Paris! You must find your way out of this place or you will surely die. Make your way to the Sparrow Prince! He will guide you the rest of the way. Now go! Make haste!
How is the actual voice quality since well it's a phone and all?
Probably shitty, cuz it's Cingular^wAT&T and they make everybody use a half-rate codec even in those markets where they have enough network capacity to allow you to use full-rate. What, 60mhz of spectrum isn't enough for you to let me use full-rate? T-Mobile does friggen NYC on 5mhz....
Of course, the to-go joke here could also be: "What, you wanna use your phone to talk to people? What a concept!"
What I care about is reception range/quality and battery life
An oft unappreciated phone (and the one I use on a day to day basis) is the Motorola V195. It's offered by T-Mobile and Cellular One, but it's GSM, so you can get it unlocked and use it with anyone.
It has the highest RF output of any non-brick phone I've ever seen (1.7 watts on GSM850/900 and 1.0 on GSM1800/1900), the best reception, an insanely long battery life (rated for 10.5 hours of talk time -- I tend to get six or seven, depending on signal strength), class 1 (long range) bluetooth, plus it's a quad-band phone and will work in any country with a GSM network.
Yeah, it has no camera (who cares?) and is slim on features. But if all you want is a phone, I'm hard pressed to think of a better GSM one. And the full retail price is only $120.00 ($20 with contract) from T-Mobile. I'll cry a lot less when my $120 phone goes into the swimming pool/toilet/stolen then I will when something happens to my $600 iPhone. And that's with contract -- wonder what they'll charge you to get one at "full price" once you are already under contract?
A websearch on "Michael-Moore net-worth" certainly makes it easy to believe that he's worth a couple tens of millions of dollars.
Well, even if his networth is in the tens of millions, that doesn't mean that he can (or wants to) liquidate enough of it to finance a movie on his own. A sizable chunk of my networth is tied up in long term investments, some of which I can't even get at without a huge tax hit (retirement accounts).
But, regardless, my point was that generally speaking, unless your name is Lucas or Spielberg, going it alone isn't a viable option in Hollywood these days. It will (or already is?) be a viable option for music artists long before it becomes a viable option for cinema. Anybody can obtain the recording equipment to master songs and make CDs -- as far as I can see the only tangible benefit that RIAA provides if you sign with them is marketing.
Contrast that to a movie where you need actors, stunt people, effects people, sound people, filming people, extras, shooting locations, etc, etc, etc.
It's not like artists are forced into signing the distribution deals
Unless your name is George Lucas, odds are that you probably don't have the resources to create your own movie without involving a studio/distribution company at some point.
Sicko "only" cost $9,000,000 -- cheap for a movie these days. Does Moore have $9,000,000 lying around somewhere?
(And for that matter, engage seriously the actual history of European colonialism, that you're glorifying there.)
And what exactly was wrong with European colonialism? Looked at from a biological/evolutionary/whatever-the-hell-you-wann a-call-it standpoint and not from a morality standpoint, what exactly was the problem? One group of organisms moved into the area of another group of organisms. One group was able to adapt, expand and survive. The other group wasn't. In case you missed it, that's how nature works.
And don't even try to make the morality argument either. It's a mistake to judge past cultures by modern standards of what is right and wrong. That's one of the first lessons of anthropology.
For all the flaws of European/Western civilization, I for one am sick of feeling like we have to apologize for it. Witness the recent flap in Iran over the movie 300. Ignore the fact that Hollywood completely screwed it up and stereotyped the Persians (ask any Native American how well Hollywood has treated them....) I actually heard some less informed overly PC people suggesting that we should apologize for the Battle of Thermopylae! That battle quite possibly represents the birthplace of Western civilization -- the first time that the Greek city states united against a common enemy. And we should feel sorry for it? Do these morons even realize that it was the Persians invading Greece and not the other way around? Do they realize the historical implications of that battle and campaign?
