The iPhone's Role In Crippling T-Mobile

GMGruman writes "The feds may be blocking AT&T's buyout of T-Mobile, but T-Mobile is in poor shape to continue as is. Parent company Deutsche Telekom's decision not to invest in U.S. spectrum a decade ago constrained T-Mobile's ability to grow, especially through 4G networks now finally emerging. But from a customer point of view, it was the iPhone that has threatened the company the most. Or, more precisely, its lack of the iPhone."

Comments

Fanboi rant

[kurt555gs]

Are you kidding? Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset?

Really? Want some Apple flavored Kool Aid?

Re:Fanboi rant

[ScrewMaster]

Are you kidding? Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset?

Really? Want some Apple flavored Kool Aid?

I agree. Why is it that Apple fans have to make everything about the iPhone? Considering that the handset market is owned by Android, not by Apple (half a million Android phones light up every day) the claim that T-Mobile is being hurt by the lack of that product is remarkable. Now, the tablet market is a different matter entirely, but we aren't talking about tablets here.

More to the point, when you look at the total number of handsets sold, smartphones are a drop in the bucket. Supersmart phones such as the iPhone and high-end Android devices, even more so. Cellular outfits did just fine before the iPhone came along, and they'd do just fine without it. About the only thing the iPhone did for AT&T was allow them to sell voice/data plans at the subsidized price for unsubsidized phones!

The fact that millions of iPhone owners fell for that ongoing scam still amazes me. Those people who bought a Nexus One from Google and went with T-Mobile found themselves getting a discount, because T-Mobile wasn't providing the phone. Just good business. Now, I suppose in that context the iPhone did hurt T-Mo, because AT&T was making extra money to not supply a device to the consumer. Really says a lot about AT&T's management than anything else. Says even more about your average iPhone user.

I also agree with you about the T-Mobile G2 / HTC Desire Z ... I have one of those and you'll pry it from my cold dead fingers. It's rooted and running Cyanogenmod 7 (no choice in operating system is yet another reason why I detest Apple and AT&T.)

Re:Fanboi rant

[Salvo]

I think T-Mobile was hurt more by the Microsoft Sidekick debacle than the iPhone.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Rhodri Mawr]

Oh dear. So your basic argument is Apple Crapware is much better than Google/Handset Maker Crapware? Please!

Furthermore, your suggestion that Apple dominates parts of Europe and Australia and Android is nowhere in these places is absolute nonsense. Can you back it up with any statistics not provided by Apple's Marketing Department? Of course not. I can only suggest that the rose tinted spectacles that you're wearing should come with a complimentary white stick.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Lemmy Caution]

I prefer Android phones, and I am a T-Mobile customer, yet I think the original post is correct. People left T-Mobile so that they could get an iPhone, and - despite glowing reviews of T-Mobile's service - decided against becoming T-Mobile customers due to the lack of an iPhone.

I think that the pull of the iPhone is weaker than it used to be: many people who I know would have been "iPhone or nothing" 2+ years ago are either buying Android phones now or, at least, see them as real alternatives. But the damage done to T-Mobile's numbers has already happened.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Richard_at_work]

After using the iPhone (both original and 3G), and owning an iPad, after switching to an Android handset in February of this year (HTC Desire), I can personally say with full confidence that yes, I prefer the Apple iPhone and iOS ecosystem to my Android experience.

I can't wait to switch back to the iPhone early next year, nothing about my Android experience has impressed me at all, and while my iPhone 3G did have a lot of niggles under iOS4, it was never as bad as what I am experiencing with the Desire. With my iPhone, it used to be my main mobile platform while out and about, on the train or whatever - the browsing experience on the Desire is so poor in comparison, I rarely bother.

So what am I? Am I paid by Apple? Am I a zombie? Or am I someone who has tried both sides and made an informed decision? Because my current stance is that the iPhone is much better than a high end Android handset and I won't be choosing Android again in the near future.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Karlt1]

Are you kidding? Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset?

Really? Want some Apple flavored Kool Aid?

http://www.intomobile.com/2010/11/05/t-mobile-says-lack-of-iphone-is-hurting-performance/

I guess the CEO of T-Mobile is a "fanboi"

Deutsche Telekom CEO Rene Obermann says, âoeâConsumers like T-Mobile but they also want to have the iPhone.â

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article you linked, what actually was said was this:

Deutsche Telekom CEO Rene Obermann says, "Consumers like T-Mobile but they also want to have the iPhone." Obermann adds that T-Mobile USA won't be getting the iPhone any time soon, either.

The title "T-Mobile says lack of iPhone is hurting performance" is the Mark Flores' (the article author) skewing of the topic, and not what the CEO said. And even his statement is still a far cry from "iPhone crippling T-Mobile"

Re:Fanboi rant

[kaatochacha]

Your argument is weakened by an OSX signature. It's like arguing for Catholicism simply being a better religion, and having a "The Pope ROX!!!!" sig.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

cool story bro.

I've used android and iphone and dislike them both. who fucking cares.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Richard_at_work]

Come join us on #macosx on freenode, and you will soon see that I am no fanboy.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Karlt1]

http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/t-mobile-ceo-10-percent-of-customers-leave-for-iphone-20110125/

Re:Fanboi rant

[ScrewMaster]

After using the iPhone (both original and 3G), and owning an iPad, after switching to an Android handset in February of this year (HTC Desire),

Well, okay. You have a G2 with the stock firmware, probably using the stock Android launcher. Yeah, it works, but it's not the best, I agree. However, unlike the vaunted iPhone, you'll find (with a little research) that you can completely change your experience. Try playing around with some different home apps in the market: some of them are very good and might very well change your opinion. Download something like Home Manager to help you switch among the different environments until you find one that suits you better. That's a strength of the Android ecosystem, one that Apple will never offer you, and actually reflects Android's roots as yet another Linux distribution. Apple gives you a standardized user experience that is what it is, take it or leave it, like it or not. Android gives you more in that regard.

Consider rooting your G2 and installing a third-party ROM, such as Cyanogenmod or one of the MIUI releases (probably the most iPhone-like of them, if that's your thing.) You'll get better performance on a given device, more stability, and faster updates. My G2, for example, has a stock CPU clock of 800 Mhz, but can be overclocked to 1.5 Ghz. or more. A faster clock rate was one of the reasons I rooted it in the first place, but the upgraded kernel is so fast now that I still run at 800 Mhz: that blew me away. Even more interestingly, the Cyanogenmod group makes its nightly builds available with changelogs: it's fascinating to watch how a major software project like this evolves and responds to user feedback. Things get fixed fast, stuff improves, and you get to see it happen. Something that Apple Computer and the cellular carriers won't give you.

That's another reason that I went to T-Mobile in the first place: they were very friendly towards rooters and modders, and Google for its part encouraged the development of third-party ROMs. Much of Cyanogen's work has ended up back in Google's main source tree. That allows all users (even those running stock firmware) to benefit from the open source nature of Android. What's fascinating to me is that Cyanogenmod has become the Debian of the Android world: more and more distributions are coming out that are based upon Cyanogenmod (because it's fast, rock solid and works) but are customized or oriented to specific needs or interests.

Contrast that to Apple's rather Microsoft-like closed source approach. iPhone fans like to state, with absolute certainty, that iOS (which is just a BSD Unix kernel with a GUI layer) is fundamentally more secure than Android. Well, that's not a legitimate claim: nobody but Apple knows exactly what's been done to that kernel, or what security issues exist in the Apple-created components. Android has the benefit of the many-eyes principle, and there have been a *lot* of very sharp engineers outside of Google going through the Android codebase. That's more than Apple can say.

Re:Fanboi rant

[MichaelSmith]

In GSM-only markets, like Australia and parts of Europe, where all carriers had the iPhone at the same time, Android Phone market share is only marginally better than Android Tablet market share.

No. Android phones are all over the place here in Australia. Android tablets less so.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Wovel]

So Android is better if you are willing to rebuild it yourself and spend time vetting all the applications you install. Excellent. Mjust what everyone wantsnin a phone :)

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Are you kidding? Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset?

Really? Want some Apple flavored Kool Aid?

I agree. Why is it that Apple fans have to make everything about the iPhone?

Yeah, what kind of idiotic drone makes every story about their device of choice anyway?

Considering that the handset market is owned by Android

Welcome to slashdot. You'll fit right in!

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Well, as of June this year (the last time I've seen both total iPhone and iOS numbers, as well as total Android numbers), there were more iPhones sold than Android devices total, and over twice as many iOS devices sold as Android devices.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "statistics not provided by Apple's Marketing Department". Who better to state how many devices they've sold than Apple? And since Apple sells every single iPhone and iPad that they can make, their numbers aren't the lies you make them out to be, unlike those of competitors which treat products put into the sales channels like actual sales.

The only people in need of a "white stick" are the Android nerds here on Slashdot who have been acting as though Android has outsold the iPhone for over a year and half now, even though that *might*, in reality, just *now* be true.

Re:Fanboi rant

[kinabrew]

Having owned an iPhone and having worked in an environment where I've used and configured Android devices, I can absolutely believe that an iPhone is a better device than Android phones.

From what I've seen, iOS is significantly easier to use than Android.

Re:Fanboi rant

[guspasho]

"About the only thing the iPhone did for AT&T was allow them to sell voice/data plans at the subsidized price for unsubsidized phones! "

What did the cell phone market look like before the iPhone came out? Where was Android? Nowhere. What was the big thing in 2006? Oh yeah, RAZRs. LOL

In 2006 everyone had the same selection of crappy phones that are pretty good at making calls and SMS with T9 but little else. Everyone also had two-year contracts, which made it really hard to pick up market share from other carriers. Nobody cared if some other carrier had the latest, fanciest Blackberry model, they just renewed their contract with whatever handsets their current carrier had. The iPhone changed all that. It was radically better than anything else available at the time, and the first Android handset wouldn't drop until over a year later. Millions of customers flocked to the iPhone and AT&T was the only one selling it. That's what the iPhone did for AT&T.

"More to the point, when you look at the total number of handsets sold, smartphones are a drop in the bucket."

It's more like a 40/60 split. And growing. More importantly, they cost more and have data plans attached to them.

Source: http://www.mobiletor.com/2011/09/03/nielsen-reports-40-percent-users-own-smartphone-in-the-us/#

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Your argument is weakened by an OSX signature.
It's like arguing for Catholicism simply being a better religion, and having a "The Pope ROX!!!!" sig.

So, you're saying he's paid by Apple, or a zombie? For preferring OS X and the iPhone? Even though he actually went out and bought an Android phone earlier this year?

Sounds to me more like you're saying that if someone likes Apple products, they aren't allowed to say so, otherwise they are fanboys or shills or something. What kind of logic is that?

Using your analogy, how would it not be reasonable for someone who thinks Catholicism is a better religion to show they also like the Pope? Do we discount Linux fans' opinions if they have a Tux sticker on their car? It makes no sense.

Re:Fanboi rant

[ScrewMaster]

So Android is better if you are willing to rebuild it yourself and spend time vetting all the applications you install. Excellent. Mjust what everyone wantsnin a phone :)

???

It's better for some people. It's better for me. I don't think I made the claim that it's better for all people. But at a half million units activated per day, I'd say that the stock Android (regardless of how it compares to the iPhone in sales) is something that one hell of a lot of users find perfectly acceptable. That's just reality, even if it doesn't fit into the Apple fan's view of the world.

Also, time to face a few facts. There are people (now this may be hard for you to accept, but please bear with me) who actually don't much like the Apple way. Not slamming the iPhone's GUI, it's a fine implementation, but some people want something else, something more (better is a loaded term.) While you may feel (as does The Jobs and his company) that one size does-and-should fit all ... a lot of people don't. They'd like a little bit of choice in how their portable computer system works. Android offers that, Apple doesn't.

The fact that you might have to (*gasp*) use your brain to make a complex device do what you want is not actually a detriment. It just means that people who are either too stupid to use a computer, or perceive such machines as mere appliances, may settle for the stock iPhone or Android experience. Those that want to fiddle with it, customize it, make it more truly our own, will stick with Android. Apple, in spite of it's marketing claims, is not about consumer choice: hasn't been for a long, long time.

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Well, okay. You have a G2 with the stock firmware, probably using the stock Android launcher. Yeah, it works, but it's not the best, I agree. However, unlike the vaunted iPhone, you'll find (with a little research) that you can completely change your experience. Try playing around with some different home apps in the market: some of them are very good and might very well change your opinion.

Why do you guys get so worked up over what someone else uses or prefers? Why are you telling him to fuck around with his phone in order to like it like you like it? People are different, they have different preferences.

iPhone users don't freak out because you like Android phones. We don't tell you "well, you should do this, and *THEN* you will like the iPhone better". Use what you like, and let others do the same. There's plenty of phones out there for everyone.

Re:Fanboi rant

[ScrewMaster]

So Android is better if you are willing to rebuild it yourself and spend time vetting all the applications you install. Excellent. Mjust what everyone wantsnin a phone :)

And just to clarify, downloading a replacement home app from the Android Market does not count as "rebuilding it yourself." Anyone can do that with a couple of taps, and can then have an entirely different, generally more capable, user experience. Furthermore, a number of cell phone vendors have taken it upon themselves to replace the stock Android home app with their own, with varying degrees of success. That kind of flexibility generally seems to unnerve iPhone people for some reason, but to me it's a definite plus on the Android side.

I also went into some more detail about how the phone can be improved even further, sure: sorry if you found that offensive.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

So where can we find the numbers?

Re:Fanboi rant

[modmans2ndcoming]

google crapware?

I agree there is a lot of carrier and manufacturer crap ware... but please explain how you have google crapware on an android.

Re:Fanboi rant

[PopeRatzo]

I think not having the iPhone definitely hurt T-Mobile to some extent.

Now if you were AT&T and you wanted to buy T-Mobile (The #2 buying the #4) it would be in your best interest to have T-Mobile be doing as badly as possible when you closed the deal.

Since these deals are months if not years in the planning, I wouldn't be surprised to find that AT&T played some sub rosa role in T-Mobile's problems, And I wouldn't be surprised to find that Apple was involved too. When you've got a war chest as big as Apple's you can do a lot of mischief, and they've been building that war chest for more than a decade. If you own Apple stock as I do, you know very well that instead of doing what is expected of a corporation in that position, which is to pay a dividend, Apple's been stockpiling that cash specifically to fund anti-competitive behavior, like buying competition and involving yourself in other corporations' deals that limit competition.

And make no mistake, AT&T buying T-Mobile is probably one of the most anti-competitive deals ever to take place. What's funny is that AT&T was so sure they had the necessary political bribes in place that they promised Deutsche Telekom (the owner of T-Mobile) a $3 billion penalty if the deal didn't go through. In a rational world, the stockholders would be demanding the entire AT&T board immediately step down for something so stupid, because there was absolutely no reason to offer such a penalty? If you were desperate to lock in the sale, don't you think maybe $1 billion would have been enough? And why would you make a promise that was based on the belief that the Justice Department's Anti-Trust Division would not do its job? Even if they've not done their job in the past, you had to figure that with the current economic climate that sooner or later the DOJ was going to wake up.

When the #2 company in a sector buys the #4 company in a sector, the only certainty is that there are going to be a LOT of people laid off and prices are going to go up for everyone. Even if there had been other mega mergers, betting $3 billion on one so clearly deleterious to the economy and jobs is really stupid, bordering on criminal, because they were betting shareholders' money.

Re:Fanboi rant

[modmans2ndcoming]

that number is incorrect.... what you probably saw was that the iPhone accounts for 70% of the profits of the smart phone market....that is different than volume of handsets sold.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Global figures:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-smartphones-research-idUSTRE7704MS20110801

US figures:
http://phandroid.com/2011/08/31/android-tops-comscores-us-market-share-chart/

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

No, before June, Apple had already sold over 100 million iPhones. In June, Android did or was just about to ship on its 100 millionth device. Also, in or around June, Apple sold it's 200 millionth iOS device. It just so happened that Apple's reports (they tend to report round numbers like those) came out in a timeframe comparable to a report about the 100 millionth Android device.

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Online. Search for "100 millionth iPhone", "100 millionth Android", and "200 millionth iOS". It just so happened that all these numbers came up within months of each other making for a fairly reasonable comparison.

Re:Fanboi rant

[kwark]

No, with (some) Android phones you can replace the experience the manufacturer/telco chose for you. I like the plain Android experience instead of the Sense crap that came with my Desire Z. The Desire Z was the only reasonable unlocked phone with a keyboard at that the time (alternative is the T-Mobile G2, same hardware other (branded) ROM). So I put Cyanogen on it and had an almost perfect upgrade from the G1 (which has a better keyboard (5 lines instead of only 4)). The other people I know with other HTC Desire phones simply remained with the standard Sense interface. You CAN do whatever you like.

