This was in an article about Europe. If they don't find a partner in Europe in the desired timeframe, it's not like they're just going to go, "Oh well, I guess we'll never sell in Europe!" The fact of the matter is they could sell the iPhone unlocked, and able to be used on any GSM carrier. Does that mean they will for sure? Of course not. It just means that they could, from a technical perspective, do just that. They don't "need" to have a specific carrier in Europe. Saying that you could use firewood to power a vehicle is nowhere near an equivalent analogy in any way, shape, or form. iPhone could be used, nearly as-is, on ANY GSM carrier.
The editor accepting the submission even saw fit to add "In Europe, unlike in the US, Apple has the option of selling the iPhone through its own dealer network without a simlock," to the article, and the article itself says, "If Apple decided to sell the iPhone directly to consumers, it would have to sell the devices without simlock, allowing the buyer to insert their own Sim card."
So, especially since this was said in the article AND the submission, and it is a factual statement about something Apple could easily do in Europe if it doesn't have a specific European partner, how does that make me a fanboy again? The implication for some people is that if Apple "can't find a partner in Europe" that might mean the iPhone isn't coming to Europe, which is obviously a Bad Thing (for Apple). Except, that's not the case, because there are other alternatives; namely, exactly what is being discussed here. So, what's better: incorrectly thinking that if Apple can't find a partner that it won't be able to sell the iPhone in Europe (which is false), or knowing that it would be technically possible for Apple to sell iPhones unlocked in Europe that would work with any GSM carrier (albeit without visual voicemail)?
"...considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing..."
Bullshit.
I'm not going to find the exact post where I said this, but I believe I said - to paraphrase; I know the last part of this isn't the exact quote - that "...considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing who has advocated publicly for the removal of DRM from mainstream music."
How is that not a true statement, in the context you chose to omit? Outside of the DRM context, I'd simply say that Steve Jobs is absolutely an influential person - but not the most in general - in music, media, and computing.
"...I have another idea: how about people stop predicting the doom of the iPhone before it's even out yet?"
What's wrong with that statement? iPhone hasn't even shipped, and we have had all sorts of news articles writing it off as a failure.
"There is no reason I can think of that you'd have to have a "contract" to use WiFi on iPhone."
Don't know where to go with this one. You WILL NOT need a contract to use WiFi on iPhone, for the reasons I said: if the iPhone is out of range of all service, there is NO WAY it can know whether or not it is "on contract", and are we to expect WiFi simply won't work? That's ridiculous. WiFi usage won't need a contract, and that's not a fanboy statement.
Actually, if you'd still say that IS a fanboy statement, what's the term for blog posts and news articles proclaiming (incorrectly, or at the VERY LEAST without knowing definitively themselves) that WiFi usage will require a contract on iPhone?
"Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality."
This is obviously a true statement, and Apple already explicitly said 3G would be added in a future iteration. How is that a fanboy comment?
and some unsubstantiated claims (considering the iPhone isn't even available yet):
"the only feature loss would be "visual voicemail", but "normal" voicemail functionality and all other phone features, as applicable, should absolutely work."
That's true of ANY GSM phone, and that is a statement from a technical standpoint: an unlocked* GSM handset should absolutely have its basic functionality - voice, data, voicemail, etc. - work on any network.
*Remember, the article was saying that Apple could choose to sell unlocked in Europe, and if it did, that is a true statement.
"That's ridiculous. WiFi isn't "locked" to anything."
See above. It can't be.
"The inclusion of WiFi also obviates the need for 3G coverage for many people."
True statement. In the US, it does.
"Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people."
True statement. In the US, it does.
"Since you need a two-year AT&T contract anyway, this is a moot point. But if you let the contract expire or pay a termination fee, WiFi won't just stop working."
True statement. (I'm guessing you actually believe WiFi would really be locked to a contract?)
Followed by your openly contradictory remark here:
"I'm talking about AT&T's 3G coverage, which is the only thing that matters in the US, since that's the only network on which you can use an iPhone in the US."
How is that contradictory? I know that the article was talking about Europe, but I was talking about AT&T's US 3G coverage.
"And yes, iPhone will work on any GSM carrier; that's the whole purpose of standards like GSM, and iPhone is a GSM phone."
Ugh...oh, you mean contradictory with that statement. It's not contradictory at all:
iPhone, from a technical perspective, WILL work on any GSM carrier IF Apple chooses to sell it unlocked in Europe. In the US, it is already well known that it will start
And now I find it humorous that you are so diligently responding to every single contrary argument against your original post.
I responded to two out of 14 comments; yours, and one other person's, both of whom specifically asked me a question. I don't care whether you or anyone else owns a Mac. That's the whole point of this discussion: I'm not trying to "convert" people, nor do I get pissed off when I find out someone doesn't have a Mac. Yet, I suppose now I don't know how to lighten up when I'm responding to someone who accused me of "diligently responding to every single contrary argument" when it was two replies so far (to my initial post), and one was to your own. If you didn't want me to respond, why'd you ask me to?
"I see you take Jobs' use of referring to an iPhone be simply saying "people will buy iPhone". Why do you keep on missing out an before the word of this product?"
"Do you Apple fangirls know how pathetic you sound? Other groups have their vocal populations, but Apple fangirls are by far the most in need of validation for their moronic decision to overspend on an inferior product."
"Dave, seriously, STFU already you Apple loving Macbot. You wouldn't have even commented on this story if it wasn't about Apple. Now go the fuck away."