Ugh! It drives me up the wall to hear people rant about Western civilization. It's not my fault that your ancestors couldn't adapt in time to avoid being assimilated/conquered/whatever by my ancestors. And don't even try and play the technological card either. Had they the means to cross the ocean, the Romans would have steamrolled over the native cultures of the New World just as easily as the Europeans did later.
Have you ever considered that they all do it to some extent simply because it isn't possible to offer the service at a reasonable price without some restrictions?
Oh that must be it! It has nothing to do with greed at all! It's all about being able to offer the product at a reasonable price. Let me use Verizon as an example because I've had the most experience with them (customer for 6 years until I switched to T-Mobile), but I'm in no way singling them out because a Cingular customer could probably make the same arguments:
Used to offer free calls on holidays. No longer does.
Used to offer free incoming SMS. Then it was $0.02. Then it was $0.10. Now it's $0.15.
Used to offer 8PM nights. Now it's 9PM.
Used to offer free calls to your voicemail. Now they charge.
Used to give you the option of roaming everywhere (though you paid for it). The new America's Choice plan removed this option and replaced it with "free" roaming (mainly by removing the ability to roam in various places, leaving nice big coverage gaps).
Used to do one year contracts as standard. Now they do two year contracts. One year contracts are available but the sales people get next to no commission on them and will refuse to sell them to you unless you go into the store when it's dead and they have nothing better to do.
Used to let you change your rate plan without touching your contract. Now it extends it another 12 months.
That's just some of the more restrictive/anti-consumer policies they've adopted. I haven't even touched on the phone lock-downs. I'm sure the fact that they've become less and less friendly over the years has nothing at all to do with the fact that the number of players in the wireless industry has been reduced by buy-outs and mergers.
The free market also doesn't work instantaneously
You Libertarians speak of the "free market" with a reverence seldom seen outside of religious followers. You realize that we've tried a completely "free market" and laissez-faire economic policy before and it didn't work, right? From coal workers whose condition was little better then slavery, to child labor, to standard oil, blah, blah, blah.
The people that spout the "free market" as a solution to everything scare me almost as much as the committed Marxist-Leninist.
In fact, as you point out, it's the existence of things like the FCC that prevent competition and prevent the free market from working. Eliminate these restrictions on the free market, and you'll get better phone service.
I'll get better phone service by getting rid of the FCC and letting anybody start transmitting on the same channels/bands that Verizon/T-Mo/etc are currently using? How does this work again?
Trying to legislate better phone service will not work.
I'm not trying to legislate phone service. I'm trying to level the playing field by preventing the carriers from exploiting their position to dictate what kinds of features Motorola/Nokia/etc are allowed to include in their products. There is no reason why Verizon should be allowed to tell Motorola what they can include in their product. Would you consider it acceptable if Time Warner told you what kind of TV you could use? Or what about your power company telling you what kind of light bulbs or microwave you had to use? You have choice in those markets -- as long as the device is complaint with certain standards (obviously the light bulbs and microwave need to work on 120V/AC/60hz) and doesn't harm the power company/cable company you can use whatever you want and the device maker can include whatever features they want.
It's still possible to buy the phone and service separately (no crap loaded phone, no contract) in the U.S. with GSM providers (I believe ATT, T-mobile). It's just that nobody does it because for many people they typically only use their cell phones for talking (it does not matter how much crap is on the phone as long as they can make a call) or they're not willing to pay for the full cost of the cell phone.
Not quite. You can bring your own phone to T-Mobile or Cingular, but you still have to sign a contract to get a postpaid plan. T-Mobile considers any plan with nights & weekends to be "promotional" and it requires at least a 12 month contract. Dunno what Cingular's exact policy is, but it's something similar.
That right there is bullshit because the way the industry defends the practice of locking people into contracts is that they have to subsidize the phone. It would be very interesting to see what would happen to phone and service prices if the carriers were disallowed from selling them bundled to service/contracts.