Re:Fanboi rant

[modmans2ndcoming]

huh? who is custom building anything? I follow the rooting instructions, then I use a special recovery program to flash the new ROM on my phone... no building of the system... and then I just play with the free apps in the market.

Re:Fanboi rant

[ScrewMaster]

Why do you guys get so worked up over what someone else uses or prefers? Why are you telling him to fuck around with his phone in order to like it like you like it? People are different, they have different preferences.

*choke* *gasp* *pant*

Did you actually read my posts? Seriously? I'm sorry, but your comment is absolutely hilarious given that I was not telling him to make his phone like mine, I was telling him that he could, with very little effort, make it closer to what he would like, to make it better suit his own preferences. Android allows you to do that, Apple does not. There's a dozen or so completely different user interfaces available for Android, so odds are he can find one that will better suit him. Some are designed to be iPhone-like, even. Heck, you can roll your own home app replacement if you can hack Android development, In any event, I was simply trying to help out a person who already owns an Android device make better use of his equipment. Didn't think that was too much to ask ... sorry if that offended your sensibilities.

Okay, I have to go wipe off the coffee that just ran out of my nose. Thank you for that.

Re:Fanboi rant

[modmans2ndcoming]

at least in the US your numbers are trash:

http://gigaom.com/2010/08/02/android-sales-overtake-iphone-in-the-u-s/

notice the date.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you need to read the article, the headline does not match what was actually said.

T-Mobile CEO Phillip Humm, ten percent of the two percent who leave T-Mobile every month are jumping ship to get their hands on a shiny new iPhone.

That's 0.2% leaving T-Mobile to get an iPhone. (10% of the 2% who leave). Not exactly a massive shift.

Re:Fanboi rant

[jonwil]

Here in Australia, I see a fairly even mix of Android vs Apple vs Nokia vs whatever.

In my own family there is me who owns a Nokia N900 plus others who own 2 x HTC Desire, an old iPhone 3G or so and a new iPhone 4.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same phone that you do and my feelings are totally opposite. When I'm forced to use an iPhone, I dispise it. Have you installed Dolphin and Swype on your phone? Don't forget that in the Android world you're not locked into the default choices. When I browse, I get autoflow of text to the screen and optional Flash support. I really miss that on any Apple device. I also find that multi-tasking under Android works much better than on the iPhone.

I do have some complaints. The 512Mb of internal storage on the Desire is completely inadequate--especially since many Apps can't be installed to the SD card. So I can't install lots of Apps that I'd really like to--any new Apps, in fact. So my next phone will have lots more internal storage. On the other hand, being able to plug directly into the USB port of any PC and copy files back and forth is great. And not having to use iTunes EVER is wonderful. And the screen is just enough bigger than an iPhone so that I prefer it. (the iPhone's is too small, though it is nice and sharp).

Anyway, choose whatever you like, but don't assume that others share your opinion. I don't.

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Yes, I've read your posts. And I've read this one, where you seem to think other people have the same preferences that you do. What's so hard to accept about someone preferring Apple products? You seem to think his problem is that he just didn't do enough to make Android fit his liking, that it's really *his* fault somehow, and that Android is objectively better than iOS.

You go around calling people "fanbois" for having a different opinion than you. What more can I say? You're making my case for me. Sorry about the coffee, maybe you should switch to decaf...

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

at least in the US your numbers are trash:

http://gigaom.com/2010/08/02/android-sales-overtake-iphone-in-the-u-s/

notice the date.

Um, yes, my worldwide sales numbers are for the world, not the US. I'm not sure exactly what you think that means. Care to elaborate?

Re:Fanboi rant

[dimeglio]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have an iPhone because it works great and was at the time much better than the Android phone I tried (a Sony Xperia - the soft keyboard was unusable). I chose the iPhone because it was the better choice for me. I now realize there's a lot of Apple haters who insist we're sheep, zombies, and cult members. No doubt there are some hard core fans but the same can be said of any other product of company. If you're happy with your Android then great. Personally, when I feel like it's time to change, I'll go around once again and see if I should go with WP7, Android or whatever else works best for me. Great if T-mobile sells that unit (although I'm not in the USA, little chance I'll help them out).

Re:Fanboi rant

[mikkelm]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that availability of the hardware necessary produce and effectively market the newer generations of smartphones coincided with the launch of the original iPhone, and that it's Apple that's responsible for the technological evolution of mobile phones because they were amongst the first to market devices that take advantage of it?

Please.

Re:Fanboi rant

[cthulhu11]

Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset? I'm neither, but my iPhone "just works". Unlike any other phone I've had, my calendar and contacts sync to it perfectly, as do music, videos, and apps for my 2.8 year old son to enjoy.

Re:Fanboi rant

[cthulhu11]

I had a Voicestream^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HT-Mobile phone once, a Nokia. PITA to use, coverage sucked massively, and calls were routinely dropped. My perception of them since has been that they pile the minutes on their plans to make up for the fact that one can't actually use them.

Re:Fanboi rant

[KDR_11k]

I guess the two year contracts must be a thing in your country because in mine we have a ton of pre-paid options and most people who don't phone a lot have pre-paid cards.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Lemmy Caution]

Definitely not true now. I would recommend T-Mobile to anyone from almost any perspective. But as an analysis of the disadvantages facing it historically, I think the article is generally correct.

Re:Fanboi rant

[markkezner]

iPhone users don't freak out because you like Android phones

Can you really stand by that generalization? You can find examples of both Android and iPhone users doing this all over the web. Sure, some people will be fine, but others will definitely act like assholes.

Re:Fanboi rant

[kwark]

So show us your numbers, the Reuters links below mentions a 50% Android vs. 19% Iphone on the global smartphone market. I guess you are comparing IOS devices to Android devices, which is not the scope of this article, so while your numbers may be true, if you ever tell us which, they might be irrelevant.

Re:Fanboi rant

[narcc]

Yes, I've read your posts. And I've read this one

See, I don't believe for a minute that you actually read anyone's posts. Had you taken the time to read Richard_at_work's first post, you'd know that he is currently using an Android phone and is dissatisfied with the UI.

ScrewMaster offered pretty good advice, as far as I can see; suggesting that he change the UI to something different or more Apple like, if he prefers.

Would you rather Richard_at_work continue to suffer with a poor user experience until he upgrades his phone when he could potentially improve his experience significantly with a few simple clicks?

Honestly, I have no idea where you got this bizarre idea that ScrewMaster thinks other people share the same preferences he does. If anything, his posts make it clear that he understands that different people have different preferences, even going so far as to offer Richard_at_work a few options that may better suit his stated tastes!

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Considering that the handset market is owned by Android
>Welcome to slashdot. You'll fit right in!

Are you suggesting the mobile handset market isn't ruled by Android devices?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/080111-canalys.html begs to differ.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad the parent is moderated to +4 insightful (so far) when the linked article doesn't say what it claimed (despite it's title) and is refuted in the first comment.

Please read the linked articles before moderating.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you need to read the article, the headline does not match what was actually said.

T-Mobile CEO Phillip Humm, ten percent of the two percent who leave T-Mobile every month are jumping ship to get their hands on a shiny new iPhone.

That's 0.2% leaving T-Mobile to get an iPhone. (10% of the 2% who leave). Not exactly a massive shift.

That's 0.2% each month in January 2011 - over 3 years after the iPhone came out.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts, but the iPhone on AT&T is and has always been subsidized given a two-year contract. How much was an unsubsidized iPhone versus an unsubsidized Nexus One?

You're giving us some Android fanboism to counter the Apple fanbois, but you sound even less informed than they are. Enjoy your Android phone, but not everybody sees the need to fiddle with their phone's operating system.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

If it applied to the entire 3 year period (which it does not), that would be 3.6% total. Still not crippling, still nowhere close to the 10% mentioned in the article title and still an exaggeration.

Every service has customers leave every month and others who start service. This is just about those who leave, so it's not like their customer base went down (an exaggerated) 3.6% because of the iPhone.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to the censored Crapple forums where you belong, then. Your Uncle Steve says you aren't allowed to come here and play with the big boys, because their soldering irons and their freedom might scare you.

Mactard.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

People left T Mobile (I'm still with them) knowing that by renewing their contract they would be stuck with AT&T's lousy service. I'm still with T Mobile because I would have to buy out my contract to leave but I certainly won't renew it to be with AT&T

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

I did show you the numbers (again, and now with dates):

100 millionth iPhone sold (March, 2011)
100 millionth Android device sold (May, 2011)
200 millionth iOS device sold (June, 2011)

Worldwide, obviously.

You are talking about market share in terms of units presently being sold, which is a completely different measure. And I *am* comparing both devices total, and iPhones specifically. On the Android side of things, it's devices total, but clearly Android sells ~99% on phones, so it's not exactly worth breaking out (and the numbers aren't readily available anyway).

iOS is kicking Android's ass, plan and simple, and iPhone is the most popular handset out there. Not sure why these are so difficult for some here to grasp.

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Honestly, I have no idea where you got this bizarre idea that ScrewMaster thinks other people share the same preferences he does. If anything, his posts make it clear that he understands that different people have different preferences, even going so far as to offer Richard_at_work a few options that may better suit his stated tastes!

Exactly! He thinks that it's not *Android* that's at fault here, but Richard_at_work for not trying hard enough. He, like so many here (and so few in the real world) get their panties in a bunch any time someone likes some other product. Who fucking cares? Richard doesn't like Android. A well-adjusted person would be cool with that. ScrewMaster likes Android. Good for him!

There are plenty of phones for everyone, but somehow Slashdot Android users seem to think that preferring an iPhone implies a failure on the part of the user. It's really quite sad.

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

iPhone users don't freak out because you like Android phones

Can you really stand by that generalization? You can find examples of both Android and iPhone users doing this all over the web. Sure, some people will be fine, but others will definitely act like assholes.

Yes, you can find examples of both, but here on Slashdot, posters and moderators ("you guys", in my post) tend to be far more emotionally involved in the choices others make than the so-called (but apparently elusive) "fanboy" they are ranting against.

There will always be the occasional troll or *actual* "fanboy", but it's extremely dishonest to claim that Slashdot doesn't have a strong opinionated bias against Apple and for Android (a bias not shared by the real world), and that actual "fanboys" (as opposed to those who get called "fanboy") are quite rare in terms of Apple fanboys, but Android fanboys (if one were to want to use that term) abound.

Re:Fanboi rant

[narcc]

He thinks that it's not *Android* that's at fault here, but Richard_at_work for not trying hard enough.

If you recall, ScrewMaster acknowledged that the stock android UI wasn't all that great, saying "You have a G2 with the stock firmware, probably using the stock Android launcher. Yeah, it works, but it's not the best, I agree."

Call me crazy, but that seems to me like he's placing the blame squarely on Android there.

Now, knowing that Richard_at_work was dissatisfied, and wasn't planning to upgrade his phone for some time, he offered him a way to improve his experience.

Sure, he took the opportunity to promote some of the features of Android over iOS, but you can hardly fault him for that, people promote what they like. Of course, the core of his post was to share a few hints that may make Richard_at_work's experience better prior to his planned iOS upgrade.

Still, I don't see how ScrewMaster was placing any blame on Richard_at_work for his poor experience. His posts, to me, seemed more informative than anything else. If I were in a similar position, and didn't know about the feature at the heart of this discussion, I'd be thrilled at the chance to improve my experience while I waited to upgrade.

Re:Fanboi rant

[node 3]

Call me crazy, but that seems to me like he's placing the blame squarely on Android there.

Ok, you're crazy.

He wasn't blaming Android, he was blaming Richard for using a stock Android setup. You're being incredibly dishonest to pretend like ScrewMaster was blaming Android, especially when he said, "I was telling him that he could, with very little effort, make it closer to what he would like, to make it better suit his own preferences. Android allows you to do that, Apple does not."

In other words, Richard just needs to put in a little more effort, and Android allows that while Apple, somehow, does not, which is strange given that Richard seems to prefer iOS, so it's hard to see how Android could allow him to make the phone closer to iOS, but Apple cannot.

It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Mistaking one's own opinions for universal truth, then applying reason incorrectly as a result.

Still, I don't see how ScrewMaster was placing any blame on Richard_at_work for his poor experience. His posts, to me, seemed more informative than anything else. If I were in a similar position, and didn't know about the feature at the heart of this discussion, I'd be thrilled at the chance to improve my experience while I waited to upgrade.

Sure, if you see the world through Android-colored glasses, that's how it would look to you.

Richard gave his opinion, he never asked for help. ScrewMaster, upon seeing a member of the flock planning to leave, decided to intervene all on his own. And placed the blame on Richard, not Android.

People have different tastes. You guys really need to learn to accept that. If you were capable of accepting that someone would actually prefer iOS to Android, you might be able to understand that telling people they should just stick with the thing they don't prefer is rather absurd.

Re:Fanboi rant

[narcc]

He wasn't blaming Android, he was blaming Richard for using a stock Android setup.

This is a matter of interpretation. I don't see the blame being placed on Richard here, only an acknowledgement that the stock android setup is wretched; which seems to place the blame squarely on Android.

We also interpret this differently "I was telling him that he could, with very little effort, make it closer to what he would like"

Keep in mind that Richard was NOT planning to upgrade until next year. He was, for all practical purposes, stuck with a phone he didn't like.

From that perspective, it seems to me that ScrewMaster was both agreeing with Richard the the UI was horrid and offering him useful advice on how it can be made better (from Richards perspective) or more like iOS. The intent, from what I can see, was to allow Richard to enjoy a more iOS-like experience until he could upgrade early next year.

Now, I have absolutely no doubt that ScrewMaster was hoping that Richard would find this feature compelling enough to adopt Android as his platform of choice. Though, from my perspective, this doesn't seem to be primary intent of his post.

Sure, if you see the world through Android-colored glasses, that's how it would look to you.

If my personal preferences make a difference to you, I don't care for Android. Oddly enough, for many of the same reasons that I don't care for iOS. I don't find either platform to be better suited to my needs than my Blackberry.

In other words, Richard just needs to put in a little more effort, and Android allows that while Apple, somehow, does not, which is strange given that Richard seems to prefer iOS, so it's hard to see how Android could allow him to make the phone closer to iOS, but Apple cannot.

This doesn't make much sense to me. The feature ScrewMaster was promoting here was the ability to radically change the UI. It's true (as far as I know) that Android allows this while iOS does not. Obviously the closest thing to iOS is iOS -- I don't think that was the point. Other than promoting his preferred platform via this feature, it IS something someone coming from iOS may not know about.

Again, it's important to keep in mind that Richard is stuck with his Android phone until next year. The option to make his phone work better for him seems like useful advice. That he may not have known about the ability to radically change the UI is perfectly reasonable. We can't expect everyone to know about every feature or capability of their mobile operating system.

People have different tastes. You guys really need to learn to accept that.

I think ScrewMaster made it clear that he understands that people have different tastes. Again, he offered a way for Richard to make his phone conform more to his preferences (more like iOS). Handy, as poor Richard is stuck with a phone that he doesn't like until next year, and may hate using it over the next few months much less if he made the UI more iOS like. He is planning, after all, to switch back to iOS next year.

If you were capable of accepting that someone would actually prefer iOS to Android, you might be able to understand that telling people they should just stick with the thing they don't prefer is rather absurd.

Again, Richard is stuck with Android until next year when he upgrades. ScrewMaster acknowledged Richard's preference for iOS and suggested a way to make his experience more iOS like in the mean time. I don't think that's unreasonable. I think it's rather useful advice, even if it was unsolicited. After all, unsolicited advice (both good and bad) is ridiculously common on Slashdot.

The fact that ScrewMaster took the opportunity to additionally extol the virtues he sees in his preferred platform isn't really relevant, from what I can see. I see fans of all platforms do this all the time. You're a well

Re:Fanboi rant

[interkin3tic]

Don't see what that has to do with anything. As agent K said: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals..." The merits of the iphone vs android are not the issue. TFA points out t-mobile is losing the high value customers because it's not offering the iphone. You can tell as many of those customers as you want that the iphone is nothing special, but in my experience, it's near impossible to convince one non-technophile not to get an iphone, let alone enough to save t-mobile.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Anonymous Coward]

100 millionth iPhone sold (March, 2011)
100 millionth Android device sold (May, 2011)

Android is more than a year younger than iPhone, yet there is only a 2 months gap between both selling 100 million devices. Not exactly iPhone kicking Android's ass, is it? It is called Android catching up. Android took about a year less than iPhone to sell the same number.

Re:Fanboi rant

[Coren22]

He probably considers the Google Marketplace as crapware. Um...or maybe navigation? Maps?