"Are you the GLORY HOLE operator at Apple Inc?? Apple software is designed to limit the freedom of users. Probably, that's why it's not compatible with Vista. You see, there are three types of freedom relating to computers:
1- Windows: free to run programs and do just about anything with the computer 2- Linux: free to view the source 3- Apple: free to toe the line"
That's an interesting point. I'd just respond by saying two things:
- If you're a user of a product by choice, you probably believe the positives outweigh the negatives, one would hope, so naturally you're going to have less negative things to say about it in general.
- Personally, my main concern is submissions and highly moderated comments with incorrect information; nearly always it's negative information, so the items being corrected are already skewed to the negative side, meaning that the corrections will nearly always be "positive".
If some moron is going nuts about "ZOMG iPhone r0xxxx and it's better than every smartphone EVAR" (or the reverse), I don't see any need to respond to that at all. But if someone says "We don't know if iPhone has a removeable SIM, so Apple is really screwed in Europe", and then I say, "Uh, yes, it's already been proven that it does have a removable SIM and there is no technical reason it couldn't be used on any carrier in Europe if Apple chose to sell it unlocked," that, in my view, doesn't make me a "fanboy", even though it casts Apple's situation in a positive light. In fact, incorrect information nearly always casts the subject in a negative light. Someone saying "the MacBook Pro is the greatest laptop ever" doesn't need to be "corrected" because that's a subjective opinion.
...a "fanboy" (or, more often, "fanboi", and sometimes even "fangirl") when I disseminate correct information about Apple on slashdot, clarify a misleading story, or correct completely and utterly factually and provably incorrect claims. It's not even about trying to "convert" anyone to anything. I usually respond by asking if the person calling me a "fanboi" could point out anything incorrect that I said in my post. That is usually followed up with brilliant posts about sex acts.
So, here's another question: this article is called "The Psychology of Mac Zealots"; what's the "psychology" of people who instantly call anyone who posts anything about Apple a "fanboy"? The article talks about how "fanboys" might be right, but also says that being anonymous and abusive (and therefore annoying) when making their point is a hallmark of a "fanboy". So how can a person who is neither (and also is correct about a factual point) a "fanboy"?
It isn't about "rooting for the underdog" or trying to create "converts" (directly, anyway). It's about wanting correct information disseminated about something you're interested in. And if it adds factual information to the discussion, what's wrong with that? To me, saying that something is obviously better or "rocks" or that something else "sucks" with no logical reasoning to back it up is what makes someone a "fanboy".
This is true; I'm speaking of what is possible for an unlocked iPhone from a technical perspective. It can and will work on any GSM network.
if GSM standards demanded that phones worked on any GSM network, why are things like simlocking coming out which create phones which are locked to a specific carrier, just like CDMA?
I'm saying that a GSM phone in general can work on any GSM network, not that a locked phone will. And simlocking isn't "coming out"; it's been standard practice for many GSM carriers - and not just those in the US - for years. And most carriers WILL unlock phones for customers so that any SIM can be used for things like international travel and usage of prepaid SIMs. Also, several manufacturers sell unlocked GSM phones in the US, even though they're almost always a lot more expensive (because they don't have the carrier subsidy).
The discussion is about iPhone in Europe, and if Apple wants to sell iPhone unlocked, that's its business. Since it appears from the AT&T document I linked that iPhone also isn't subsidized, that means its price will also be the same or similar to the US price on AT&T.
I believe that GSM network owners hate that their phones will work anywhere, and that is why they're pushing for the capability to lock phones to their networks like what can be done with CDMA.
That may be the case, but carriers using simlocks is a completely different discussion from whether or not Apple can sell iPhone unlocked and able to work on any GSM carrier in Europe if it wishes (it can), and whether or not such an unlocked iPhone will work fine on any GSM carrier (it will - with the exception of specialty features like visual voicemail).
American mobile-phone technology is five, maybe seven years behind Europe and Asia.
This is due in large part to geographic size, and the nature of the marketplace as mobile telephone services were rolled out in the United States.
Large metropolitan areas have coverage more or less on par
Features which are acceptable in the USA (e.g., EDGE,
It's not tht EDGE is "acceptable"; it's that it's what most of the coverage on AT&T's network actually is. And a large part of it, believe it or not, is economies of pure geographic size. AT&T does have a lot of 3G coverage in metro areas, and CDMA carriers such as Sprint and Verizon have even broader 3G coverage.
simlocks,
The US isn't the only place that does carrier SIM locking, though I'll admit it's definitely standard practice for US carriers. However, manufacturers do sell unlocked phones in the US (such as Palm), and carriers (inlcuding AT&T) will unlock phones for customers (permanently) for things like international travel and the use of prepaid SIMs.
contract-locked Wi-fi
There is no reason I can think of that you'd have to have a "contract" to use WiFi on iPhone. The stories going around implying this is the case are assuming because someone said you needed a contract to get an iPhone (and therefore use the iPhone's WiFi) that you must need a contract to use WiFi from a technical standpoint. That's garbage. What if the phone is out of AT&T (or any) coverage? The phone can't "know" whether it's on contract; do you actually believe the WiFi simply won't work? That's ridiculous. WiFi isn't "locked" to anything.
Since you need a two-year AT&T contract anyway, this is a moot point. But if you let the contract expire or pay a termination fee, WiFi won't just stop working.
etc) are so archaic as to provoke spontaneous laughter when described to non-US mobile users. Just look at the terminology -- fully half* the phone users outside the USA would have no idea what a "cellular" phone is.