Personally, I'm done with contracts because without the contract, I can easily bargain the service price down anytime I want as long as there's more than one service provider. Bargaining isn't fun, but it's better than being someone's bitch for 2 years.
I got a retentions deal with T-Mobile: $39.99/mo for 1,000 minutes. Required two year contract. I actually didn't feel bad about it because they aren't subsidizing my phone for me (I buy unbranded ones). I get a cheaper price and they get a commitment. Given that old cell phone plans are usually grandfathered in I'll probably have that price for a long time, unless I move out of their service area.
That feels better to me then "We'll give you this crippled, locked down phone with buggy software for free if you give us two years of your life"
It was a magical coincidence that Jobs suddenly started decrying DRM as the devils work a few months before the deal was released
*shrug*, as I freely admitted, I haven't really followed it, because I really don't give a damn. I buy used CDs to deny RIAA/Apple the money. My car stereo plays mp3s on standard data CDs (you can fit a fair amount of music into 700 megs). If I ever wanted a portable player I'd probably look at something solid-state, with all the functionality of the iPod and half the cost. So far this hasn't been an issue.
Apple had the option to sell their phones the exact same way Nokia does. Every carrier sells Nokia phones. Nokia sells the carriers phones and gives them the keys to lock and unlock features. You can also buy a Nokia phone that is completely unlocked right from Nokia.
Right, but the whole point that I've been trying to make is that business model barely works in the United States thanks to the policies of the carriers. It doesn't work period for any of the CDMA carriers because they won't activate non-carrier-branded phones. It does work for AT&T and T-Mobile, but even at that, AT&T has made rumblings about banning non Cingular IMEI's from the network and T-Mobile refuses to let you use MyFaves on a non-MyFaves phone, even though there is no technical reason why it won't work (you can edit your favorites on their webpage).
So right there, Apple couldn't have sold it for Verizon or Sprint. And Cingular's data AUP is as restrictive as Verizon's -- technically you are in violation of the Verzion AUP/T&Cs if you use their data product to download or stream music. Kinda defeats the purpose of the iPhone, doesn't it?
I won't come out and defend Apple anymore then you will, but if you honestly think that they could have gone it alone (if they were inclined and they probably weren't) and done this without carrier cooperation, then I want some of what you are smoking. Regardless of the particulars of the iPhone deal and Apple's business model, the carriers in the United States have entirely too much control over the equipment makers.
What else do you think the costs are of running a wireless company? It's not cheap by any means, and is why you don't see little mom-and-pops throwing up towers all over the place. There's a serious capital expense involved, for startup and maintenance.
I've never said it was free or easy. Only that I tend to think that voice is profitable in it's own way and that defending their locking down of hardware on the basis of needing the revenue to make voice cheaper is a thin argument at best. That revenue may be going back into building more towers and expanding their native service area -- but I doubt that voice prices in the areas where they already have service would go up if they lost that revenue. And I'm not even rooting for them to lose that revenue -- only for them to stop trying to be a vertical monopoly with strict control over equipment and content. They'd still make money.
Tmobile seems to have piss coverage breadth compared to the 'big boys.'
Eh, they work where I need them too and that's what I care about. I'm a stubborn man of principle and refuse to do business with Verizon (crippled phones, nasty policies, rude CSRs) or AT&T (equally nasty policies and even worse customer service), so my choice was Sprint or T-Mobile. I wanted the freedom of GSM (easy to change phones, seamless global roaming) so T-Mobile it was. Granted, I considered ditching them when they ended the relationship with Cathrine Zeta-Jones;)
I don't grant that assumption at all - I think many people would figure out how to get their own mp3s on the phone for free, use wireless not sold by the vendor, etc. They lock the phone down so you have to use "Get it now." Otherwise, why the hell would you - "Get it now" sucks! So I do think they use lock-in as a revenue generation tool. What other reason would there be to remove features from phones? Fun? The joy of underwhelming customers?