Not really sure...now, carrier, I wholeheartedly agree..but this is more because you tend to buy Android from the carrier in the US at least.

My DroidX from Verizon:

3G Mobile Hotspot (fee to use)
Amazon Kindle
Amazon MP3
Apps (Verizon app store)
Backup Assistant (backs up contacts to the network...actually pretty useful)
Blockbuster (with their move to non unlimited internet, this app strikes me as hilarious)
City ID (I don't recognize this, but I may have loaded it)
Emergency Alerts (not even sure what that does...)
Madden NFL 11 (eww...)
Social Networking (probably Moto, not VZ)
VCast Media Manager (so annoying...opens a web page on your computer when hooked through USB)
VZ Navigator (duplication of function? why would I pay to use this when it comes with Google Navigation?)

Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone has 5% of the mobile market. T-Mobile is not failing because they don't have a slice of that 5%. That did not cripple them in any way. Lack of investment in coverage area hurt them, but not having the iPhone is insignificant next to that.

It sucks they're declining, because they were the only company that you could ever pay off a subsidized phone - at the end of your 2 year contract, your rate went down unless you got a new phone. It should be illegal to keep charging you for the phone once it's paid off, but that's what all the other companies do.

Re:Insane premise

[Belial6]

What hurt them the most was the announcement that AT&T was going to acquire them.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only 5%, but it's the top 5%. Just like how the Mac still only has 5% but is eating everyone else alive profitwise.

Re:Insane premise

[ScrewMaster]

What hurt them the most was the announcement that AT&T was going to acquire them.

Now that is probably true. And you know what? For all we know, that was the whole idea all long.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

That matters to the manufacturer, but why does it matter to the network? Does Comcast care what kinds of computer their cable internet subscribers use?

Re:Insane premise

[JorDan Clock]

If Comcast sold the computers using their cable internet, they would sure as hell care if the highest profile computer wasn't available on their cable internet.

Re:Insane premise

[Kenja]

I know thats why I didn't switch over to them.

Re:Insane premise

[trout007]

I hardly use my cell phone. Tmobile has the best plan I could find. $100 prepaid for 1000 minutes that are good for 1 year. And if you don't use up those minutes in a year they roll to the next year if you buy another $100.

Re:Insane premise

[rabtech]

Don't forget that one customer is not equivalent to another. The iPhone carries with it a premium data plan, resulting in higher revenue for the network operator.

Both T-Mobile and Sprint have admitted publicly (via their CEO's statements) that they are losing these high-value *profitable* customers due to the iPhone. There is little to dispute here. If their CEO admits that publicly I'd wager he/she is far better informed than any slashdot commenters.

I'd also point out that iPhone customers buy more apps and the iPad is literally 90%+ of the tablet market right now. The iOS platforms are also far more standardized than Android so hardware support is easier *and* Apple handles a lot more of the billing aspect so no need to handle refunds or deal with installation headaches (or store fragmentation). So as a developer the choice is easy: develop for iOS first, then port to other platforms if you get around to it. That is the same self-reinforcing cycle we saw leading Windows to market dominance (then illegal activity to leverage that into a monopoly).

Apple is leveraging their domination of component markets (like flash) and vast cash hordes to buy manufacturing capacity, supply guarantees, etc. Whether that will turn into a monopoly or not is TBD but it certainly means you'd have a difficult time competing with them as everyone who tried to build a tablet found out the hard way.

On a personal note, I left Sprint after being a customer for almost 10 years to get an iPhone, and I'm one of those high-dollar plan customers with multiple lines. I'd rather be a Sprint customer and I hope they get the iPhone 5.... but as long as they don't, I will be forced to stick with ATT or Verizon.

A second personal note: I hope Android keeps improving and moving forward because it will keep Apple honest and innovating. And to those who love their Android devices, great. I'm glad you are happy and feel free to keep on trucking... but I love my iOS devices and I love not having to install a virus scanner on my phone and I'm willing to give up some control to have that one less hassle.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

5% of the whole mobile market, but it's likely a much larger percent of the high-margin market. Margin that's then goes around to fuel growth.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

It sucks they're declining, because they were the only company that you could ever pay off a subsidized phone - at the end of your 2 year contract, your rate went down unless you got a new phone.

No, it doesn't. I had T-Mobile for 7 years and the rate never went down even when I was no longer under contract.

Re:Insane premise

[ScrewMaster]

and I love not having to install a virus scanner on my phone

What? If you were talking about Windows vs. Mac I might believe you. But closed-source operating systems are not inherently more secure than open source OSes ... usually quite the opposite. Your feeling of security is probably misplaced.

Re:Insane premise

[RobertLTux]

maybe its one of those things you have to ASK for?? its rumoured that you can get the procedure to un-carrier lock a phone after you have had it for a while but thats also something that you have to call in (and get the right tech) for

or maybe t-mobile had that as a policy in certain markets or you didn't have them on the right dates??

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we'll see about that. If the merger doesn't go through, T-Mo's getting $6 billion.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

It's on their website right now. If you buy a phone outright you get a lower rate from the beginning. If you subsidize the phone, the rate lowers at the end of the contract when the phone is paid off.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be happy with a company that kept the rates the same; AT&T would INCREASE your rate as you were no longer under a contract which foreced you to stay with them. So getting a new phone would save you money.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

If this deal somehow still manages to go through, that's why I'd leave them once my contract is up. If I were up for renewal right now I'd be leaving too.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

I started looking into any other mobile carrier when I first heard that news.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't the rate plans on AT&T the same whether you buy a subsidized phone or unsubsidized phone? In that case, the exchange for getting a subsidized phone is not lower rates but lock-in for 2 years, so the rates shouldn't really drop after the payoff period.

Re:Insane premise

[lanner]

I don't get the argument about lack of coverage. I live in Arizona and there are significant parts of this state that are rural. I get coverage everywhere that I think is reasonable; cities, highways, and dinky little towns, like Youngtown AZ. I do a lot of hiking and camping.

I've heard this over and over from people who are on Verizon or AT&T, but I've had AT&T before and can't say that their network coverage was any better.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. I have a dumbphone in dire need of replacement since last year. I might have posted last summer that I'd wait 12 to 18 months before switching to Android to enjoy a nice $200 price drop on a full-priced one. Though that never happened, it's time to benefit from one as a tech people look up to, even if full price STILL means $500 for any OLD 2.3 phones.

Anyway, the buyout news came out and my tally went like this:
AT&T? I'm on it on the dumbphone... hear the network sucks for iPhones
Sprint? No GSM support; 4G but might be expensive, and their charging you $5/month to USE your phone's pictures because they WERE the first to add cameras to DUMBPHONES always put a faith block.
Verizon? Nickel-dimers who charge for location data. Also lack GSM, so I can't take my 50-contact SIM card and just drop it on the new phone, like when my last dumphone died and I needed ALL my data to seamlessly follow me to the cheap phone I use today.
T-Mobile? AT&T is buying them, so why bother with plans that will change and service that will be shared with iHogs?

Re:Insane premise

[aztracker1]

I switched away because of it... Announcement came a couple weeks before my contract was up...

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

they were the only company that you could ever pay off a subsidized phone - at the end of your 2 year contract, your rate went down unless you got a new phone

Do they still offer this? I'm well beyond my contract that included a subsidized phone, but continue to pay the same monthly rate.

Re:Insane premise

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone has 5% of the mobile market.

Close, but no cigar. Apple has 5.6% market share worldwide in the overall mobile market, sure. But this is about T-Mobile USA, so how many phones are sold in Africa doesn't matter. In the US the iPhone had 9.5% last quarter (all mobile phones) - and the new iPhone 5 may already kick up the numbers this quarter.

What?

[tycoex]

Sprint seems to be doing fine. And are we already forgetting that Verizon just recently picked up the iPhone?

As far as I know Verizon was still more popular than AT&T even before they had the iPhone.

Re:What?

[alen]

Sprint is reporting a loss every quarter

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sprint is not really doing fine... their stock is down 40% in the last 3 months, they are losing over $3 billion per quarter.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

And ATT wasnt 2nd place before the iPhone.
Sprint had a decently reviewed device in the EVO. And good data plans.
Verizon had good coverage and great marketing on the Droid BRAND. And just when the droids were losing traction, they got the iPhone.

T-mobile has no flashship phone worth a darn. mytouch is a disaster.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Might you have a link to support your statements?

Re:What?

[Wovel]

Your definitionof fine is different then the rest of the world..

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

and sprints coverage is nowhere near Verizon

Re:What?

[narcc]

T-mobile has no flashship phone worth a darn.

Well, T-Mobile was sold-out of the BlackBerry Bold 9900 in less than 24 hours. It's a flagship phone, and pretty darn amazing.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T was the largest until Verizon bought Alltel.

Yeah, that's why Verizon is so small.

[the_humeister]

That's why Verizon was such a niche cell provider prior to them getting the iPhone.

Re:Yeah, that's why Verizon is so small.

[alen]

Verizon was losing customers before the iphone

Re:Yeah, that's why Verizon is so small.

[jimpop]

Link?

Re:Yeah, that's why Verizon is so small.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they still held the #1 position and were never in any danger of losing it.

Re:Yeah, that's why Verizon is so small.

[alen]

Only with alltel purchase. ATT was number one until that

Re:Yeah, that's why Verizon is so small.

[alen]

Duh, the financial statements on their website. Their churn went up until they got the iPhone. Even if most of their customers stay android they will make bank due to lower customer acquisition costs

Re:Yeah, that's why Verizon is so small.

[jimpop]

Duh, figures on Wikipedia seem to suggest otherwise:

92.1m(June 2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_the_Americas&diff=379881459&oldid=379828763#United_States

93.2m (September 2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_the_Americas&diff=405757817&oldid=404703849#United_States

Uh, data please?

[Rich0]

I don't see any data presented in the article. The claim is made that smartphone users are leaving in droves. So, where is the chart of smartphone market share per carrier?

I switched TO T-mobile to use a smartphone, since neither Verizon nor ATT had decent options (2.5 years ago). If you want an iPhone then you're going to ditch T-Mobile, but the last time I checked most smartphone users don't use iPhones.

And the last time I checked I had 4G service just about everywhere I actually go with T-Mobile, which includes a moderate amount of travel. If you like to go fishing in the mountains then you'll do better with a different carrier, but if you actually spend your time where the population density is greater than 3/km^2 you'll almost certainly have 2G with T-Mobile, and most likely you'll have 4G as well.

Re:Uh, data please?

[Belial6]

I did a 6 week road trip last summer, I didn't take the time off work. I sat in the back of the rented minivan working while my wife drove. Except for the national parks and Wyoming, I had a good 3G signal on my Nexus One almost the entire way. It really was amazing just how good the cell coverage was.

Re:Uh, data please?

[laffer1]

Not only that, but I just heard a piece on NPR about how smart phones are a small percentage of total users in the US. Coverage area is an issue, and I don't know why AT&T said they were buying T-mobile for more coverage. It doesn't make sense.

In my office, I'm one o the few people with a smartphone of any kind. I've seen two androids and i have an iphone. I'm sure the typical age of customer matters too. I know a lot of 40+ people with t-mobile. They don't attract texting and data people who pay a lot fo r plans. Of course at&t can't even provide coverage for them.

Re:Uh, data please?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile does not have 4G.

Re:Uh, data please?

[Rich0]

Ok, nobody has 4G (to my knowledge), but T-Mobile does have the 3G+ kinds of capabilities that everybody is calling 4G. :)

Re:Uh, data please?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see plenty around here with Tmobile and an iPhone. You're stuck on Edge but that's what many choose to do with an unlocked iPhone.

Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[damn_registrars]

Either AT&T buys them, or they go under. Apparently Sprint realized they do better if T-Mobile goes under, as they can pick off some of the customers that way. Sprint had no interest in converting T-Mobile's terrible network to their own terrible cellular standard. T-Mobile was a sinking ship by their own incompetence and horrible network prior to now, and prior to the iPhone.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

The CDMA is not the bad part (or else verizon would be sucking wind). Sprint just has shit for coverage...

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Belial6]

T-Mobile does not have terrible cellular. That is a myth that anyone on T-Mobile can verify.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Macrat]

T-Mobile does not have terrible cellular. That is a myth that anyone on T-Mobile can verify.

Especially anyone who has carried both AT&T and T-Mobiles phones around. AT&T has the terrible network coverage.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[ScrewMaster]

T-Mobile does not have terrible cellular. That is a myth that anyone on T-Mobile can verify.

I agree ... I've been on them for about three years now, and where I live I've had no problems whatsoever. I've had AT&T, U.S. Cellular and Sprint, and I've had the best coverage on T-Mobile. Period. And actually manage to pull in about 10 mbits/sec on my data channel, so I'm a happy camper. And the GP's talk of "incompetence"? Where did he get that from? I experienced an incredible degree of incompetence dealing with AT&T and Sprint: billing error after billing error to the point that I switched to T-Mobile. If nothing else, the Germans know how to run an accounting system.

On top of that, for the $25 I'm spending each month on 3G/4G, I get unlimited data and voice roaming. So I can go anywhere in the U.S. and not worry about coverage. Drove cross-country last year through a dozen states, and had data, voice, tethering and Google Nav all the way, and I lost track of how many different networks I went through.

AT&T and Verizon can take their pretty little floating colored maps and stick them where the Sun don't shine. This merger is certainly not in my best interests, I'll tell you that. All this talk about "savings" and "scaleability" and "service" is a smoke screen. AT&T doesn't do anything like this to benefit the consumer. They do it to benefit AT&T, and that letter that got accidentally posted to the FCC's Web site last month made that pretty damn clear. AT&T can go to hell in a handbasket so far as I'm concerned.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Atomic Fro]

T-Mobile is way better than Verizon in my area of western Washington State. I will also say most of the T-Mobile customers I know have been dreading the AT&T buy out, and unfortunately Sprint seems to be the only candidate. All the upper middle class non-technical folks we know have iPhones on AT&T and they love the phone, hate the service. They were all very jealous of my unlocked N97 on t-mobile, and the N97 is a pretty shoddily built Symbian phone. Other folks who went Verizon hate the service and rarely have reception at home.

The bait and switch the major carries pulled hurt t-mobile in the beginning and the stupid contracts kept people from moving to a carrier with better service. Then when the announcement that AT&T was going to buy t-mobile which was when a lot of the contracts were running out from when the smartphone fad really took off kept people from switching. The way the American cellular phone industry works is what is killing T-Mobile.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[damn_registrars]

I'm on T-Mobile and where I live they are hands down the worst network for cell. I can't drive from home to work without passing through at least one dead spot - and those dead spots are marked as "1-2 bars" on their map. And no, it isn't my phone's fault, I've seen the same dead spots with 4 different phones of my own, as well as 3 different phones belonging to my wife.

There is even a T-Mobile dead spot at my work, which is a spot that no other network has a problem with.

And that is to say nothing of the transient T-Mobile dead spot in my living room.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[guspasho]

Is T-mobile actually under any threat of going under, or did you just make that up? This is the first time I've ever heard about it, and I've paid close attention to the merger attempt. I've read statements from both companies and neither ever mentioned any risk of failure.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[tsotha]

Sure, if you can get ahold of them.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[kaatochacha]

And, at my job, there is a five star signal, where AT&T and Verizon fade out in various areas. It's just luck of the draw.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[todrules]

Sounds like he may have worked for T-Mobile, like I have. The incompetence at the VP level and above is amazing. I was actually hoping for the merger to go through so we could get rid of the dead weight in the Marketing and Product Development departments.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Y-Crate]

I'm on T-Mobile and where I live they are hands down the worst network for cell. I can't drive from home to work without passing through at least one dead spot - and those dead spots are marked as "1-2 bars" on their map.

- Drive
- Use phone

Pick only one.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[zippthorne]

Sprint's standard is so shitty that only all of the other networks have switched to a version of it...

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

*THIS*
A) we switched to T-Mobile. We're happy
B) Please you switch and support competition to AT&T.
C) Stop paying AT&T

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[bsa3]

Coverage in the US: Verizon > Sprint >>> AT&T > T-Mobile — US Cellular is up there in some areas of the country (e.g. WA, OR). Compared to VZW, Sprint may not be so hot, but it has somewhat more coverage than AT&T.

Also, by "somewhat more coverage" I'm taking AT&T's zoomed-out coverage map as gospel. In particular, I'm counting GSM as if it's real coverage. Considering UMTS only, which makes sense because a) GPRS blows goats and b) their marketing heavily emphasizes activities that require UMTS or HSPA, AT&T's coverage wouldn't suffice as a dancer's outfit in a titty bar.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[bsa3]

In eastern Washington, on the other hand, T-Mobile's coverage is majorly lacking. Tiny specks of UMTS around downtown Ellensburg and Yakima, maybe a little more in the Tri-Cities and Spokane; everything else is 2G or (more likely) hope-you-brought-a-US-Cellular-handset.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[damn_registrars]

Is T-mobile actually under any threat of going under, or did you just make that up?