This actually proves my point. This kind of technology (mobile telephones) was prevalent in the US long before it was anywhere else in the world.
It's a mobile phone. Mobile across networks, user SIMS, and national borders.
So is iPhone.
The simple fact that the parent post asks rhetorically "would it be cool if the first-gen Iphone had 3G?" amazes me. Jesus, is it still 2002 in the USA or something? If Apple takes that attitude to Europe it'll get laughed at. And it is.
To reiterate something I said in another post:
Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people. Those who really need 3G in a handheld device don't have to get an iPhone.
Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality. Apple has already said 3G is coming in the future. Further iPhone is a half-year out for Europe, and it's not a foregone conclusion that today's iPhone specs MUST mean that 3G won't be there when iPhone ships for Europe, and even if it isn't we already know it's coming soon, because Apple specifically said so at the iPhone introduction in January. So if you NEED 3G, don't get the first gen iPhone. How hard is that?
I'm talking about AT&T's 3G coverage, which is the only thing that matters in the US, since that's the only network on which you can use an iPhone in the US.
Cool. So Apple is targeting consumers who are outside of major urban areas, and isn't so interested in people who live in NY, SF, Seattle, Dallas, etc. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but at least it's a viable theory.
1. I didn't say that.
2. Your statement ignores the fact that massive numbers of people are in fact outside of 3G coverage.
3. Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people. Those who really need 3G in a handheld device don't have to get an iPhone.
4. Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality. Apple has already said 3G is coming in the future.
Now will you explain why you don't want MMS or GPS either?
1. I never use MMS, and all the people saying that MMS is mandatory and "everyone uses it" are high, because I have never used it, and no one I know uses it. And this is on a major university campus. So that doesn't impact me at all. Also, I'd use email or iPhoto for all photo management from an iPhone.
2. I wish it did have GPS. It doesn't. I guess I get to weigh the pros vs. cons when making a purchasing decision? My current phone (Palm Treo 700p) doesn't have GPS either, nor do many PDA phones. Should we get upset about all of those, too? Why don't those have GPS?
The way I see it, the iPhone is basically a modern iPod duct taped to a state of the art cell phone from 2004.
Ignoring the ignorance of your comment, I'd just say, "Good thing buying one isn't mandatory, then." No one's forcing you to buy one.
Well, I assumed the original poster was asking about the US, and that's what I'm talking about, since that's where I live. In Europe, it might be a big(ger) deal. But it's not even launching in Europe until Q4, which, knowing Apple, means December 31, 2007 - still a half a year out. And there's nothing to say there can't be a newer iPhone featuring 3G pretty soon thereafter. In the meantime, the customers who aren't impacted by the lack of 3G can still purchase it; others certainly don't need to.
3G coverage isn't very broad in the US, except in some major metropolitan areas. See my other followup on this topic. Fortunately, if you need 3G, no one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. I find it funny that people are predicting iPhone's death months before it's due to even start shipping in Europe.
No. Yes, this is an "employee Q&A", but this does not mean that the phone just isn't "further" subsidized for "employees" - I don't even know how you get that. It means the iPhone is not subsidized, period. The only thing the words subsidy and subsidized even refer to in the wireless industry is price reductions in exchange for contracts, not for employee discounts. The entire Q&A is for employees dealing with customers, customer questions, and AT&T's direction for iPhone, not for employee purchase issues for iPhone. That's why it also says an existing AT&T customer can purchase iPhone for the same price as a new customer: the iPhone isn't subsidized.
I know a lot of people think the lack of 3G is killer, but 3G doesn't cover much of the nation yet. Granted, they have coverage in many major metro areas, but I don't think it's broad enough yet. Thus, Apple probably felt like it was acceptable to not do 3G at the beginning. In fact, there may have been multiple reasons: there may be a different data package for iPhone, and AT&T might not mind "testing the waters" a bit. The inclusion of WiFi also obviates the need for 3G coverage for many people. Personally, I live in a city that probably won't have 3G coverage from AT&T for a long time, so I, like many others, couldn't even get it if we wanted. I disagree with people who think everything is about planned obsolescence, and that this is a screw-job on consumers designed to gip early adopters and force people to buy new phones when a 3G-capable iPhone becomes available. While I'm sure Apple won't shed any tears if people buy new iPhones, I highly doubt that was even a marginal reason for 3G's omission in the first generation.
So, in summary: would it be cool if the first gen iPjone had 3G? Of course. But with WiFi and considering the relatively limited AT&T 3G coverage in the US for the time being, I don't see it as the massive problem some others do. I don't think it will negatively impact the majority of iPhone early adopters, and those who feel they need 3G can certainly wait
Even though a two year agreement is required with AT&T in the US, the iPhone is not subsidized, meaning that is the real price.
And you're correct: the only feature loss would be "visual voicemail", but "normal" voicemail functionality and all other phone features, as applicable, should absolutely work.
In the US, AT&T (Cingular) and T-Mobile are both GSM providers. Apple could have easily sold an unlocked phone to be used by those providers.
I think they're just referring to the fact that this typically isn't done in the US, but they shouldn't imply this isn't possible, as manufacturers (such as Palm) already do sell unlocked GSM phones in the US.
