPhone's cost,[31] and 40% of users have annual incomes over 100,000 USD.[32] In an attempt to gain a wider market, Apple has retained the 8 GB iPhone 3G at a lower price point. This is the latest of several price reductions over the years; it now sells for one-sixth of the price of the original 8 GB iPhone when it first became available. In the U.S., it now costs $99, down from $599, although it includes a two-year contract and a SIM lock.

It sure does suck for all those that jumped on the 8GB model the first day...
But hey... at least the two AT&T years are up now, right?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:I 3 Wikipedia? U? by shmlco · 2009-09-28 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Or did you mean that I am actually missing a couple?"
  I meant what I said. Please reread for comprehension. There have been three iPhone models introduced, one each summer since 2008: the original (2.5G), the 3G, and the 3GS. And each was available in various RAM configurations (4/8/16, 8/16, 16/32) and the later two in two colors (white/black).
  So, three models, two options.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
2. Re:I 3 Wikipedia? U? by denzacar · 2009-09-28 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  When you pay $599 or $499 for something, and two months later the more expensive version is $100 cheaper than the originally cheaper version - that counts as a new model.
  See... it has this unique function that makes it COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the originally released model.
  Now... just two months after the most loyal customers bought the original 8GB version - each box comes with TWO PHONES inside instead of just one.
  OK... Almost two. They would still have to fork over extra $100.
  Even with that iCoupon for $100 that they got for being loyal suck... I mean customers.
  And I can just imagine how those who bought the 4GB version felt. They've ended up with a more expensive, yet suckier phone.
  I guess it can get worse... One might have his manhood snipped off for an iPhone - followed by the price being snipped off too about a month later.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
3. Re:I 3 Wikipedia? U? by shmlco · 2009-09-29 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I can buy a PS3 now for $200 cheaper than when it was initially released.
  It's still a PS3.
  Same SKU. Same box. Same components. Same functionality. The. Same. Model.
  But if you want to complain about pricing, go bitch at Sprint and Palm regarding the Pre. Same exact phone, priced dropped $100 from $300 to $200 (not counting rebate) not even three months after it was launched.
  'Course, that's because no one wants one, but that's another story...
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
MMS finally here by DanSus · 2009-09-30 04:18 · Score: 1

It amazes me that the iPhone aka "the phone that does it all", is just now getting MMS. I've recently downloaded the update to make it available on my iPhone and sending an MMS message seemed pretty slow compared to my old Sony Ericsson W580i. I wouldn't be suprised if the network crashed.
Re:AT&T should be more cautious in the beginni by Anonymous Coward · 2009-09-30 16:48 · Score: 0

I agree with the post. All the IT innovations have to survive the first "test" period, after that, if there were errors they will be corrected, or the idea will be dropped totally, if people don't like it. If the feature works fine it will continue to work fine. Remember, when it was 1999 everybody was saying all the computers in the world will blow up or go crazy because of the new date format- 2000/01/01. it never happened, neither will the AT&T network crash.