The international parent company - Deutsche Telekom - has been distancing themselves from the US T-Mobile and looking to sell them off for some time. There has been no mention of them spinning them off outright, which suggests they need money from someone else to stay afloat as a company independent of the rest of T-Mobile.

In other words, I did not make that up. If you hadn't heard the news of this before, I can't explain why you would not have heard it. This was known well before AT&T submitted their first bid; indeed at one point there was speculation that Sprint would buy them out instead.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone is going to have their own good/bad experiences.

I left t-mobile 8 years ago because I moved to Dallas. The house I rented was a dead zone. I called and complained about it, and there response was go outside. How freaking retarded is that? Ya every time I'm going to make a business call, I'm gonna go outside. And this was in Dallas! One of the largest cities in the US.

Of course they charged me $300 termination fee on top of that. I'd never go back to them. EVER. I've been on Verizon since and have never had no service.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

T-Mobile does not have terrible cellular. That is a myth that anyone on T-Mobile can verify.

Alright, T-Mobile customer here. I switched to T-Mobile because I wanted a smartphone and wasn't willing to pay what Verizon wanted.

In Boston, T-Mobile's coverage is great, I have no complaints. However I go back home to upstate NY a lot and T-Mobile sucks all along the Mass Pike in western Mass all while my girlfriend's Verizon phone has a great signal. Then once we get to her family's home, I have no signal while all their Verizon phones are fine.

I also go up to New Hampshire a lot for vacation, and T-Mobile is horrible up there as well. Usually I can roam on some network called Unicel or something, but I dare not use any data or be charged up the ass. The whole while all the Verizon people are fine, and my brother's iPhone on AT&T also has fine service.

It is absolutely true that T-Mobile's service in the city is fine, but leave it and it sucks.

Re:Either way, its the end of T-Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I disagree. I (and numerous others) can provide anecdotal evidence of why Verizon or AT&T offers better service than T-Mobile. None of that will get us anywhere. Ultimately, T-Mobile's downfall is the result of many factors, and the iPhone and service quality are probably in there somewhere.

insane government

[roman_mir]

Blocking an American company from buying out American assets back from a German company. Blocking merger, that would produce economies of scale. Actually a pro-liberal administration going against unions (as AT&T has a union and T-mobile does not, so union would automatically get more members). If the deal falls through AT&T will be on a hook for about 7 Billion USD in penalties. Great idea for American government to do that to American investors (how many mutual funds own the AT&T stocks?)

Government likes to pretend it is there to break up monopolies, but in reality it creates monopolies every time it spends any money.

Solyndra LLC of Fremont California, a manufacturer of solar panel has filed for bankruptcy protection and has laid off its remaining 1,100 workers. Obama provided them with loan packages of 535 Million dollars, Obama personally visited that company over a year ago, promoting that worthless business that cannot generate profits even with government support. How many businesses could have used that money if dollars could be allocated privately where market needs them? Instead a monopoly was being created, but it failed even with government support. Figures.

Re:insane government

[Hazel Bergeron]

Who cares what the market needs? The market skews the value of individuals by personal wealth.

I care about what people need.

Re:insane government

[cyber-vandal]

A monopoly was being created? Even though there are several other manufacturers of solar panels in the US? I think you might want to update your dictionary.

Re:insane government

[Hazel Bergeron]

Posting history suggests roman_mir is an Internet Libertarian troll. Don't expect a chain of logic.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid American.

You hate communism and evil bad goverment and socialism. Yet, you sit back with your feet up when a big monopoly steals money from you and think that it is good and somehow that means freedom.

If you knew anything about economics you would know that a single company or 2-3 companies distort the market agaisnt you. There is no market unless they are many players equal on both sides of the equation between buyer and seller.

I love paying $40 a month for what you pay $100 a month and I get better service. Oh and if I have cancer I do not have to worry about being fired from work and going into bankruptcy. I get treatment for free

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Of-course a monopoly was being created, what else do you call it when POTUS provides you with half billion USD and promises to provide you with a market for your products via some regulations?

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Market IS individuals making individual choices to do something, to buy something, to produce something, not to buy something else, to short another thing. Market consists of individuals.

What USA has now is not a normal market, it's distorted by government's cheap money and regulations. When helicopter Ben comes out and says: interest rates will stay at 0 for 2 years, what he does is inflate another bubble (more of the US debt, it's T-bill bubble), but also he is allowing heavily leveraged banks to speculate freely, knowing that the money is free for 2 years. It's great for speculation, what good does anybody see from this except the bank executives and politicians?

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Let's skip with the first part, it's irrelevant, let's look at the second part, the one about 2-3 companies and choices.

When market needs choices, market provides choices. Government doesn't know anything about what market needs and most important thing is: government doesn't have the authority to dictate (to the formerly free individuals) what market must do.

The entire anti-trust idea is ridiculous on its face, when the reality is that all monopolies that exist are based on preferential government treatment. Any business that can take majority of business in free market is only able to do so as long as it provides the market with the products at acceptable prices/quality ratio. If the market is unsatisfied with the price/quality ratio of the product by a 'monopoly' (in reality an economy of scale) that is created in a free market, monopolies then form to occupy the niche that is left by the unsatisfied market, and these niche players can eventually supersede the former 'monopoly'.

Any time the anti-trust was used, it was used destructively, not productively. Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly by the time it was broken up and Alcoa aluminum was selling aluminum at prices that could not be beat.

There is nothing virtuous about competition for the sake of competition. Competition is only needed by the market when the price/quality ratio is unsatisfying. If there is a way to fit in another product at a cheaper price/with more/better quality, then the market will provide space for that product. Also consumers are fickle (unless they are Apple users I suppose), and they will change their buying habits in a heart beat if they figure something else is better.

In case of AT&T and T-Mobile the merger could be useful as they would have bigger coverage, would have economies of scale, and in the current US market, they could at least keep prices where they are today without raising them longer even with all the inflation that the government produces. Maybe they could come up with cheaper plans as well, to get more people in.

In any case, it's not government's role at all to regulate businesses, and all the monopolies that you are worried about today, ALL of them are created/propped up by governments.

Banks, GM, etc. should have all gone under (Berkshire would have gone under too, by the way, they were in deep trouble with AIG, fuck Buffet, the corporatist weasel.)

Re:insane government

[Antisyzygy]

How the hell do you figure that this is primarily related to pro-union legislation? Give me a fucking break. This is related to the fact that cell companies are already an oligopoly, and they want to prevent less actual competition in a market (read, a less "free" market). If AT&T absorbed T-Mobile it would basically be the death of Sprint. That would leave Verizon and AT&T as the only major competitors. Its not like you can start up your own cell service to compete with either of them without capital that simply would never materialize through venture capital groups. No-one in their right mind would invest their money in your cell-start-up when you compete against 2 behemoth corporations that own all the infrastructure in the US. As is you would be totally unable to start your own cell service with 4 providers. Why make it worse? AT&T and Verizon already charge 1000 times what it costs them when you send a text message. Please, give. me. a. fucking. break. with. your. bullshit.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Solyndra LLC of Fremont California, a manufacturer of solar panel has filed for bankruptcy protection and has laid off its remaining 1,100 workers. Obama provided them with loan packages of 535 Million dollars, Obama personally visited that company over a year ago, promoting that worthless business that cannot generate profits even with government support. How many businesses could have used that money if dollars could be allocated privately where market needs them? Instead a monopoly was being created, but it failed even with government support. Figures.

Oh boy! My local paper had an article on this subject. Do you know what it mentioned? That China has been subsidizing its Solar companies to drive down the prices, which forced this company, and others into a precarious situation since they weren't getting the same amount of support from their government, and actually depended somewhat on higher prices to make their product worthwhile.

Do you know what they also mentioned? That the overall program was billions in spending. That's right, this is one company with trouble out of many. I think it was said to represent less than 2% of the total, but I'm not sure of the total offhand.

Thanks for commenting on this, I'm glad to have an opportunity to refute your ignorance.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

How the hell do you figure that this is primarily related to pro-union legislation?

- where did I say that? What else did you read into my comment that was not there?

they want to prevent less actual competition in a market (read, a less "free" market). If AT&T absorbed T-Mobile it would basically be the death of Sprint.

- the market was going to decide what was going to happen to Sprint and AT&T and T-Mobile. Instead the government decided.

Given how government handles any decisions related to economics (and I gave a good example in my comment, about the alternative energy fiasco), why do you trust the government to make any economic decisions?

If AT&T and T-Mobile merged, and Sprint suffered, that would have been the decision of the buyers, if they decided to switch to AT&T/T-Mobile. Because what you just said was this:

"If the merger is allowed, another company would get hurt". HOW? By LOWER PRICES FROM AT&T and T-MOBILE MERGED TOGETHER?

Isn't THAT what the market WANTS (people, individuals)? LOWER PRICES? Are you saying that if AT&T and T-Mobile were able to merge and to use their economy of scale to provide better/cheaper service then Sprint would have suffered, SO WHAT?

SO WHAT IF SPRINT SUFFERED?

Market is NOT about companies, but that's what government makes it out to be, when they prevent mergers based on the idea that another company "would suffer".

It's about customers, if customers saw a better deal from AT&T and T-Mobile merged company and switched from Sprint, this would have created COMPETITION FFS.

What an idiotic idea from everybody on this stupid fucking site, from commenters to moderators, who can't see shit out of their asses. Fucking stupid, there is no other name for you, fucking idiots.

You want LOWER prices, not HIGHER. That's why you let the market work. If one company suffers, what the fuck do you care? It means that they must compete, and it means there can be more competition, but if the merged larger enterprise gave you better deals, you fucking say THANK YOU, you fucking retards! It wasn't your money spent merging them.

And yes, with all the new tech out there, if somebody can figure out how to start another company - they should be allowed to do so, and government should stay the fuck away from creating monopolies, like they did with AT&T in the first place, 100 years ago, when they literally destroyed thousands of competitors by giving that one preferred company status of a national resources, or whatever was the deal.

Re:insane government

[Lehk228]

Any business that can take majority of business in free market is only able to do so as long as it provides the market with the products at acceptable prices/quality ratio.

you demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the issue

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

you demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of the issue

oh yeah?
Here is what I think about your "understanding" of anything.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, fucking AC, write under a nick name.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

ad-hominem at +3 Insightful. Good.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

People get too hung up on names, and posting history, and it becomes more divisive. Accordingly, I prefer the Anonymous Coward system.

Re:insane government

[Antisyzygy]

Yes, and customers would have fewer choices in a market that is already an oligopoly. As-is if you want to send text messages you have to agree to pay rates all the cell companies have agreed upon through either testing eachother or agreeing upon it secretly, and they are 1000 times what it costs for them to send them. AT&T would charge the same damn rates regardless of economy of scale, simply because they could. Smartphones are quickly becoming something you need to remain in contact for business, or to get good jobs in this country. When your only alternatives are two companies charging the same overinflated rates, how is that a free market?

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

The distinction between an ad hominem attack and an accurate, if derogatory, description, may be blurry sometimes.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

When your only alternatives are two companies charging the same overinflated rates, how is that a free market?

- Free Market by DEFINITION is what you have when there is no government involvement into it.

By definition.

As long as market is allowed to operate enough time without government involvement the market will find the correct prices, will find the right quality.

Of-course you have government printing free money, bailing out companies, buying out private debt, forcing investors to lose money (GM and shareholders, inflation,etc.)

There is no free market as long as government is allowed to destroy the market by regulations, taxes and subsidies, and especially as long as using a competing currency (gold/silver) is impossible due to special taxation provisions, which treat these Constitutional money as if it's just a commodity, while printing the fiat into the eventual hyper inflation.

The subsidies to the companies, the government franchises, the so called public utilities that are just government monopolies, all of this destroys competition.

Thinking that any government action, even if it is superficially directed at breaking larger entities into smaller ones makes sense is against free market, not for it. If these companies form a more efficient entity and start more competition by providing LOWER prices, and Sprint and others are forced to LOWER their prices, then you are complaining that this is putting Sprint out of business.

If they are charging whatever they are charging today for SMS, etc., you are complaining that their charges are TOO HIGH?

So you believe that the prices must go down, but you believe that prices going down will hurt companies and competition?

And people are moderating all of my comments in this thread as 'troll'?

If you believe that the companies are overcharging for SMS, then you should be FOR competition, so if AT&T merges with T-Mobile, then to survive others would have to LOWER PRICES. So where would be the FIRST place to lower prices?

It's going to be where it does not COST anything to lower prices, so Spring just may lower SMS prices, and this would force others (including AT&T) to do the same, and you are arguing AGAINST lowering prices while complaining about high prices?

I am tired. I believe this site has gone insane, with everybody on it. Good night.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Berkshire would have gone under too, by the way, they were in deep trouble with AIG, fuck Buffet, the corporatist weasel

I love it. Warren Buffet, probably one of the most successful investors in history, is being called names by libertarians who have never accomplished anything.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Market by DEFINITION is what you have when there is no government involvement into it.

Wow. You can't even get the definition of a free market right. The only thing scary is that you're not the only libertarian who is this ignorant about the most basic market definitions and behaviors.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

A free market is a market free from state intervention.

WOW. You can't even come up with a better troll?

Re:insane government

[cyber-vandal]

I know he is but I quite like arguing with him occasionally. He usually buries me with sheer volume though :)

Re:insane government

[Hazel Bergeron]

When a man announces himself to be a libertarian he is usually just finding an excuse for not being good enough in his own eyes.

Anyone he regards as successful must therefore have got there through immoral means. Because if Buffet got really rich through being a very fine capitalist investor then.. well.. the system worked for him.. and if it worked for him but not for roman_mir it must be that roman_mir simply isn't as good as Buffet.

The other annoying thing for libertarians to have to accept is that once people have got really rich they do curry favour with government. Why is that? Because powerful people enjoy power but don't abide by a sophomoric list of principles. Nearly every newly super-wealthy man is a demonstration of (i) how capitalism can make people very rich through clever investment; (ii) how capitalism inevitably includes a strong dose of cronyism.

The real world: it's simple when you are prepared to accept what you observe.

Re:insane government

[cyber-vandal]

Monopoly. Manufacturers of solar panels. Note that 2 of the world's top 10 manufacturers of solar panels (which doesn't include your "monopoly") are US companies. Ergo Solyndra LLC of Fremont California did not have a monopoly on the manufacture of solar panels in the US. They were just shit.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you boiled down an article of several thousand words into ten words.

I think the validity of said reduction may be minimal.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

It's hard for me to leave anymore comments here under my name, everything is moderated down as a 'troll', people don't like the message, so they think I am trolling them, so there is a limit on number of comments I can leave and I do need to call it a night, it is night where I am.

However you are missing the forest for the trees. As government is providing any specific company or a number of companies in any specific industry with money and promises these companies that it will bring in customers via regulations and such, it is creating a monopoly or maybe an oligopoly, but what is hilarious about this case is that this company, with HALF A BILLION dollars of credit from US gov't and promise of customers has failed anyway.

I find it to be extremely hilarious and telling. Of-course in reality the gov't isn't interested in this alternative energy at all, OIL is where all the action is - that's the stuff that gets most gov't money, with wars, liability caps for deep water drilling, etc.etc.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Now that is fine quality trolling you are doing there.

Warren Buffet publically thanked the US government for bailing him out, with all his 'wisdom', he was betting on the mortgage market right before it collapsed.

...One of Wall Streetâ(TM)s giant investment banks had gone bankrupt, and the remaining three were poised to follow. A.I.G., the worldâ(TM)s most famous insurer, was at deathâ(TM)s door.

Many of our largest industrial companies, dependent on commercial paper financing that had disappeared, were weeks away from exhausting their cash resources. Indeed, all of corporate Americaâ(TM)s dominoes were lined up, ready to topple at lightning speed. My own company, Berkshire Hathaway, might have been the last to fall, but that distinction provided little solace.

then he thanks them

Well, Uncle Sam, you delivered. People will second-guess your specific decisions; you can always count on that. But just as there is a fog of war, there is a fog of panic â" and, overall, your actions were remarkably effective. ...

then he thanks them a bit more

So, again, Uncle Sam, thanks to you and your aides. Often you are wasteful, and sometimes you are bullying. On occasion, you are downright maddening. But in this extraordinary emergency, you came through â" and the world would look far different now if you had not.