"I also take issue with the article's claim, regurgitated in the summary, that selling iPhone without a simlock is "not an option" in the US. Several phone manufacturers..."
should go on to read:
Several phone manufacturers offer unlocked GSM phones in the US that will work with any GSM carrier. There's no reason Apple couldn't do this anywhere, including Europe, and the US (after its rumored 5-year exclusive deal with AT&T is over).
And before anyone says that we "don't know" whether the iPhone has a user-accessible SIM tray, yes, we do.
And yes, iPhone will work on any GSM carrier; that's the whole purpose of standards like GSM, and iPhone is a GSM phone. Network-specific functionality (such as visual voicemail) will not work, but the phone and basic voicemail functionality, data functionality, etc., will absolutely work.
When Apple is ready to launch iPhone in Europe - it has previously said Q4 2007 - I have no doubt they'll be launching it, whether it's with one partner or multiple, or Apple makes some compromises to make a deal happen.
I also take issue with the article's claim, regurgitated in the summary, that selling iPhone without a simlock is "not an option" in the US. Several phone manufacturers
And before anyone says that the iPhone is subsidized, therefore it must be a million dollars without a contract, you're wrong. Even though a two year contract with AT&T is required for iPhone in the US, the iPhone is not subsidized - the price is what it is.
And mobile operators calling Apple arrogant? How amusing. Also, I have another idea: how about people stop predicting the doom of the iPhone before it's even out yet?
It's a hell of a lot more nuanced than that, but I don't have time to write a book on slashdot, okay? Whatever you want to anoint China's current governmental and political systems in name, if you don't believe that China will be a serious threat to the United States in the future, you're deluding yourself. The Chinese military and intelligence communities already see the United States as the biggest threat.
And you don't have to tell me what happened with Iraq intelligence, thanks. You should spend some time reading the reports of the WMD Commission and the Senate special report on Iraq WMD intelligence. It wasn't just a failure of analysis.
Simply because one doesn't subscribe to the principles of moral relativism, in the negative sense of the term, does not make one a moral absolutist, in the similarly negative connotation.
Rather, some people are realistic: some differences are the result of legitimate cultural and philosophical differences, as opposed to "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil"; but at the same time, there are intrinsically better ways of doing things if you believe that freedom is a universally valuable principle.
When you distill everything down to being nothing but several equally valid positions, you diminish the principles that those who typically promote such ideas benefit from tremendously (i.e., the very freedoms that allow them to pontificate from the comfortable chair).
I didn't mean or intend them to appear interchangeable. The US is both (essentially), and because we have pockets of "Socialism" doesn't mean that we're not still either manifestly Capitalist or Democratic.
The fundamental difference is the openness of United States and other democratic societies versus the openness of China. The fact that you take the moral relativism route and act as if the United States is the "same" or "just as bad" (if not worse) than Chinese activities is telling.
The United States government has nowhere near any level of real or incidental control over the press as in China. And any "control" exercised asserted is artificial, because we can ALWAYS find out more information from sources in the United States and around the globe. The Chinese people cannot, in any way, shape, or form. The Chinese government still exercises direct, official control of much of the press, and mass censorship of nearly any other outlets and the Internet. "Check the corresponding wikipedia page" on Chinese control of the media to "learn a bit".
The leadership of the United States may try to "feed" the picture that suits them; but ultimately, they cannot do this. China can. Just because many Americans don't care to look deeper into the news or world happenings doesn't mean they don't have the capability to do so. The Chinese do not, whether they would wish it or not.
Of course the United States has strategic intelligence operations. All do. But they operate with at least a marginal level of transparency in free societies - yes, even massively secret operations, and even when the government does some questionable things - something that cannot be said at all in China.
Yeah, China has pockets of Capitalism where it's convenient. Even to the extreme in some cases. They also leverage Hong Kong in this respect to great advantage. Capitalism where it benefits the goals of furtherance of the ideals of the Chinese leadership.
And as I just said in another post:
The United States has pockets of what could be called "socialism" in government and government programs. Does that mean the United States is socialist, or isn't Capitalist/Democratic? Of course not. To say that the existence of elements traditionally antithetical to pure "Communism" is proof that China is no longer "Communist" completely misses the larger point, and ignores the fact that China actually has significant intelligence programs dedicated to making people outside of China believe they are no longer Communist, and hint: it's not because they "really aren't any more".
It's interesting folks like yourself think it's all about "red-baiting", or artificially calling the Chinese "Communists" because it makes them a more palatable adversary. China has invested a significant amount of intelligence resources over the last twelve or so years into making people erroneously believe that they have abandoned Communism and are really now a quasi-Capitalist state, because they know that appears "friendly" to the West, and primarily to the United States. This is thoroughly and well-documented, and your refusal to believe that might actually be the case is interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
This was in an article about Europe. If they don't find a partner in Europe in the desired timeframe, it's not like they're just going to go, "Oh well, I guess we'll never sell in Europe!" The fact of the matter is they could sell the iPhone unlocked, and able to be used on any GSM carrier. Does that mean they will for sure? Of course not. It just means that they could, from a technical perspective, do just that. They don't "need" to have a specific carrier in Europe. Saying that you could use firewood to power a vehicle is nowhere near an equivalent analogy in any way, shape, or form. iPhone could be used, nearly as-is, on ANY GSM carrier.
The editor accepting the submission even saw fit to add "In Europe, unlike in the US, Apple has the option of selling the iPhone through its own dealer network without a simlock," to the article, and the article itself says, "If Apple decided to sell the iPhone directly to consumers, it would have to sell the devices without simlock, allowing the buyer to insert their own Sim card."