Even if that assumption is correct, you still haven't convinced me as to why they should be allowed to do this or why applying the carterfone rules to them is a bad idea. If you aren't all about consumer protection/rights then think of how much innovation is being held back by these types of policies. Read the parts of that document that contrast the internet to the mobile world.
The cell companies make their money from kids and businesspeople. The latter pays a lot for high-end service. The former is the driving force for ringtones, text messaging, etc (something else they absolutely gouge for).
Yes, we are raped up the ass on SMS. I use it quite heavily (IM clients on the phone) and pay for the unlimited package from T-Mobile: $14.99/mo. In a given month I'll do 2,000 - 2,500, so I'm still paying more then half a penny for each one. If it costs them a tenth of a penny to process an SMS I'd be surprised. You are screwed even more if you just want to use them once in awhile (think Google SMS to look up directions or phone numbers) and pay the per use rates. T-Mobile won't disable them for phone who don't want them (apparently they use them for voicemail notifications on the back end), yet they still charge people to receive them and you have no option to reject an incoming SMS (like you do an incoming call). That right there is complete bullshit, but that's the state of the industry these days.
I'm assuming the phone manufacturers would make it quite easy to do your own ringtones as a value-add if the service providers didn't scream bloody murder.
And the fact that they can't kind of proves my whole argument. Innovation is being artificially restrained by the revenue interests of the carriers. This needs to change.
At that point, since I have the self control to not use the thing like it's free money...why the hell wouldn't I use it everywhere? Saves me trips to the ATM and provides tangiable benefits over cash. And thanks to their control of merchants and people who eat finance charges, it's free to
and the fact that the RIAA has not pig piled on with lawsuits when Apple let EMI offer DRM free music shows pretty clearly that there is not some secret contract with the RIAA that prevents Apple from offering DRM free music to indie labels.
Well, one could argue that when iTunes and the iPod were unproven (had anybody prior to Apple been successful at selling music online?) Jobs had a lot less leverage with the labels then he does now. I didn't follow it that closely, because I don't care to line Apple or RIAAs pockets to buy crappy music (used CDs are a better value for me), but that's just a hunch on my part.
Accept Apple products at face value. Apple products are all tightly controlled platforms with integrated software and hardware
I never disputed that. I personally don't see the appeal in a lot of their pockets once you take away the pretty case, the marketing machine and the fact that half of your friends probably have them. I'm talking specifically about the iPod here, but it probably applies to other products as well. I even said as much in another post of mine somewhere around here.
I do dispute that AT&T is Apple's "bitch" though. And I do dispute that it's in Apple's best interest to force this product to be sold with a data plan. What do they care if you download your iTunes songs via Cingular's EDGE network or an open wi-fi point somewhere? I'm sure there was a bit of give and take on both Apple and AT&T's part in the negotiations for this product.
And you can't deny that the carriers have been crippling features and services for years in an attempt to force people into generating revenue for them. In a way they are worse then Apple in this regard -- at least with all of Apple's products you have another choice. What choice do you have with the cellular industry? To not have a cell phone? They all act the same. This seemed as good of a forum as any to bring that problem to light and get people to read the write-up that I linked in my original post.
My point was that it read like the AC was assuming that if they had gone with an unlocked/unbranded release that they would only have access to Cingular so they might as well have signed with Cingular anyway and done an exclusive deal.
Clearly I mis-read his post and must now go and kick myself in the ass and drink more coffee.
That's land line, which is irrelevant for an analysis of wireless. You're paying mainly for the wireless capacity, not for the land-based transmission part of the call.
Right, which also costs them next to nothing, unless they are having capacity issues in a given area, which is fairly rare with modern technology barring unusual events (9/11, the campus shootings, etc) that drive up the volume of traffic. Why do you think they can give away nights and weekends and mobile to mobile?
Sprint, for example, is predominantly a wireless company and has margins in the low single digits.