Your grateful nephew,

Warren

Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

Today Buffet is again 'investing' into the banks, the people don't understand that his investments are preferred stock, not common stock, so he gets 10% dividends paid before anybody else gets their 1% (and it will have to be cut, so that Buffet can get paid.)

As Buffet gets paid, his companies get bailed out, the people who are on the hook for it are foreign creditors and eventually US taxpayers, and eventually just all US citizens.

As Buffet gets paid on one hand, he talks about raising income taxes on 'the rich', without getting into too much detail on how he personally benefits from these taxes, especially the estate tax, as his company liquidates companies at whole sale prices when cash must be raised to pay the death tax (which is theft, obviously, who here thinks that in a family anybody who uses money that they didn't earn directly must pay income taxes on it in the money pool? If your kid or your S.O. buys something with money you earned, or you buy something with money they earned, shouldn't you be forced to pay income taxes by this logic?)

--

So, Hazel whatever, when you talk about how "libertarian is not good enough in his own eyes", why don't you put a stick through your own eye?

Anyone he regards as successful must therefore have got there through immoral means.

- what a bunch of BS. Absolute non-sequitur and putting words into my mouth that I have never in my life spouted.

YOU ARE A TROLL, never mind what the moderation says.

but don't abide by a sophomoric list of principles

Fucking BS as well. You have just said that Peter Schiff, Mark Faber, Jim Rogers and similar guys have no principles? They are rich, but they are rich on their own feet, not because of government, but always despite it.

So I have just two words: fuck you. Nothing else for you.

Re:insane government

[shutdown -p now]

When market needs choices, market provides choices.

Problem is that what market needs is often not what the people need.

It's just like that libertarian chimera of "efficient markets" - sure they are efficient, but for whom? the people who walk away with your money in their pockets, not for you.

Re:insane government

[Antisyzygy]

Ok, so basically you have said that "Monopolies = Competition", "Competition = Free Market", and "Free Market = Low Prices". So then, "Monopolies = Low Prices". Right, the Robber Barons are great examples of monopolies charging less and less to benefit the consumer.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there's something wrong with your message, and not a problem with the people rejecting it.

Maybe.

Nah, couldn't be, you must be the one RIGHT person.

Re:insane government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Rogers, faber and schiff were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

It's easy to score when you start on third base.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

It doesn't matter if the message is right or wrong, it is not a troll.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

BS. None of those guys were born with anything more than anybody else.

But that's NOT the point here, the piece of shit troll "hazel" is trolling that everybody who has made it sells their principles and buys into government, which is the exact opposite with these guys.

The other trolling of his is that my perception of successful people is that they got their wealth by immoral means. Now that's a troll.

So your comment is off-topic, as it has nothing to do with the questions here.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Problem is that what market needs is often not what the people need.

- markets are individuals. I am NOT talking about the stock market or any such nonsense that has nothing to do with reality and lives in a government spiked bubble. I am talking about line ups for Apple's products, I am talking about people paying for gas every day, and very few electric vehicles on the roads, I am talking about people producing what others are buying, etc.

So WTF are you talking about?

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Your friends here have made it impossible for me to leave comments with my account, as it's now blocked from posting comments for a day or something, so I'll post this one as AC.

Ok, so basically you have said that "Monopolies = Competition"

:

1. It's not a monopoly. A merger would have created a large company, but not a monopoly.

2. The larger company would have been more efficient competition in the market, as it would have economy of scale.

"Competition = Free Market"

3. No. Absence of government intervention is free market. Competition may or may not arise in any specific area in the free market.

and "Free Market = Low Prices"

4. Free Market = most efficient allocation of capital, land and labor. Most efficient allocation will lead to maximization of whatever quality that the market prefers, this does not HAVE to mean low prices, but it means lowest energy expenditure to get maximum result. If the market is pushing towards low prices, then that's going to be what the producers are driven to. It could be that market requires something else - like maximum performance in certain cases, and the prices will be as low as possible for that maximum performance.

So then, "Monopolies = Low Prices"

5. No, because of 1 and 4.

Right, the Robber Barons are great examples of monopolies charging less and less to benefit the consumer.

- Robber Barons were in fact titans of their respective industries, building economies of scale that provided the products at best performance and price that the market could bear.

Unless you are completely oblivious (and you are), you would know that in 19 century USA the prices were falling steadily throughout the century, so anything that started at a certain price by the beginning of the century, by the end of it was at most half the price.

Re:insane government

[shutdown -p now]

Individuals have different power in the markets. Governments are, at least nominally, one person one vote - though of course there's lobbying etc (but it is also why there are laws against it in many countries). Markets are one dollar one vote. It is entirely possible to have a market controlled by a superminority of people in the society, so long as they also control most of that society's wealth. Since that is what unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to, anyway (as demonstrated numerous times in history), this is what you'll have in practice - plutocracy.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those guys?

I don't see any evidence they were born in Orphanages, so I'd say they were born with more than at least some people.

They also apparently got nutrition and education while growing up.

Thus they were born with more than some.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

they also have hands.

and legs. 2 legs and 2 hands. And some teeth.

More than many people.

Fucking idiot.

Re:insane government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Uh, Peter Schiff's dad, Irwin, is a notorious tax kook, and obscenely rich.

Yes you can start life off with more than someone else.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't reply as myself, account blocked, I am quite tired of this place's double standards, maybe it's time to post somewhere else.

--
Schiff's father is in jail for objecting to income taxes, he is a political prisoner in US. He used to be an insurance salesman and he made his money by learning about economics, as his own family was just middle class. Peter Schiff started his own business and made his own money.

Jim Rogers started in his time with 600 bucks, not nothing, but not millions.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the accusations here, that somehow I am of opinion that anybody who makes it is a crook for some reason. That's ridiculous on its face.

Re:insane government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

no, he's a tax cheat. Sixteenth amendment gives the federal government the right to tax income.

Your accusations are so crazy I went after the low hanging fruit. These guys aren't the pull yourself up from your bootstraps type you think they are.

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an ass, the guy is not a tax CHEAT, he is a tax protester, he always filed his papers, but he never put any information in them, instead he put something down that said: Government, you cannot tax me because it's illegal.

You can't call the guy a cheat if he is not cheating but he is being disobedient.

Just because the Constitution has the amendment that was passed by the financial terrorists, doesn't make it right. That amendment is just as wrong as the 18th was, and it goes against human rights that are even specified in the 4th and 5th.

Re:insane government

[Hazel Bergeron]

Free Market = most efficient allocation

Mormonism = best religion.

Michael Jackson = best King of Pop.

Equals sign = best method of proof on Internet.

Re:insane government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Except the Government can tax him, because it is legal.

If he doesn't like it, he can move to somewhere that fits his libertarian ideals better.

We tried your approach to Government. it doesn't work. It screws the poor. Why do you refuse to listen to the fact that rich people have immense amounts of leverage against the poor?

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

You say it's not. Other people say it is.

Oh well. While I might agree that the appellation of the term trolling to almost any content which a given person disapproves of is a bit of a problem, I don't see that as your concern.

I see your concern as denying that there's anything wrong with what you're saying or doing, to the point where you can't even see that maybe, just maybe other people are fairly condemning you.

Or maybe you're just another Cassandra.

I see you said you'd walk away in another person. I think that might be a good idea for you. It'll spare you some stress.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

Many things used to be legal. Ghandi was protesting salt tax and spend years in jail for it. You'd rather have Ghandi move somewhere else and not bother I take it?

USA did try the approach in government when it was not taxing income and was not regulating businesses, was not subsidizing businesses. It worked amazingly well, as USA became the world's largest inventor and producer of cheap manufacturing goods and became world's largest creditor nation.

Then the politicians and some bankers figured out how to crack the system and set up the IRS to collect income taxes, the Fed to counterfeit money and all the various unelected departments to control/subsidize businesses and created monopolies and destroyed competition, all while selling this idea to middle class by buying their vote with "free" money, which eventually backfired and turned the middle class into poor by destroying USA economy and now currency.

THIS doesn't work. This inflation and taxation an regulations screw up the poor. The rich people who are in government have enormous leverage against everybody else and you are the one who is refusing to listen to this fact.

But what's ridiculous is that the message is being treated with contempt without understanding it at all.

Re:insane government

[roman_mir]

You are a troll, that's all there is to it.

Re:insane government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Seriously?

Re:insane government

[udachny]

why, you don't like Ghandi?

Re:insane government

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who "you" are, so I don't give a shit. As to people "condemning", I don't think it's people who are condemning, I think there is a moderator working for /. who has infinite moderation and he is specifically targeting my comments, that's all there is to it, because it makes no sense that all of my comments, one after another, are marked down as troll in every story.

This has nothing to do with me being right or wrong, this has to do with someone specifically targeting me because they don't like my ideas.

Re:insane government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Let me be more concise.

Seriously? Yes, it did and does work. What caused everything to break down was that the last 20 years of American politics has taken an intellectual dive. It wasn't sound, it isn't about Keynesian or Austrian School, it's about competency.

There is no conspiracy to use Keynesian economics to screw us. There's a conspiracy to use morons to tank our Government. You're not helping by insisting that the problem is Government's existence.

Eh?

[MrDoh!]

From the article, "People are fleeing to AT&T"? Really? Don't know what TMobile are doing wrong (decent range of phones, cheaper plans), but I'd be curious on the fleeing to AT&T part.
Time for my weekly rant;
Just open up the airwaves and share bandwidth whilst keeping separate customers. Phones ID' themselves when they connect so you could work out who should be paying who for the use of the towers, there'd be reason to install multiple towers to improve speed/reception, and far out in the wilds customers wouldn't need a tower for each network, just one if it wasn't profitable for everyone to chuck one up.

Then the customer could choose which phone they wanted, on which plan, on which network, and still everyone wins, especially the customer.

Re:Eh?

[RobertLTux]

"far out in the wilds customers wouldn't need a tower for each network,"

actually the situation is a bit more complex than that.

the actual tower itself may not be the problem since its the backhaul lines and being the FIRST to put up a tower thats the real killer.

a lot of towers actually have multiple transmitters since once you have the permits to put the tower up its a lot easier to have multiple transmitters (which could be owned by multiple companies) on one tower. plus of course there are "roaming" arrangements and such with the CDMA and GSM carriers (sprint and verizon often trade connections and i would bet that T-Mobile and AT&T do also where they have a common frequency)

Re:Eh?

[MimeticLie]

People are fleeing to AT&T"? Really? Don't know what TMobile are doing wrong (decent range of phones, cheaper plans), but I'd be curious on the fleeing to AT&T part.

Yeah. I thought that people were fleeing T-Mobile specifically to get away from AT&T after the merger attempt was announced.

Re:Eh?

[guspasho]

Did you read the summary, or even the title? They left T-mobile for the iPhone. Until earlier this year the only company that you could get an iPhone with was AT&T.

In the cell phone business most customers are locked in to two-year contracts that prevent them from easily switching carriers, so the carriers are pretty much stuck with whatever market share they currently have. It's very difficult for them to jockey for market advantage, especially when they all offer essentially the same selection of handsets. Before the iPhone there weren't any smartphones to speak of. You had flip-phones and Blackberries. (Remember how big of a deal the RAZR was? It's kind of embarrassing to think about now, like bell bottoms.) Smartphones were really clunky and no one bought them, sort of like the non-iPad tablet market today. Android didn't exist.

So when Apple wanted to develop an iPhone everyone (except Verizon apparently) knew it would be game-changing, and a unique opportunity to pick up market share in a very inelastic industry, which is exactly what happened. T-mobile tried the same tactic with the first Android phone over a year later but they were too late and it wasn't nearly as popular, and of course soon every carrier had an Android phone anyway, with Verizon soon dominating the Android market.

Re:Eh?

[grumling]

It's kinda like the network effect. Look at it this way: Little Suzy really wants an iPhone for her graduation present. It's only available on AT&T, and your family plan is up for contract renewal. You and the wife have dumb phones, and little Jimmy breaks everything he touches, so it's a dumb phone for him, too. Up until now, the only thing that mattered to you was price and coverage. Tmobile had very good prices. But now you decide to get your daughter an iPhone. Now you basically have to go to AT&T (remember, Verizon has only had the iPhone since January). Since the "best deals" are family plans, you now move all 4 phones over to AT&T. Depending on how Tmobile measures customers, it could be counting all 4 phones as separate revenue generating units (RGUs). Do that multiple times and soon you'll be bleeding customers.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for my weekly rant;
Just open up the airwaves and share bandwidth whilst keeping separate customers. Phones ID' themselves when they connect so you could work out who should be paying who for the use of the towers

... It doesn't work that way. There are competing wireless standards, based on the pro/cons of when companies adopted them. A company puts ups its solution to a problem, towers and technology and all and they provide service on the band allocated, if somone else broadcasts on that same frequency it will take down both of them.

That also doesnt fix the problem that the tower side is only half of the equation, the calls do not go from tower to recipient.. There is an entire infrastructure behind it all to complete a call, and each company carefully crafts it to get the best bang for the buck, based on their call model. If what you suggested would come to be, you would also be complaining about the fact that you called from (COMPANY-A) to (COMPANY-B). but because your call was on a shared plan which (COMPANY-C) completed, which did not have direct trunking to, you were charged a premium per minute. And I am sure at that point you would complain about the complex pricing structure...

LOL

[zmooc]

Carriers leasing phones, but only a specific subset of what's on the market. Best idea since sliced bread. It'd be totally awesome if I'd also be able to lease my shower from the water utility and then be stuck with them and my water-utility-branded shower until the lease expires:P Lol.

It's true

[guspasho]

I was a loyal and happy T-mobile customer since the Voicestream days, just before they became T-mobile. I waited as long as I could for them to get the iPhone, I considered the G2 and myTouch phones, but ultimately my job (iPhone app development) required that I own an iPhone, so I could wait no longer. So yeah, I'm one of those who left T-mobile to get an iPhone.

Re:It's true

[ScrewMaster]

I was a loyal and happy T-mobile customer since the Voicestream days, just before they became T-mobile. I waited as long as I could for them to get the iPhone, I considered the G2 and myTouch phones, but ultimately my job (iPhone app development) required that I own an iPhone, so I could wait no longer. So yeah, I'm one of those who left T-mobile to get an iPhone.

Can't argue with your decision since you're a developer, but you should understand that you're far in the minority. People left AT&T in droves to go to T-Mobile, and that had much more to do with T-Mobile's reasonable policies and pricing than choice of smartphone. The same thing happened to Comcast when AT&T U-Verse became widely available. If your decision isn't based around the availability of a specific piece of hardware, but instead revolves around overall value ... well, odds are you'll make a different decision. I've received far better value for my money on T-Mobile with my Android phone than the people I know who continually bitch about being stuck on (and I quote) "AT&T's crappy network." Generally people like their iPhones ... they just hate the company that provides their connectivity.

To those of you who are on AT&T, remember this: it is not your Daddy's AT&T. That company was taken over by SBC (known by some as Southern Bell, but considered by most to be the Southern Bastards Club, the acknowledged worst of the one-time Baby Bells) some years ago. It is American Telephone and Telegraph now in name only. So, when your service sucks, your costs go up, and you get overage charges and limited, tiered bandwidth ... you'll know precisely who to thank for it.

There's a reason why so many people are up in arms about this deal. It's going to mean even more consolidation in a market dominated by the likes of SBC and Verizon, who have turned bending their customers over the end table into a high art form.

No thanks.

Re:It's true

[Macrat]

I was a loyal and happy T-mobile customer since the Voicestream days, just before they became T-mobile. I waited as long as I could for them to get the iPhone, I considered the G2 and myTouch phones, but ultimately my job (iPhone app development) required that I own an iPhone, so I could wait no longer. So yeah, I'm one of those who left T-mobile to get an iPhone.

Funny, I'm using a factory unlocked iPhone 3GS on T-Mobile.

And as a developer, you would appreciate T-Mobile's Pay-as-you-go service so you can have active sims for all your development phones with no monthly charges. You only pay for the calls and sms you use and they have a "day pass" for when you need to do network development/testing. When your development phone is sitting unused, it isn't costing you anything.

T-Mobile had a chance

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, Apple went to all the carriers, and only AT&T was willing to give them the concessions they asked. If T-Mobile had stepped up, maybe even worked to become the exclusive carrier, I'm sure they'd be better off today.

Why I left T-Mobile

[93 Escort Wagon]

I left T-Mobile because their network didn't cover all the areas I needed cell reception in. That's it. T-Mobile's network in the Pacific Northwest is better than Sprint's, but when you get away from the interstates (especially east of the Cascades) there are huge gaps.

Now, when I originally left Verizon and switched to T-Mobile... that was because Verizon was evil. Verizon had coverage everywhere, but their fundamental evil-tude overrode that.