So, especially since this was said in the article AND the submission, and it is a factual statement about something Apple could easily do in Europe if it doesn't have a specific European partner, how does that make me a fanboy again? The implication for some people is that if Apple "can't find a partner in Europe" that might mean the iPhone isn't coming to Europe, which is obviously a Bad Thing (for Apple). Except, that's not the case, because there are other alternatives; namely, exactly what is being discussed here. So, what's better: incorrectly thinking that if Apple can't find a partner that it won't be able to sell the iPhone in Europe (which is false), or knowing that it would be technically possible for Apple to sell iPhones unlocked in Europe that would work with any GSM carrier (albeit without visual voicemail)?
Way to take quotes out of context...
"...considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing..."
Bullshit.
I'm not going to find the exact post where I said this, but I believe I said - to paraphrase; I know the last part of this isn't the exact quote - that "...considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing who has advocated publicly for the removal of DRM from mainstream music."
How is that not a true statement, in the context you chose to omit? Outside of the DRM context, I'd simply say that Steve Jobs is absolutely an influential person - but not the most in general - in music, media, and computing.
"...I have another idea: how about people stop predicting the doom of the iPhone before it's even out yet?"
What's wrong with that statement? iPhone hasn't even shipped, and we have had all sorts of news articles writing it off as a failure.
"There is no reason I can think of that you'd have to have a "contract" to use WiFi on iPhone."
Don't know where to go with this one. You WILL NOT need a contract to use WiFi on iPhone, for the reasons I said: if the iPhone is out of range of all service, there is NO WAY it can know whether or not it is "on contract", and are we to expect WiFi simply won't work? That's ridiculous. WiFi usage won't need a contract, and that's not a fanboy statement.
Actually, if you'd still say that IS a fanboy statement, what's the term for blog posts and news articles proclaiming (incorrectly, or at the VERY LEAST without knowing definitively themselves) that WiFi usage will require a contract on iPhone?
"Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality."
This is obviously a true statement, and Apple already explicitly said 3G would be added in a future iteration. How is that a fanboy comment?
and some unsubstantiated claims (considering the iPhone isn't even available yet):
"the only feature loss would be "visual voicemail", but "normal" voicemail functionality and all other phone features, as applicable, should absolutely work."
That's true of ANY GSM phone, and that is a statement from a technical standpoint: an unlocked* GSM handset should absolutely have its basic functionality - voice, data, voicemail, etc. - work on any network.
*Remember, the article was saying that Apple could choose to sell unlocked in Europe, and if it did, that is a true statement.
"That's ridiculous. WiFi isn't "locked" to anything."
See above. It can't be.
"The inclusion of WiFi also obviates the need for 3G coverage for many people."
True statement. In the US, it does.
"Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people."
True statement. In the US, it does.
"Since you need a two-year AT&T contract anyway, this is a moot point. But if you let the contract expire or pay a termination fee, WiFi won't just stop working."
True statement. (I'm guessing you actually believe WiFi would really be locked to a contract?)
Followed by your openly contradictory remark here:
"I'm talking about AT&T's 3G coverage, which is the only thing that matters in the US, since that's the only network on which you can use an iPhone in the US."
How is that contradictory? I know that the article was talking about Europe, but I was talking about AT&T's US 3G coverage.
"And yes, iPhone will work on any GSM carrier; that's the whole purpose of standards like GSM, and iPhone is a GSM phone."
Ugh...oh, you mean contradictory with that statement. It's not contradictory at all:
iPhone, from a technical perspective, WILL work on any GSM carrier IF Apple chooses to sell it unlocked in Europe. In the US, it is already well known that it will start
And now I find it humorous that you are so diligently responding to every single contrary argument against your original post.
I responded to two out of 14 comments; yours, and one other person's, both of whom specifically asked me a question. I don't care whether you or anyone else owns a Mac. That's the whole point of this discussion: I'm not trying to "convert" people, nor do I get pissed off when I find out someone doesn't have a Mac. Yet, I suppose now I don't know how to lighten up when I'm responding to someone who accused me of "diligently responding to every single contrary argument" when it was two replies so far (to my initial post), and one was to your own. If you didn't want me to respond, why'd you ask me to?
Here are a smattering of various examples, just in 2007:
5 37721
5 36911
4 72443
4 58579
4 58951
4 10361
1 68518
1 68518
9 89934
9 39184
Taking issue with the fact that I say iPhone "like Jobs does": http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238697&cid=19
"I see you take Jobs' use of referring to an iPhone be simply saying "people will buy iPhone". Why do you keep on missing out an before the word of this product?"
Taking issue with me using the word "impacted" and calling me a "marketroid": http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238697&cid=19
"Please don't speak like a marketroid."
Someone accusing me of being a marketer for posting an informative and comprehensive summary of the WWDC announcements in the WWDC article: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238141&cid=19
"Woah, you again! [...] The real question is not whether we can get a share of the advertising money, but how much one can make."
In response to a completely and utterly wrong article on iTunes: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238017&cid=19
"Oh noes. Apple's name is being tarnished. Dave Schroeder to the rescue!"
And again: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238017&cid=19
"You just keep on lickin' Steve's ass no matter what apple does, right?"
In response to saying Apple didn't "surrender" to Greenpeace: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237543&cid=19
"Do you Apple fangirls know how pathetic you sound? Other groups have their vocal populations, but Apple fangirls are by far the most in need of validation for their moronic decision to overspend on an inferior product."
In response to reasoning behind the iPod and iPhone battery not being "user accessible": http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224320&cid=18
"You skipped the part about being a Fucking Apple Whore. Whore. No go away. You're not wanted here."
In response to an article on EU online music store returns being made to appear only about "iTunes": http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224320&cid=18
"Dave, seriously, STFU already you Apple loving Macbot. You wouldn't have even commented on this story if it wasn't about Apple. Now go the fuck away."
And: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222028&cid=17
"To annoy all you mac fans who take these things personally."
In response to incorrect article about iTunes Vista compatibility: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=221384&cid=17
"Are you the GLORY HOLE operator at Apple Inc?? Apple software is designed to limit the freedom of users. Probably, that's why it's not compatible with Vista. You see, there are three types of freedom relating to computers:
1- Windows: free to run programs and do just about anything with the computer
2- Linux: free to view the source
3- Apple: free to toe the line"
That's an interesting point. I'd just respond by saying two things:
- If you're a user of a product by choice, you probably believe the positives outweigh the negatives, one would hope, so naturally you're going to have less negative things to say about it in general.
- Personally, my main concern is submissions and highly moderated comments with incorrect information; nearly always it's negative information, so the items being corrected are already skewed to the negative side, meaning that the corrections will nearly always be "positive".
If some moron is going nuts about "ZOMG iPhone r0xxxx and it's better than every smartphone EVAR" (or the reverse), I don't see any need to respond to that at all. But if someone says "We don't know if iPhone has a removeable SIM, so Apple is really screwed in Europe", and then I say, "Uh, yes, it's already been proven that it does have a removable SIM and there is no technical reason it couldn't be used on any carrier in Europe if Apple chose to sell it unlocked," that, in my view, doesn't make me a "fanboy", even though it casts Apple's situation in a positive light. In fact, incorrect information nearly always casts the subject in a negative light. Someone saying "the MacBook Pro is the greatest laptop ever" doesn't need to be "corrected" because that's a subjective opinion.
...a "fanboy" (or, more often, "fanboi", and sometimes even "fangirl") when I disseminate correct information about Apple on slashdot, clarify a misleading story, or correct completely and utterly factually and provably incorrect claims. It's not even about trying to "convert" anyone to anything. I usually respond by asking if the person calling me a "fanboi" could point out anything incorrect that I said in my post. That is usually followed up with brilliant posts about sex acts.
So, here's another question: this article is called "The Psychology of Mac Zealots"; what's the "psychology" of people who instantly call anyone who posts anything about Apple a "fanboy"? The article talks about how "fanboys" might be right, but also says that being anonymous and abusive (and therefore annoying) when making their point is a hallmark of a "fanboy". So how can a person who is neither (and also is correct about a factual point) a "fanboy"?
It isn't about "rooting for the underdog" or trying to create "converts" (directly, anyway). It's about wanting correct information disseminated about something you're interested in. And if it adds factual information to the discussion, what's wrong with that? To me, saying that something is obviously better or "rocks" or that something else "sucks" with no logical reasoning to back it up is what makes someone a "fanboy".
Cue the posts calling me a "fanboy fanboi"!
If you can point out anything in my post that was incorrect, it would be much appreciated! Thanks!
While I wish this were true
This is true; I'm speaking of what is possible for an unlocked iPhone from a technical perspective. It can and will work on any GSM network.
if GSM standards demanded that phones worked on any GSM network, why are things like simlocking coming out which create phones which are locked to a specific carrier, just like CDMA?
I'm saying that a GSM phone in general can work on any GSM network, not that a locked phone will. And simlocking isn't "coming out"; it's been standard practice for many GSM carriers - and not just those in the US - for years. And most carriers WILL unlock phones for customers so that any SIM can be used for things like international travel and usage of prepaid SIMs. Also, several manufacturers sell unlocked GSM phones in the US, even though they're almost always a lot more expensive (because they don't have the carrier subsidy).
The discussion is about iPhone in Europe, and if Apple wants to sell iPhone unlocked, that's its business. Since it appears from the AT&T document I linked that iPhone also isn't subsidized, that means its price will also be the same or similar to the US price on AT&T.
I believe that GSM network owners hate that their phones will work anywhere, and that is why they're pushing for the capability to lock phones to their networks like what can be done with CDMA.
That may be the case, but carriers using simlocks is a completely different discussion from whether or not Apple can sell iPhone unlocked and able to work on any GSM carrier in Europe if it wishes (it can), and whether or not such an unlocked iPhone will work fine on any GSM carrier (it will - with the exception of specialty features like visual voicemail).
American mobile-phone technology is five, maybe seven years behind Europe and Asia.
This is due in large part to geographic size, and the nature of the marketplace as mobile telephone services were rolled out in the United States.
Large metropolitan areas have coverage more or less on par
Features which are acceptable in the USA (e.g., EDGE,
It's not tht EDGE is "acceptable"; it's that it's what most of the coverage on AT&T's network actually is. And a large part of it, believe it or not, is economies of pure geographic size. AT&T does have a lot of 3G coverage in metro areas, and CDMA carriers such as Sprint and Verizon have even broader 3G coverage.
simlocks,
The US isn't the only place that does carrier SIM locking, though I'll admit it's definitely standard practice for US carriers. However, manufacturers do sell unlocked phones in the US (such as Palm), and carriers (inlcuding AT&T) will unlock phones for customers (permanently) for things like international travel and the use of prepaid SIMs.
contract-locked Wi-fi
There is no reason I can think of that you'd have to have a "contract" to use WiFi on iPhone. The stories going around implying this is the case are assuming because someone said you needed a contract to get an iPhone (and therefore use the iPhone's WiFi) that you must need a contract to use WiFi from a technical standpoint. That's garbage. What if the phone is out of AT&T (or any) coverage? The phone can't "know" whether it's on contract; do you actually believe the WiFi simply won't work? That's ridiculous. WiFi isn't "locked" to anything.