Re:Why I left T-Mobile

[Nethead]

I do a lot of work related travel on the dry-side. There are gaps but there was only one town that I didn't have service in, Grand Coulee, WA. So I just hooked my butt-set up to the DBU line at the site. I have received the absolute best customer service from T-Mobile that I'm willing to put up with a few dead zones.

Re:Why I left T-Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise. You'd think with T-Mobile's headquarters being in Bellevue, coverage in this general area would better. But... it's not. Verizon was far superior coverage wise, yet I've been with T-Mobile for 5+ years over the last 11 years.

Re:Why I left T-Mobile

[zippthorne]

I had verizon for two months. According to the screen, it had coverage everywhere. Except when I wanted to make calls....

The cancellation penalty was well worth it.

Re:Why I left T-Mobile

[93 Escort Wagon]

Hmm. We've had a lot of problems in the northeast corner of Washington, which is where my in-laws live. Now admittedly, when we switched to AT&T, we also got newer phones (so maybe it was the particular frequencies that were the problem) - but we were never able to call on T-Mobile very far up 395, while with AT&T there haven't been any issues.

Verizon covered everything too, but... I'll never willingly do business with them again. I really don't understand why people put up with their antics.

I totally agree with you with regard to T-Mobile's customer service - it is very good.

"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Hazel Bergeron]

Even the most arch-capitalist of pre-welfare-state Western thinkers a century ago would have laughed at the idea that you could sell radio frequencies to private groups. "I get exclusive right to send waves of THIS length."

They'd also laugh at the idea of intellectual property as opposed to temporary copy right.

What exactly is our current regime, anyway?

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[MimeticLie]

Even the most arch-capitalist of pre-welfare-state Western thinkers a century ago would have laughed at the idea that you could sell radio frequencies to private groups. "I get exclusive right to send waves of THIS length."

Yeah, the idea that that radio frequencies could be licenced certainly didn't exist a century ago. Nope, no way.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[thesandbender]

Spectrum and the amount of data that can be carried over it is a limited resource (and even with improvements in technology, information theory puts a cap on how much data can be pushed through at a given frequency). If the spectrum is not licensed for use then two things happen. 1) The number of users skyrockets and the overall throughput available for user goes down and 2) the quality of signals degrades and the overall throughput goes down. This is why wi-fi in many areas of NYC sucks, even though it's designed to handle these issues there are areas that are just over-saturated and you will _never_ get anywhere near the promised bandwidth of the devices.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Anonymous Coward]

I love your split personality disorder.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[slimjim8094]

The protection of radio spectrum goes both ways, though. I'm a pretty fucking big fan of the idea that there's nobody else on the frequency my ambulance squad uses to communicate with our dispatcher and the police, or the paramedics, or other agencies. And that's only because the FCC has a very big stick to hit people with if they violate it. If people or businesses thought they could get away with co-opting public safety frequencies, you bet your ass they would.

And you don't have to think very hard to come up with countless other problems with an unregulated spectrum. Everything from cordless phones to RC cars to WiFi would become useless as people just shat all over the spectrum because it was easy and convenient to do so. Things like allocation and emissions regulations keep the spectrum useful in the same way that a drivers' license keeps the roads useful to everybody. Even the most anarchist person must recognize the tragedy of the commons, even if he doesn't like the solution - at least if he's intellectually honest.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the idea that that radio frequencies could be licenced certainly didn't exist a century ago. Nope, no way.

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Hazel Bergeron]

There's a mile of difference between regulating usage for the benefit of a particular service and selling to private bidders according to who pays the most.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[hitmark]

I wonder how much that has to do with people never changing the channel of the hotspot. Still, one 3 B channels are really separate, the rest overlap with neighbors to some degree or other.

Btw, i think there was a recent announcement of a wifi router that would automatically change channel if it detected too much noise or something. I wonder how this will work out of there are many of those in a area tho. I can see them continually hopping around in some kind of pattern, much like one can detect bot patterns in HF trading on the stock market.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Hazel Bergeron]

Licensing to users of particular services, e.g. allowing ships to share maritime frequencies or amateurs to share amateur frequencies, is not the same as selling to the highest bidder.

It's the difference between a privately owned road and a public road. Anyone with a driver's licence and a willingness to obey road traffic law can use the latter.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[guspasho]

Duh. By the money, of the money, for the money.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[hedwards]

It does, but the FCC doesn't sell spectrum, it licenses it and can at any time and for any reason take it back. The more I hear about the cell company antics the more I think the FCC should just take the spectrum back until they play nice. At least for AT&T who seems to be the worst actor in the whole market.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[sjames]

That would explain why once the ISM ghetto was freed from licensing it caused such a boom of highly useful and affordable wireless networking technology. Are you claiming 802.11 is abandoned as useless? The areas in NYC where it's too tight would have no problems if they got more channels.

I agree that some form of cooperation must be mandated, but the current licensing scheme is mostly helping the wireless carriers balkanize the market.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Anonymous Coward]

Free from licensing is not free from regulation.

Especially power.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[sjames]

And?

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good response. I especially like how you offered some counter-points instead of just hand waving.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[zippthorne]

True that. Similarly, they would've laughed at the idea that there would be intersections everywhere that you could only enter if a lamp of one color was lit and not a lamp of another color....

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Rich0]

Well, yes and no.

So, you decide that some frequency range is for cellphone service. Who gets to use it? If you just designate the purpose then everybody will use the whole thing and it won't work for anybody.

So, the FCC took each geographic area and put it up for auction, which is a pretty standard way of figuring out who should get what when you have a finite resource. That's how a bank or sheriff figures out who to sell a house to. In theory whoever can put the band to the most use will be able to bid the highest price.

The only thing I'd probably do differently is re-auction the bands every 5 years or so - that allows smaller competitors to work their way into the market so that the whole thing doesn't go to whoever has $50B in cash to spend up-front.

Oh, and a bigger change I'd make is that nobody who owns a cell tower should be allowed to provide phone service. Tower owners should run towers with standard protocols, and charge the same rate to any phone operator. Instantly every phone network would have the same coverage, and I would allow competition between tower operators in the same are so that everything is driven towards marginal cost. I think that a good way to get rid of these utility monopoly issues is to separate the pipes from the content - let a utility run the last mile to a regionally central point, and then let competitive services rent rackspace there to provide services to consumers.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine the trouble that would occur if somebody exceeded the allowed specs, which are deliberately limited, considerably more so than licensed spectrum.

Any radio or television or other broadcast technician probably has a few stories about that.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[mcrbids]

The idea of spectrum allocation is, in my opinion, itself an antiquated idea. Instead, we should be using spread-spectrum technology that actually makes use of the *entire* radio spectrum rather than inefficiently chopped up segments.

Really, take a look at the radio charts and you'll find that even in "heavy use" areas like the cities, the actual use of frequencies is actually rather small, with a few frequencies (such as cellular) suffering serious collisions while others are virtually empty.

While I can see allocating a small number of frequencies for emergency services and perhaps aviation, I'd personally be all good with deregulating all the rest and using error-tolerant frequency hopping spread-spectrum algorithms to distribute the traffic load across the entire spectrum. The result would be something like a 100,000 fold increase in available bandwidth.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[sjames]

Sure, but what does that have to do with this thread? I just said the licensing should go and advocated regulating appropriate cooperation.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Hazel Bergeron]

Not "the entire" - there are certain frequency ranges (HF, VHF...) for which this would be trivially inappropriate. It's also necessary, as you note, to keep certain ranges for emergency and aviation - and satellite, industrial, scientific, medical, amateur research, military, etc. But to allocate certain ranges to certain services where sharing is on a spread spectrum basis may be efficient.

And we always need regulation to prevent abuse by dominant groups: "deregulation" in modern political parlance is a synonym for sale to and monopoly by the highest bidder with the greatest resources at the time. (This becomes especially noticeable when better technology comes along but the private providers have no interest in adopting it, in the worst case sticking with something not even as good as what it was replacing: see eg DAB in the UK.)

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Hazel Bergeron]

Responding to a straw man with "some counter-points" is missing the missing of the point.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are supporting the selling off of all spectrum to private companies, including the public safety frequencies, so that none of it is in the hands of reckless non-monopolies?

I fail to see how you'd protect your communications by having to pay a private company for the privilege to use their frequency. Well, I know what you tried to say but the above was as stupidly misunderstanding of the real point as your post was.

Re:"to invest in U.S. spectrum"

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent points and well said.
As to highest bidder argument. That spectrum is only good as long as the successful bidder can put in place a profitable service or product if not then they have wasted their investors money and the spectrum will be freed up again and go back out to bid. I have seen it several times as the low end VHF TV channels have been vacated due to digital TV, satellite competion, cable and now the internet......

James Douglass
Garden City, Kansas

T-Mo crippled itself.

[crhylove]

The iPhone has PLENTY of stern competition from Android phones. T-Mobile crippled itself in 4 simple ways:

Not competing on price with the big 3, and following Boost's lead.
Not competing on contract length, or better yet ditching contracts altogether.
Not updating existing Android phones to newer builds in a timely fashion.
Entering into talks with AT&T in the first place.

I was a happy T-Mo user for many years. But the second my current contract is up (which is way too high, and I'm still on a Froyo device that came out > 2 years ago!!!), I'm gone. Those four reasons are really it, but truthfully, having had AT&T in the past, I will NEVER use their service or a company who partners with them ever again. There is tons of room in the cellular market to make money and compete. Offer better service at lower rates, and offer the latest software which is BASICALLY FREE from Google anyway.

T-Mo has a good network. I get signal almost everywhere. They have good high speed data connections. But they don't have a reasonably priced contract and new cheap device to take advantage of it. And their in talks with AT&T. I don't know a single person who's sticking with them. I'm moving to Boost myself in the next couple of months.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[pavon]

What are talking about?

Not competing on contract length, or better yet ditching contracts altogether.

T-Mobile does have contract-free plans, and are the only major carrier to do so.

Not competing on price with the big 3, and following Boost's lead.

T-Mobiles with contract prices are significantly cheaper than AT&T and Verizon, and their contract-free plans are even cheaper than that.

Not updating existing Android phones to newer builds in a timely fashion.

I agree with you there. They took the lead with the G1, and but since then all the flagship Android phones have gone to other carriers.

I don't know of a single person who is leaving them, and know a couple that have gotten sick of Verizon's prices and are moving to T-Mobile. Boost et al have such shitty coverage around here I might as well carry a walkie-talkie.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[modmans2ndcoming]

Why are you posting on Slashdot and complaining about being on Froyo? Root the damn thing.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[ScrewMaster]

Why are you posting on Slashdot and complaining about being on Froyo? Root the damn thing.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Bought my original G1 from T-Mobile and rooted it a couple of days later. I'm on a G2 now (HTC Desire Z) and haven't run the stock firmware longer than it takes to put Cyanogenmod on it.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[modmans2ndcoming]

I upgraded from the original mytouch (that I rooted) to the Samsung Galaxy S 4G and it took me a weekend to root it because of its special complications... but it is seriously a better world when you root an android phone... unlike jail breaking an iPhone where you live with worry over the next x.y..z release of the iPhone firmware.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[WrecklessSandwich]

Not competing on contract length, or better yet ditching contracts altogether.

I'm on a no-contract plan with T-Mobile. I pay $15/month for unlimited texts with 10c/min voice. If I don't put money on my account when the monthly bill kicks in, it just doesn't work until I put the money into it and I'm good to go again. As someone who rarely makes extended voice calls, it works out quite nicely.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[manekineko2]

T-Mobile does have contract-free plans, and are the only major carrier to do so.

T-Mobile used to have contract-free plans, with their bring your own phone plans. They recently altered these so even if you bring your own phone, you're locked in for 2 years.

Now their only contract-free plans are the pre-paid plans, same as the rest.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to change my plan yesterday and was informed the T-Mobile no longer offers contract free plans. Their solution was to offer me a 2 year contract when I already have my own phone.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[pavon]

They are still advertising monthly contract-free plans online. They are on the prepaid section of their website, but don't seem any different than the contract-free plan that my girlfriend is currently on.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[luther349]

what are you talking abought. they offer no contract monthly and prepaid phones, i personalty like t-mobile they have the lowest rates of any of them. but then you got sprint who dumps the data caps for there smart phones to bloody at@t with there data plain scam. of course there cdma network was always like that boost mobile anyone. the issue wile t-mobile is a awesome cheap career who dosent rape with fees. the lack the coverage these days compared to the other guys but like every provider they don't what to make new towers they rather burn there company to the ground and let at@t buy it tank god the fcc put a stop to that.

Re:T-Mo crippled itself.

[crhylove]

Actually, it IS rooted, but the hardware is so ancient it runs like shit on anything later than froyo. LOL

Ironically accurate title

[SuperKendall]

Fanboi rant
Are you kidding? Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset?

Although I dislike using the term "fanboi" in any context, I cannot help but note how ironic it is that you disparage iPhone users by using that term, when you yourself seem to be blindly pushing Android even to people who would be better served by using an iPhone. There is a real difference in security and ease of use.

Re:Ironically accurate title

[JonySuede]

jailbreaking and iphonre or installing a rootkit on it is pretty much the same, so your claim about security don't hold very well, now if you want to talk about the perceived security, the iPhone wins....

Re:Ironically accurate title

[ScrewMaster]

Fanboi rant Are you kidding? Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset?

Although I dislike using the term "fanboi" in any context, I cannot help but note how ironic it is that you disparage iPhone users by using that term, when you yourself seem to be blindly pushing Android even to people who would be better served by using an iPhone. There is a real difference in security and ease of use.

You are a fanboi. He wasn't pushing anything: he was making a valid point that the market today is not like it was when the iPhone was first introduced. From a functional perspective, Android products are generally equivalent in capability to the iPhone, and are actually ahead of the game in others. They're often a better value as well, although I've never found an iPhone user to understand that concept when applied to smartphones.

There may or may not be a "real" difference anymore (many people prefer Android for one reason or another, hey, no accounting for taste) so claims that one is intrinsically superior to the other are fundamentally ridiculous. Face facts: smartphone tech is maturing, rapidly, and the iPhone is no longer the unquestioned leader in that market. Certainly it isn't in terms of unit sales. And that is to be expected and is entirely proper: nobody (and I mean nobody) remains market leader forever. That's just the way it works.

Put it this way: there's a reason that Apple broke into the tablet market, even though they were hardly the originators of that technology either. It's because they knew very well that their lead in the cellular market would eventually be lost, and it has been. No different than Microsoft casting desperately about to find something, anything with which they can make money outside of Windows and Office. Well, it is different in that Microsoft has continually failed at that whereas Apple has had some spectacular successes. But it's the same idea, and I give Apple credit for pulling it off again.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether their new leadership can continue Jobs' tradition of learning from his own failures and coming up with something that people just absolutely must have. Generally speaking, when the founder of a successful organization dies or retires, his creation loses focus, becomes excessively conservative and risk-averse ... and falls from the top spot. We'll see. Jobs' vision drove Apple to where it is and it remains to be seen if the company can flourish without it.

Re:Ironically accurate title

[Antisyzygy]

I greatly appreciate your post, and the non-confrontational nature of it. However I must say I disagree that CEO's hold all the cards when it comes to making "something". Jobs may have shown leadership and helped bring Apple out of a dire situation, but the people that did the actual work doing so are still there.

Re:Ironically accurate title

[Lemmy Caution]

It's not fanboi-ism: you are right that, today, I don't think an iPhone is going to be a decision-maker for most of the market. But it was two years ago, and that means that AT&T was able to capture a lot of the big-ticket high-end market then. Even if the alternatives are as good now, the customers in those markets will need a compelling reason to go elsewhere, one as compelling now as the iPhone was back then.

This is old news, long time coming. I may not like it (I don't like AT&T and am meh about iPhones) but that doesn't mean the analysis is wrong.

Re:Ironically accurate title

[ScrewMaster]

I greatly appreciate your post, and the non-confrontational nature of it. However I must say I disagree that CEO's hold all the cards when it comes to making "something". Jobs may have shown leadership and helped bring Apple out of a dire situation, but the people that did the actual work doing so are still there.

True, and that's why I said "it remains to be seen." But historically I'm correct: committees don't have vision, individuals do. I never personally liked Jobs or where he took his company, but he did have a vision and he made it happen, and the company was successful because of that. That is, after all, leadership, and a board of directors without out the right leader is about as useful as tits on a boar.

Re:Ironically accurate title

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fanboi. He wasn't pushing anything: he was making a valid point that the market today is not like it was when the iPhone was first introduced...

He didn't push anything either, in fact he made a good point about the phone that wasn't addressed at all in your response.

Android users are turning into what they hate. "Here, don't be part of a cult like Apple, use our stuff instead."

Re:Ironically accurate title

[kurt555gs]

I want a Nokia N9. I am a Maemo fanboi, not an Android fanboi. I have an N900 and it;s showing it age, I bought an N8 but Nokia is killing of Symbian as well. I just ordered an unlocked Samsung Galaxy II because Nokia is now under the control of the evil empire and won't sell what I want. So, soon to be Android owner, yes, fanboi no.

Re:Ironically accurate title

[node 3]

You are a fanboi. He wasn't pushing anything: he was making a valid point that the market today is not like it was when the iPhone was first introduced.

Um...

"Are you kidding? Unless you are paid by Apple or a Zombie, can do you really believe and iPhone is any better and a T-Mobile G2 or any high end Android handset?"

Pretty much using a term like "fanboi" increases the odds dramatically that you, yourself, are being a "fanboi". It's a stupid term that simply means "you don't like what I like, therefore you're an idiot".

The iPhone had a significant impact on T-Mobile. It's difficult to see how it couldn't, and it still does. In spite of all the Apple hatred around here, Apple has sold over 100 million iPhones, and sells tens of millions every quarter. In other words, people want iPhones. Not having the iPhone has caused problems for T-Mobile. It's nice that they have Android phones, and that people want those, but T-Mobile is automatically locked out of a large portion of the consumer market.

Re:Ironically accurate title

[gtall]

I think you have a distorted view of success. You seem to feel that one can only win in the marketplace if one dominates all the competition. That's silly as Apple's footprint and policies in the PC market show. They are quite happy being back where they are. They didn't go into the pad market because they knew they'd lose their lead in smartphones. Last I checked, their income from smartphones was increasing nicely and they seem fine with that. They entered the pad market because they realized (1) they could finally make a pad others wanted due to the availability of powerful enough processors that didn't suck energy, (2) had a deep background in a proper interface for one, (3) having learned how not to do it via the Newton, (4) a unique idea for selling software so that it didn't become a virus/trojan ridden pile of malware. The latter was necessary because Apple has always targeted the consumer market and knows these people have no idea how to keep a machine safe. They also figured out most people have simple needs and do not need nor want a PC.

Apple Fans

[VisibleSchlong]

"Why is it that Apple fans have to make everything about the iPhone?"

It really is sad. Apple fans were never like this years ago. I know I certainly wasn't. Yes there was fanboyism. But somehow Apple's move into the cellphone market turned Apple fans into foaming at the mouth batshit insane cultists.

One just has to see what has become of major Apple sites like AppleInsider:

* Apple invented EVERYTHING

* Anything not made by Apple SUCKS

* Anything not made by Apple would be AMAZING if Apple did it

* 'Teh OMG!!! iPhone' caused or is responsible for X. Where X is basically EVERYTHING. Wars, famines, stock market swings, celebrity breakups, medical breakthroughs.

Re:Apple Fans

[Antisyzygy]

Im sorry, but Apple fans were always like this. When I became aware of it they were talking about how superior the G3 processor was over anything offered by Intel or AMD. This is in spite of actual evidence showing that other processors were superior at many things. I remember an ad campaign when Apple talked about how "Your Macbook is a super-computer, doing XXX gigaflops". Funny thing about that is they were making up lies by using an older standard of what a super-computer is. Apple fan-bois have always been assholes. The only difference now is that since Apple became mainstream, they have more people making decent enough money to afford their products who are also fucking idiots. I own some Apple products in spite of the distasteful ways Apple fanboi's handle themselves. There are legitimate reasons for using Macbooks, or iPods, etc. One in particular is that you can use Unix based scientific software on Apple with slightly less of a headache over using Unix. However, Apple products are hardly more advanced, or more capable over other products. They just slap on some prettiness and ergonomics to existing technology.

Re:Apple Fans

[ehrichweiss]

No, they've been like this for a long, long time. About 18 years ago I got into 3D animation with the Amiga/VideoToaster(because Lightwave was still tied into the VT hardware back then) and was interested in talking with others in the field. Lo and behold one of the first people I meet is some little twerp telling me how Apple was going to rule the 3D world like it did desktop publishing...Lightwave was lame and never going to go anywhere and Strata3D was the best software there was. Less than a year later Babylon 5 came out and about a year after that I never heard anything about Strata except as some form of lame utility or something...but Lightwave is still going strong AFAIK. That's not entirely directly related to Apple but he was an Apple user and had the same fucking nasty attitude that we see today...

Re:Apple Fans

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

But somehow Apple's move into the cellphone market turned Apple fans into foaming at the mouth batshit insane cultists.

Apple fans turn up, they babble a lot. Android fans turn up, they babble about how sheeple'ish Apple fans are. Apple fans fight back, pointing out strengths in their choices. Android fans fight back, pointing out the strengths in their choices. Apple gets bad news, Android fans laugh. Android gets bad news, Apple fans laugh louder. Then it escalates from there.

Let's just face facts, we like the side we're on and we like antagonizing the other side. There really is no real substance here outside of that.

Re:Apple Fans

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Lo and behold one of the first people I meet is some little twerp telling me how Apple was going to rule the 3D world like it did desktop publishing...

He was wrong but it was a good bet at the time. Back then you had Apple and Amiga machines which were capable of doing the graphics work. The suggestion that the PC would wipe them both off the map would either result in a laugh or a fart noise. Funny how that played out.

...but Lightwave is still going strong AFAIK.

I'm sorry to tell you, but it's not what it was. They're working on rectifying that, though.

That's not entirely directly related to Apple but he was an Apple user and had the same fucking nasty attitude that we see today...

No, it's not. I knew those Mac zealots back then and right now you're on easy street in comparison. I have no doubt in mind that the guy you met was a jerk, I'm not trying to suggest otherwise, only that in the simple sense he had a point. iPhone users aren't like that. They may love their phones a lot, they may even be ignorant of the other options out there, but they are nowhere near as abrasive as the early/mid-90's Mac fans. I know a LOT of people with iPhones and only one has ever pulled me aside and ever tried to 'convert' me. I can honestly say I've listened to a lot more Android and, believe it or not, webOS zealotry than I have iPhone nonsense.

I'll tell you something else while we're on the topic: I am seeing a rise of Android fanboys acting, in person (not talking about the net), exactly the way you hate, trying to 'convert' people and ptbtbt'ing about Apple. The best part is these people don't know much about the product, instead they're parroting what they read on-line. And you know what that does? It sparks debates.

Fanboyism sucks and hate breeds it. I can't wait until this stupid flamewar subsides.

Re:Apple Fans

[shutdown -p now]

Let's just face facts, we like the side we're on and we like antagonizing the other side. There really is no real substance here outside of that.

I have an Apple tablet and an Android phone.

And I have to warn you - all that antagonizing myself hurts. Stick to a single vendor for the sake of your mental health! ~

Re:Apple Fans

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not entirely directly related to Apple but he was an Apple user and had the same fucking nasty attitude that we see today...

Glass houses and stones.

Re:Apple Fans

[steve_bryan]

How's that Amiga working for you now?

Re:Apple Fans

[Anonymous Coward]

U mad bro?

Re:Apple Fans

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are on a side and it's substance-free.

Reread the post, then reread yours. Seriously.

Re:Apple Fans

[lsatenstein]

Should'nt you be laughing with your wallet? With the extra by not having an Iphone, I was able to buy my wife a diamond ring.

Re:Apple Fans

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Yeah that, plus the fact that people these days don't seem to get that when we used to talk about "holy wars" and rib each other about using a PC or an Amiga, or Atari, etc. it was all in good fun, a joke. Here's a clue for the people who go around calling others "fanbois" and slinging insults: you don't get it. That goes double for people who refer to apple users as a cult. It's an in-joke ! Nothing worse than people who take a joke seriously.

Re:Apple Fans

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Umm... No, these Apple "cultist/fanboy" have existed forever, but only as straw men in the minds of people who seem only capable of seeing things in extremes.

+1, it's just a tired meme beaten to death by people who can't take a joke.

Re:Apple Fans

[JonJ]

A completely ignorant and humorless article really proves your point there. People who spread that idiotic non-funny dribble should be shot.

Re:Apple Fans

[gtall]

Ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner! The only truthful comment on this whole psuedo-issue.

Re:Apple Fans

[Anonymous Coward]

Two ways to really tell a fan boy, he attributes extreme views upon those that might suggest to him a differently reality and seems to expect political correctness for their preferred product line. Really, do they say that 'Apple invented EVERYTHING'? Of course they don't.

Re:Apple Fans

[Runaway1956]

I can't believe I wasted precious seconds of my life reading, and trying to comprehend, that link. There was mention of Eurofags, I believe. But, the article is about Metalfags. Weird shit man.

Re:Apple Fans

[revscat]

> Umm... No, these Apple "cultist/fanboy" have existed forever, but only as straw men in the minds of people who seem only capable of seeing things in extremes.

Agreed. It is the modern equivalent of the emperor has no clothes.

Re:Apple Fans

[Potent]

Yeah, I use a Symbian-powered Nokia E71 and laugh at them all

Re:Apple Fans

[Anonymous Coward]

he so mad

Re:Apple Fans

[halivar]

I have a Mac for Photoshop, a Windows box for WOW, and a Linux box for productivity. I am filled with such self-loathing I can barely keep my own hands from strangling me.

Then, on top of THAT, I have emacs and vim installed. You know what? Lemme go get a noose.

Re:Apple Fans

[nurb432]

it all reminds me of the apple/commodore 16 bit wars.. All we ( *we* as yes i am as guilty as everyone else back then ) was fight and bicker amongst ourselves while the big blue machine steam rolled past us.

See where all the bickering got us?

It's going to happen again here if we don't pay attention and work together.

Re:Apple Fans

[g00ey]

Regarding WebOS, I've had a positive stance on it even though I've never used it. The reason why is that I believe in a Linux based mobile OS that competes with Android and it seems to have more potential than iOS. In a similar manner I have been promoting the MeeGo simply because it is more open than Android and presumably the WebOS. Having this trio of mobile OSes well-spread can only be healthy for the mobile market.

Re:Apple Fans

[wzinc]

"making up lies by using an older standard of what a super-computer is"

Older standard == lies?

And Apple fans are the crazy ones...

Re:Apple Fans

[Antisyzygy]

Calling a PC a super computer when systems exist that actually are super computers and are thousands of times more powerful is a lie.

Re:Apple Fans

[ehrichweiss]

Sold it back in 1999 and bought a few SGI workstations with the money when it became clear I couldn't afford to buy any more Amiga gear(people apparently think it's worth more than gold).. Someone gave me a fully working A500 a year ago but I haven't gotten a chance to tinker with it..no monitor, etc..

Re:Apple Fans

[UnknowingFool]

By the definition of the federal government at the time, any computer capable of gigaflops was considered a supercomputer and not to be exported to sensitive countries. The G4 was capable of doing so. The federal definition has since been revised this definition as technology has changed. Also remember the federal government banned export of PGP as it was capable of using keys greater than 128 bit. That restriction has been revised as well.

Hi Bonch!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Apple shill accounts do you have?

SuperKendall
Bonch

How many more?

Re:Hi Bonch!

[Anonymous Coward]

Err... I though bonch was a M$ shill? :#

Re:Hi Bonch!

[kurt555gs]

Me too. Perhaps just asshole would be accurate.

Re:Hi Bonch!

[node 3]

You left out mine, you paranoid AC. Oooh, someone with a different opinion than you, must be a shill or a fanboy! And obviously there can only be one such person. After all, there's no one in the entire world that actually likes Apple products!

Why are so many here insecure? It's completely fine for other people to like things that you don't like, and that doesn't make them stupid, evil, shills, or anything else. It just makes them different.

For a group that pretends to care about choice and freedom, you sure have a funny way of showing it!

Re:Hi Bonch!

[Fjandr]

With a UID that low, the account is from an era when Apple was a bit player in pretty much everything they did. Pretty unlikely it's a shill account.

Re:Hi Bonch!

[Coren22]

There could only possibly be one user on /. that likes Apple.../. hates Apple after all, and we buy into the whole crowd mentality :)

Well, sure, I think it's better and I'm not...

[Anonymous Coward]

paid by Apple or a Zombie--whatever that means.

I think the other phones are fine, to each their own and all that, but I prefer an iPhone because of the quality of the hardware and software, elegant integration across laptop, tablet, phone, aTV. I can understand others not being into it.

I don't know if the lack of iPhone hurt T-mobile substantially; at best I would guess that's a second order effect given the size of the high-end smartphone market relative to the overall market.

Too little, too late

[Powercntrl]

It wasn't the iPhone, it was MetroPCS, Cricket, Straight Talk, Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile. The fact is, you don't need to sign a 2 year contract for an "unlimited everything" plan on a budget these days. T-Mobile's prices aren't good enough to compete with the real budget carriers, and their network and device selection isn't good enough to compete with AT&T and Verizon, so they're kinda stuck in the middle. Sprint is feeling the same pain (although, their Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile prepaid divisions are gaining customers). Apparently, there's not much market for people who are just a _little_ cheap.

Re:Too little, too late

[ScrewMaster]

It wasn't the iPhone, it was MetroPCS, Cricket, Straight Talk, Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile. The fact is, you don't need to sign a 2 year contract for an "unlimited everything" plan on a budget these days. T-Mobile's prices aren't good enough to compete with the real budget carriers, and their network and device selection isn't good enough to compete with AT&T and Verizon, so they're kinda stuck in the middle. Sprint is feeling the same pain (although, their Boost Mobile and Virgin Mobile prepaid divisions are gaining customers). Apparently, there's not much market for people who are just a _little_ cheap.

I dunno. We have a T-Mobile phone on a pay-as-you go plan with unlimited voice and 2 Gb of data. No contract. I'm not sure what all these people complaining about T-Mobile and contracts are talking about.

Re:Too little, too late

[hedwards]

What are you talking about? Boost and Virgin are both owned by major players in the business. MetroPCS, Cricket and Straight Talk are probably great if they're actually available where you live, which isn't around here and it's certainly not national.

As far as pricing goes, T-Mobile creams the competition in terms of what they provide, AT&T was a good deal for prepaid, but after the most recent rounds of price increases that's no longer the case.

At this point, I think it's pretty much just T-Mobile and Sprint selling unlimited service.

Apple Warriors Unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Head for your local Starbucks and mod down the unbelievers! Let's those mod points fly Apple Warriors!

Re:Apple Warriors Unite!

[ScrewMaster]

Head for your local Starbucks and mod down the unbelievers! Let's those mod points fly Apple Warriors!

No kidding: look at my original comment.

To all you fanboys with mod points, be careful: I wasn't insulting your favorite company or its products, I was taking you to task for your choices. If that's enough to make you mod someone down, you have pretty damn thin skins.

Re:Apple Warriors Unite!

[anagama]

I have an Android phone, T-Mobile MyTouch 3G and it is OK. No better than OK. Text input trends toward sucking -- the hunt and peck method is awful. Swype makes text entry passable, but not without frustration in normal use. Then there are the abnormal issues -- about a month, Swype decided to randomly lose the English dictionary and only allow me to use Spanish. I don't know Spanish and so it became totally useless. Some googling solved the issue, but it was really frustrating when it happened -- till I could solve the issue typing wasn't even worth trying.

I have never had an iPhone but I've tried the text entry on friends' phones -- it was appreciably better than my android phone even without having any experience. Now, in all liklihood, iPhones also suffer random issues my like my Swype/Spanish issue, but I can see how a person would choose an iPhone over an Android phone after doing a side by side comparison. That doesn't make the person a fanboi.

Re:Apple Warriors Unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair your MyTouch is hardly a high-end android device. Not that that excuses the random forced Spanish lesson, but it might explain why the OSK is a little harsher than would be found on a presumably higher-priced iPhone.

Google to the rescue

[fragMasterFlash]

T-Mobile is still a buyout target, and at this point I think Google or Microsoft could pick them up for less than AT&T offered. Since T-Mobile is more Android friendly than WP7 I think Google would be a more likely suitor.

Re:Google to the rescue

[ScrewMaster]

T-Mobile is still a buyout target, and at this point I think Google or Microsoft could pick them up for less than AT&T offered. Since T-Mobile is more Android friendly than WP7 I think Google would be a more likely suitor.

I've thought about that. Not sure the regulators would go for it, although I think it would be better for consumers if Google got T-Mobile than American Terrorphone and Terrorgraph.