Since you need a two-year AT&T contract anyway, this is a moot point. But if you let the contract expire or pay a termination fee, WiFi won't just stop working.
etc) are so archaic as to provoke spontaneous laughter when described to non-US mobile users. Just look at the terminology -- fully half* the phone users outside the USA would have no idea what a "cellular" phone is.
This actually proves my point. This kind of technology (mobile telephones) was prevalent in the US long before it was anywhere else in the world.
It's a mobile phone. Mobile across networks, user SIMS, and national borders.
So is iPhone.
The simple fact that the parent post asks rhetorically "would it be cool if the first-gen Iphone had 3G?" amazes me. Jesus, is it still 2002 in the USA or something? If Apple takes that attitude to Europe it'll get laughed at. And it is.
To reiterate something I said in another post:
Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people. Those who really need 3G in a handheld device don't have to get an iPhone.
Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality. Apple has already said 3G is coming in the future. Further iPhone is a half-year out for Europe, and it's not a foregone conclusion that today's iPhone specs MUST mean that 3G won't be there when iPhone ships for Europe, and even if it isn't we already know it's coming soon, because Apple specifically said so at the iPhone introduction in January. So if you NEED 3G, don't get the first gen iPhone. How hard is that?
I'm talking about AT&T's 3G coverage, which is the only thing that matters in the US, since that's the only network on which you can use an iPhone in the US.
Cool. So Apple is targeting consumers who are outside of major urban areas, and isn't so interested in people who live in NY, SF, Seattle, Dallas, etc. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but at least it's a viable theory.
1. I didn't say that.
2. Your statement ignores the fact that massive numbers of people are in fact outside of 3G coverage.
3. Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people. Those who really need 3G in a handheld device don't have to get an iPhone.
4. Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality. Apple has already said 3G is coming in the future.
Now will you explain why you don't want MMS or GPS either?
1. I never use MMS, and all the people saying that MMS is mandatory and "everyone uses it" are high, because I have never used it, and no one I know uses it. And this is on a major university campus. So that doesn't impact me at all. Also, I'd use email or iPhoto for all photo management from an iPhone.
2. I wish it did have GPS. It doesn't. I guess I get to weigh the pros vs. cons when making a purchasing decision? My current phone (Palm Treo 700p) doesn't have GPS either, nor do many PDA phones. Should we get upset about all of those, too? Why don't those have GPS?
The way I see it, the iPhone is basically a modern iPod duct taped to a state of the art cell phone from 2004.
Ignoring the ignorance of your comment, I'd just say, "Good thing buying one isn't mandatory, then." No one's forcing you to buy one.
Well, I assumed the original poster was asking about the US, and that's what I'm talking about, since that's where I live. In Europe, it might be a big(ger) deal. But it's not even launching in Europe until Q4, which, knowing Apple, means December 31, 2007 - still a half a year out. And there's nothing to say there can't be a newer iPhone featuring 3G pretty soon thereafter. In the meantime, the customers who aren't impacted by the lack of 3G can still purchase it; others certainly don't need to.
3G coverage isn't very broad in the US, except in some major metropolitan areas. See my other followup on this topic. Fortunately, if you need 3G, no one is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone. I find it funny that people are predicting iPhone's death months before it's due to even start shipping in Europe.
Wrong. "Subsidized" has only one meaning in the wireless industry, and it's not employee discount. More info.
No. Yes, this is an "employee Q&A", but this does not mean that the phone just isn't "further" subsidized for "employees" - I don't even know how you get that. It means the iPhone is not subsidized, period. The only thing the words subsidy and subsidized even refer to in the wireless industry is price reductions in exchange for contracts, not for employee discounts. The entire Q&A is for employees dealing with customers, customer questions, and AT&T's direction for iPhone, not for employee purchase issues for iPhone. That's why it also says an existing AT&T customer can purchase iPhone for the same price as a new customer: the iPhone isn't subsidized.
I know a lot of people think the lack of 3G is killer, but 3G doesn't cover much of the nation yet. Granted, they have coverage in many major metro areas, but I don't think it's broad enough yet. Thus, Apple probably felt like it was acceptable to not do 3G at the beginning. In fact, there may have been multiple reasons: there may be a different data package for iPhone, and AT&T might not mind "testing the waters" a bit. The inclusion of WiFi also obviates the need for 3G coverage for many people. Personally, I live in a city that probably won't have 3G coverage from AT&T for a long time, so I, like many others, couldn't even get it if we wanted. I disagree with people who think everything is about planned obsolescence, and that this is a screw-job on consumers designed to gip early adopters and force people to buy new phones when a 3G-capable iPhone becomes available. While I'm sure Apple won't shed any tears if people buy new iPhones, I highly doubt that was even a marginal reason for 3G's omission in the first generation.
So, in summary: would it be cool if the first gen iPjone had 3G? Of course. But with WiFi and considering the relatively limited AT&T 3G coverage in the US for the time being, I don't see it as the massive problem some others do. I don't think it will negatively impact the majority of iPhone early adopters, and those who feel they need 3G can certainly wait
Even though a two year agreement is required with AT&T in the US, the iPhone is not subsidized, meaning that is the real price.