The recent purchase of Motorola puts Google in a unique position, communications infrastructure-wise. I could see Google buying out T-Mobile, and offering data-only phones and plans that don't use any voice frequencies, and eventually re-purposing that spectrum for more data usage. Put it this way, Android (since Gingerbread) has supported SIP calling. Android terms it "Internet Calling" but if you get a SIP account (pbxes.org, etc.) you can do it now. Unfortunately T-Mobile doesn't offer a data-only plan or I'd dump voice calling in a heartbeat. I can use Skype, but the Android app sucks (and keeps getting worse with time, for some reason) but I do use CSipSimple with a pbxes.org account and it works very well.

Hundreds of thousands of miles of dark fiber, the Motorola purchase, Google Voice ... Google is up to something, and it has to do with telecommunications and mobile, but I'm not sure yet what it is.

Re:Google to the rescue

[trout007]

Or what if Apple bought them and made it the only network for iPhones and iPads?

Re:Google to the rescue

[ScrewMaster]

Or what if Apple bought them and made it the only network for iPhones and iPads?

Apple hasn't got the back-end infrastructure and services to make that worth the effort. Besides, they're making billions doing just what they're doing now.

Google, on the other hand ... Google has a hand that hasn't been played yet. If AT&T doesn't succeed in eliminating T-Mobile as competition and taking over their spectrum, Google may become a player here. Time will tell.

Re:Google to the rescue

[grumling]

Why not just cut 'em loose from Deutsche Telekom? 3 Billion in startup funds and an existing customer base sounds like a contender to me.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't hurt Verizon any.

Re:Fanboi fiction

[AliasMarlowe]

In GSM-only markets, like Australia and parts of Europe, where all carriers had the iPhone at the same time, Android Phone market share is only marginally better than Android Tablet market share.

Speaking from a GSM-only market (Finland), I don't see this at all, and your rant looks like fiction. Android phones greatly outnumber Apple's iPhones in public places such as shopping malls and airports, and in corporate environments. Hint: most corporations here don't provide iPhone or Android phones, people must buy their own and stick the company SIM card in it unless they're happy with the corporate-issue Nokia crap; they seem to be choosing Android by a substantial margin.

The increases in Android sales coincided with supply issues of iPhones. People would only buy Android phones when they couldn't get and iPhone and *needed* a phone now.

Do you have any data to back up this fascinating conjecture, which looks like baseless wild speculation from here. I don't know anyone who has an iPhone. I know many people who have Android phones.

Best deals around

[willoughby]

I use a T-Mobile MyTough 4g which I purchased outright from T-Mobile & then flashed with Cyanogenmod. I pay $60/month for unlimited talk, text & data with a 2gb soft cap. If I go over 2gb I'm shifted to edge speed for the rest of the billing cycle. I'm not shut off or charged extra.

The T-mobile network lets me do everything I want my phone to do everywhere I go. I've never had a complaint about coverage, data speeds, or anything else.

When ATT, Sprint, or any other carrier can match that deal, I'll consider switching.

Re:Best deals around

[backspaces]

+1: I currently pay $57.80/month. A bit hard to believe when I found out the vast majority of my friends' cell bill was north of $90 for the same service!

But for me TMo wins just as well for service. I travel for a month in europe every year so need a mobile phone. Really mobile, like world wide. TMo has been great making sure it all works. They will SIM-unlock a new contract when you need it for travel.

The huge variation in opinion here has a lot to do with the phone being the most personal of our digital critters. Lots of different requirements and ecologies.

But, man! Where in the world do normal folks get $80-90/month for a PHONE!

A reasoned discussion

[SuperKendall]

You are a fanboy.

Can we just drop the Hate Labels and talk reasonably here? You did a good job of that otherwise.

He wasn't pushing anything: he was making a valid point that the market today is not like it was when the iPhone was first introduced

Yes he was. By saying there was "no difference" between the Android and iPhone today, he is saying that ANYONE could use either with no consequence.

But that simply is not true for everyone. That is sort of true for technical users, although even there I would say there is a clear difference as some people obviously prefer the greater customizability of Android out of the box.

But for non-technical users, you do people who would not even know what a "task manager" was a disservice by steering them to a device that really requires more technical understanding to get the most of or use without issues.

claims that one is intrinsically superior to the other are fundamentally ridiculous.

Note carefully that I have NEVER claimed overall superiority of the iPhone. What I claim is that for SOME users it is the better choice. As is Android for others. Is that really wrong, to note that in fact some users are better served by one device or software over another? Are we as a people so lost in the deep realms of PC bullshit that we cannot even say one device is better at a specific task than another?

Generally speaking, when the founder of a successful organization dies or retires, his creation loses focus.

Lucky for Apple then Jobs has done neither.

Jobs' vision drove Apple to where it is and it remains to be seen if the company can flourish without it.

Something to look at carefully in about five years, but Apple has a long pipeline, and a lot of people in place hand-picked and trained by Jobs to think like him, along with a whole company of engineers who agree with his thought process pretty strongly at this point. I am pretty sure he has come as close as is possible to creating a self-correcting organization at this point that cannot get too far off the line he would have taken...

Not to mention Ive still works there, and he's really the one that is responsible for most modern Apple devices' immediate visceral appeal on holding it.

Real Security

[SuperKendall]

your claim about security don't hold very well, now if you want to talk about the perceived security, the iPhone wins....

Is it only perception that Android has had many more viruses and trojans than has the iPhone? Nope.

If it's possible for non-technical users to be Phished to a web site where they can download "free angry birds" then your platform is less secure, period.

Re:Real Security

[narcc]

If it's possible for non-technical users to be Phished to a web site where they can download "free angry birds" then your platform is less secure, period.

Well, that IS possible on iOS. Just visiting a website is all it takes to jailbreak and install an application.

Now, for REAL security, you need to forget about Android and iOS. BlackBerry OS is leagues ahead of both, yet still allows you to install anything you want. Pretty cool, eh?

Re:Real Security

[Coren22]

Why would anyone fall for that on Android? Angry birds is free in the Google marketplace...all three versions.

I have never experienced a Android virus, but I have heard of spyware for both platforms, and both platforms spying on your location data to some extent.

Me, Myself, and I

[SuperKendall]

I've always been myself, I only have time for one of me. If there were more it would be nice though.

I'm not sure if I've even ever read Bonch. Certainly he is not myself if his posts are not memorable nor insightful enough for me to remember.

Now Booch, that is a guy worth reading.

What does Deusche Telekom really want?

[dave562]

What do they want to do with the money they are trying to raise by selling T-Mobile? Do they have debts that they need to pay down? Do they have other projects in the works that need more capital? It seems pretty obvious that DT does not want T-Mobile anymore and does not have any interest in investing money infrastructure upgrades to continue competing in the market. So what do they want?

Re:What does Deusche Telekom really want?

[Rich0]

Companies don't want anything - they don't have brains or emotions. However, company executives want the same thing everywhere these days - to make as much money as possible while doing the least amount of real work.

Imagine you're a company executive. You have this American cell phone division. It is a pain in the neck - the people over there want money, and occasionally they even want you to make a decision. Now, along comes some other company that says they'll just pay you a pile of cash to take it off your hands.

If you accept the deal you get a huge pile of cash. Funneling a nice chunk of that into the executive bonus pool will be easy. You also have less work to do. And, while your company loses the long-term payments from owning a US cell phone company, you are already padding your resume to move on to some other job, so who cares. Oh, and completing a Merger/Acquisition is one of those things that looks really good on a CEO candidate's resume.

Most company actions these days can be best explained by just assuming that the senior leadership is out to pillage the company. The main exception are companies whose founders are still around - obviously they had long-term vision or they'd have spent their seed money on beer or something.

Re:What does Deusche Telekom really want?

[zerojoker]

Number one. In fact, Deutsche Telekom has an incredible huge debt they want to get rid off.

Data plan for iPhone no different

[SuperKendall]

The iPhone carries with it a premium data plan

On AT&T, I'm stuck with the same data plan choices as anyone else. Initially that was true as Apple worked out a special deal, but I don't think any carrier has a data plan for the iPhone these days that differs too much from any other smartphone.

There are plenty of people that use lower tier data plans (200MB/month) on AT&T to conserve money. While not cheap ($15/month) it's certainly not something I would label "premium" (it would have to cost more than a movie with drinks for me to hit that term).

I think it might be more accurate to say "the iPhone is tied with a data plan" which is not exactly premium, just an extra service that makes more sense on a smartphone.

How is that unlike the iPhone?

[SuperKendall]

Well, okay. You have a G2 with the stock firmware, probably using the stock Android launcher. Yeah, it works, but it's not the best, I agree. However, unlike the vaunted iPhone, you'll find (with a little research) that you can completely change your experience.

Just like a more technical user unsatisfied with the limitations of iOS as-is, can completely change the experience by jailbreaking.

The difference is that for most users they don't have to do that as shipped on an iPhone to get an experience they enjoy. That is what he is saying.

wrong premise

[dirtyhippie]

Actually, T-mobile will be in pretty decent shape if the merger with AT&T doesn't go through - they get $3 billion in such a circumstance. As for the iPhone, that's also wrong - until the Verizon iPhone came out, the carrier with the second largest number of iPhones was T-mobile (hacked and 3G less, but still paying T-mobile).

So, umm, yeah. Your two main premises are either completely wrong or seriously flawed.

Re:wrong premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey T-Mobile has Nokias C7 phone (I think) what do they need iPhone for?

My N8 got wet on thursday in a rain storm, soaked in a puddle of water poor thing, now I have to lug this iPhone4 around. What a piece of crap. Sluggish UI. Colors are like from a mental institution. Apps that come with it are crap. Making a phone call is like six separate touches. Come on Apple now that you have Cook, make this phone fabulous!

$10 or more. T-Mobile unlocks phones.

[Futurepower(R)]

"... those minutes in a year they roll to the next year if you buy another $100."

In the past, and maybe now, the minutes roll over if you buy another $10 or more.

After 3 months on the prepaid plan, T-Mobile would unlock you phone.

Who to switch to?

[skinlayers]

I'm on T-Mobile at the moment (with an aging Android Dev Phone*), but my contract expired a while ago so I'm free to leave if I please. I definitely want to stick with the Android platform. For a while I was drooling over Sprint's EVO 3D, but I heard its battery life sucks when you use the 3D features a lot. I live in Seattle, BTW.

Who would you recommend?

The phone selection people were tone-deaf

[mlp68]

Being from Germany originally, I have liked always liked TMo in the US - friendly customer service, GSM technology (important if you travel overseas a lot), very good coverage (only in Puerto Rico I drew a blank so far) and the fact that they allow you to unlock the phone after a very short time (basically after you paid 3 bills or so). I have always been able to plug in my German pre-paid card and avoid overseas roaming charges. In addition, TMo is one of the few carriers to still offer an unlimited data plan, which came in really handy when Hurricane Irene took out my regular network for days.
But the selection of phones they offered in the past (before the iPhone - I don't really care about that) were clearly putting many folks off. They got the Razr at a time when people already dumped them on EBay, and only recently they got themselves a real winner with the Galaxy S/Vibrant. I always had a hard time defending our family plan with my kids with the "totally uncool" phones, and ended up buying unlocked phones on the free market a few times. I once found myself next to a T-Mo corporate woman on a flight and told her that. She was really surprised and recited the list of phones she thought were really great - almost the same selection that I knew to be the list of Phones Never To Be Caught With. It continued with the Android 1.5 phones that were offered forever, the Blackberries, and others which appeared to be selected for their total absence of any kind of must-have appeal.
 

best to let it go down

[WindBourne]

The reason is that ATT will be forced to build out a network. By buying them out, it really does not help the industry or consumers. OTH, T-Mobile has built out all over the world. And iphone is simply not needed. Android is bigger and will continue to grow.At some point, iphone will choose to sell to t-mobile. Otherwise, it will encourage android to eat into their space.

Tmobile is the only one that

[gearloos]

Well, IMO Tmo is the only of the large carriers I don't consider to be part of the "Evil Empire". Yes, I know, they are a corp. like all the rest, but they just honestly don't seem to be screwing me every time they can and openly misleading me and committing fraud. Verizon .. well really enough said, but.. Well, Verizon actually had my bill screwed up and they tried to tell me it was for my benefit I was paying more than I signed up for that month. They said that if I continued the same activity for a year, I'd come out ahead so I should not worry about the 35.00 US overcharge for the 2 weeks I was on vacation and they convienently changed my plan. iPhone? lol who cares? I certainly don't. I have had Android since the first G1 on its release date. I'm no Fanboi spouting the holiness of the platform but I can say I run a Nexus S now a days and couldn't be happier with my T-Mo account and the Rooted Tethering that Tmo doesn't really complain one way or the other about. Verizon wants to charge you mega bucks extra for the tethering. Did you know that on your iphone if you tether you are using different bits ? they are "premium" bits. Well, thats the way Verizon sees it. ATT ? well cut Verizon above and insert ATT. Whats different? Gawd I am so Fkn sick of the way the world is changing to this Fanboi kind of attitude where the truth or any objective reasoning doesn't count anymore.

i-phone works w/t-mbl

[Anonymous Coward]

i used an iphone w/t-mbl.no 3g but other than that works good...no contracts-the only way to go.

Re:Fanboi fiction

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I see iPhones everywhere myself. Of course this kind of anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless because of Selective Perception and Confirmation Bias.

That little pink dress

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what hurt them was their overfeminist advertising. I certainly never saw them as a serious contender until I went into their store, and checked out their phones, and rates for myself. I always saw them as the brand for teenage girls.

An unlimited plan with a 5 gig a month cap (which gets throttled once you go over, you don't get overcharged) for 80 bucks a month with no contract. Is a very good plan. In NE Ohio, their coverage is better than Sprint's, and their network drops less.

Oh, and they do have an 'iphone' it's called the G2X, and it is a gem, built in graphics card, dual core chip, and stupid good battery life.

Be the "value" carrier

[Anonymous Coward]

Deutsche Telekom has an opportunity here and they'll clearly miss it as they have every other one that's come along.

The cell phone market in the US is bullshit. We have little choice and being locked into a contract sucks. My rate plan on my phone is now nearly $100 a month, which, if it wasn't a company phone, there's no way I'd pay that. Most of the "features" I have are things I need for business. My wife was forced to get a "data" package on her phone even though it really doesn't even have a web browser. At most she sends a half dozen txts a month.

T-mobile could probably get a huge chunk of the market if they ran their business the way their European counterparts do:

1. No contracts.
2. GSM so you can move from phone to phone with your SIM card easily.
3. Undercut everyone's prices. Like SERIOUSLY undercut everyone's prices - offer basic rate plans for $15 a month. Make a basic data package for under $30 with a super basic Android phone.
4. Don't build a "4G" network right now - use the existing 3G network to deliver basic services. Buy AT&T's leftover equipment they'll soon be ripping out en masse to expand the 3G.
5. Don't be a douchebag like Verizon and AT&T.
6. Send me a chocolate frosted cupcake on my birthday.

They'd actually get a decent business marketshare with that. Think about it - no business cares if their employees can browse the web. They just want them to have email and calendaring.

F*ck the iPhone.

I just went with T-Mobile

[rhyous]

I just went with T-Mobile because they were the only ones that could give me a phone with data for and text for $69 a month. I am now contracted to T-Mobile for 2 years. T-Mobile seems to be cheaper and pretty much just as good for me and there is still potential for them to rise up and continue to succeed. Jared http://www.rhyous.com/

iPhony

[p51d007]

The iJunk proves an important point. Just as with the election of Hussein Obama, the iPhone proves a fool & his money are soon parted. All you have to do is watch this silly video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg and you'll know the average intelligence of an iJunk user.

Seriously!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of Wireless companies thrived without the iPhone ..... Like Verizon...I remember hearing that even though the iPhone finally came to Big Red it had little impact on New subscribers.....yet T-Mobile is a failure because it lacks the iPhone...Wtf is the matter with your Editors. The FlameBait spewing from Slashdot is at an all time high! I remeber when this site actually was a go-to destination for reliable non-bias stories...Those times are long gone. FlameBait rukes the.desk of your Editors..Pathetic!

Yes, being healthy is a blessing

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people don't appreciate it. Many people don't realize they could have been born with a crippling birth defect that impaired their ability to function.

You should treat it as the blessing it truly is, and appreciate it.

Mobile providers don't sell an "Android"

[Quila]

They sell Android phones, usually a few each from a couple different Android manufacturers. And it is all of those manufacturers, with phones from free to top-end, that have the highest mobile handset marketshare.

But if a mobile provider wants ONE phone they know will sell like hotcakes, it's the iPhone. If Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony and LG each sell one smart phone, Apple sells two iPhones.

Remind me to never read anything from GMGruman...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only a terrible summary but a completely ridiculous premise, a 5% market share phone is responsible for bringing down anything? A complete fanboi with a self importance level reached only by other Apple fanbois.