And you're correct: the only feature loss would be "visual voicemail", but "normal" voicemail functionality and all other phone features, as applicable, should absolutely work.
In the US, AT&T (Cingular) and T-Mobile are both GSM providers. Apple could have easily sold an unlocked phone to be used by those providers.
I think they're just referring to the fact that this typically isn't done in the US, but they shouldn't imply this isn't possible, as manufacturers (such as Palm) already do sell unlocked GSM phones in the US.
"I also take issue with the article's claim, regurgitated in the summary, that selling iPhone without a simlock is "not an option" in the US. Several phone manufacturers..."
should go on to read:
Several phone manufacturers offer unlocked GSM phones in the US that will work with any GSM carrier. There's no reason Apple couldn't do this anywhere, including Europe, and the US (after its rumored 5-year exclusive deal with AT&T is over).
...or, they don't need to.
And before anyone says that we "don't know" whether the iPhone has a user-accessible SIM tray, yes, we do.
And yes, iPhone will work on any GSM carrier; that's the whole purpose of standards like GSM, and iPhone is a GSM phone. Network-specific functionality (such as visual voicemail) will not work, but the phone and basic voicemail functionality, data functionality, etc., will absolutely work.
When Apple is ready to launch iPhone in Europe - it has previously said Q4 2007 - I have no doubt they'll be launching it, whether it's with one partner or multiple, or Apple makes some compromises to make a deal happen.
I also take issue with the article's claim, regurgitated in the summary, that selling iPhone without a simlock is "not an option" in the US. Several phone manufacturers
And before anyone says that the iPhone is subsidized, therefore it must be a million dollars without a contract, you're wrong. Even though a two year contract with AT&T is required for iPhone in the US, the iPhone is not subsidized - the price is what it is.
And mobile operators calling Apple arrogant? How amusing. Also, I have another idea: how about people stop predicting the doom of the iPhone before it's even out yet?
Ugh.
It's a hell of a lot more nuanced than that, but I don't have time to write a book on slashdot, okay? Whatever you want to anoint China's current governmental and political systems in name, if you don't believe that China will be a serious threat to the United States in the future, you're deluding yourself. The Chinese military and intelligence communities already see the United States as the biggest threat.
And you don't have to tell me what happened with Iraq intelligence, thanks. You should spend some time reading the reports of the WMD Commission and the Senate special report on Iraq WMD intelligence. It wasn't just a failure of analysis.
Simply because one doesn't subscribe to the principles of moral relativism, in the negative sense of the term, does not make one a moral absolutist, in the similarly negative connotation.
Rather, some people are realistic: some differences are the result of legitimate cultural and philosophical differences, as opposed to "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil"; but at the same time, there are intrinsically better ways of doing things if you believe that freedom is a universally valuable principle.
When you distill everything down to being nothing but several equally valid positions, you diminish the principles that those who typically promote such ideas benefit from tremendously (i.e., the very freedoms that allow them to pontificate from the comfortable chair).
I didn't mean or intend them to appear interchangeable. The US is both (essentially), and because we have pockets of "Socialism" doesn't mean that we're not still either manifestly Capitalist or Democratic.
The fundamental difference is the openness of United States and other democratic societies versus the openness of China. The fact that you take the moral relativism route and act as if the United States is the "same" or "just as bad" (if not worse) than Chinese activities is telling.
The United States government has nowhere near any level of real or incidental control over the press as in China. And any "control" exercised asserted is artificial, because we can ALWAYS find out more information from sources in the United States and around the globe. The Chinese people cannot, in any way, shape, or form. The Chinese government still exercises direct, official control of much of the press, and mass censorship of nearly any other outlets and the Internet. "Check the corresponding wikipedia page" on Chinese control of the media to "learn a bit".
The leadership of the United States may try to "feed" the picture that suits them; but ultimately, they cannot do this. China can. Just because many Americans don't care to look deeper into the news or world happenings doesn't mean they don't have the capability to do so. The Chinese do not, whether they would wish it or not.
Of course the United States has strategic intelligence operations. All do. But they operate with at least a marginal level of transparency in free societies - yes, even massively secret operations, and even when the government does some questionable things - something that cannot be said at all in China.
*Sigh*
Yeah, China has pockets of Capitalism where it's convenient. Even to the extreme in some cases. They also leverage Hong Kong in this respect to great advantage. Capitalism where it benefits the goals of furtherance of the ideals of the Chinese leadership.
And as I just said in another post:
The United States has pockets of what could be called "socialism" in government and government programs. Does that mean the United States is socialist, or isn't Capitalist/Democratic? Of course not. To say that the existence of elements traditionally antithetical to pure "Communism" is proof that China is no longer "Communist" completely misses the larger point, and ignores the fact that China actually has significant intelligence programs dedicated to making people outside of China believe they are no longer Communist, and hint: it's not because they "really aren't any more".
It's interesting folks like yourself think it's all about "red-baiting", or artificially calling the Chinese "Communists" because it makes them a more palatable adversary. China has invested a significant amount of intelligence resources over the last twelve or so years into making people erroneously believe that they have abandoned Communism and are really now a quasi-Capitalist state, because they know that appears "friendly" to the West, and primarily to the United States. This is thoroughly and well-documented, and your refusal to believe that might actually be the case is interesting.