Sprint is a Tier 1 internet provider that owns a large chunk of the global internet backbone, so where are you getting this "predominantly a wireless company" idea from? And their low margins probably have more to do with the fact that they are still trying to assimilate Nextel (which may go down in history as one of the worst mergers ever) then anything unique to the wireless industry.
That answers itself - Tmobile is known (particularly where I live) for having an abysmal network, particularly where coverage is concerned.
Eh, in areas that they choose to cover the coverage is typically very good. They haven't really bothered at all with rural areas -- but the dirty little secret of the big boys is that if you took away their roaming agreements with the regional providers, they'd have huge coverage gaps as well.
One way to get a discount is to get a carrier that has coverage in a few areas you plan to be, rolling the dice that you won't get screwed elsewhere when traveling.
Eh, T-Mo has coverage in 85% of the local area where I go (Verizon might have been 95%). As far as traveling goes, every single place I've looked at for a vacation this summer (eventually settled on the Outer Banks) either has native T-Mo service or a roaming agreement with a local company. So I'm not overly concerned.
Price wasn't even my main reason for switching to them. It was mostly me being fed up with the fact that my CDMA Verizon phone stopped ringing for incoming calls (straight to v/m more then half the time) once they rolled out EV-DO in my area. They refused to fix it even though I documented that it happened on three different phones (what, are they all broken?) and that at least six other Verizon customers in my area (just the ones that I know) were having the same problem. Their customer service was rude and condescending and on top of all of that I can't even load a ringtone on my phone without hacking it? Screw them! I made a nice utility bill in photoshop that suggested I'd moved to the Adirondacks in an area with no coverage and ditched them without paying their $175 extortion^Wtermination fee.
I actually pay more for service with T-Mobile because they gave me a decent SMS package. I refused on general principle to give Verizon that money because of the way they treated me. Unless they think they can renew you for two years and get a big fat commission check out of the deal they don't give two shits about you.
So you're quite right - cash users and people who pay finance and late charges pay for the convenience of me using my credit card - which was my basic point all along.
But it sounds like you are assuming that you are costing them money and the other customers are supporting you. That's not the case. The profit margin on your account is a lot less then the profit margin on the person carrying a $10,000 balance at 19% APR, but you are still making them money.
Regardless, even if I accept your argument that the cell industry depends on ringtones and SMS as revenue and wouldn't survive/would raise voice prices without them, how exactly does that justify locking down my phone again? You realize that most people would continue to use "Get It Now" for these things right? How does the handful of people smart enough to bluetooth/usb an mp3 to their phone harm Verizon's bottom line? Cingular and T-Mobile (and Sprint?) all seem to be making enough money without doing this.
Would you still be singing the praises of your credit card if they only allowed you to shop in certain stores?
Cable Card, on the other hand, is almost completely analogous to your suggestion of trying to force the cell phone companies to allow any device on their network.
No, it's not. If the cable companies acted like the cell companies you would have to buy your TV from them -- not just your set-top box. They would also refuse to carry the content of competing networks (recall Time Warner trying to refuse to carry Faux News because they own CNN -- it was smacked down) because it would harm their revenue stream.
Neither is cell service
Yeah, it's an oligopoly where the carriers have no incentive to do anything consumer friendly, because new players can't break into the market and people don't have the choice of not having cellular service. That's a lot better then a monopoly.
Demanding that the government step in and try to enforce restrictions on cellular networks is just asking for higher prices and less choice
The Government is already enforcing restrictions on them. Or are you telling me that I can just buy some GSM equipment and throw up a network without involving the Government? They are selling a service based around a limited resource (RF spectrum) that belongs to everybody. There is no reason that they should be able to control what I can do with my handset beyond making sure that it doesn't have a harmful impact on their network -- which any complaint device will not.
Accept the fact that the free market has failed us here. Or find me a carrier that doesn't engage in these practices. You won't be able to because they all do to some extent. I've voted with my wallet and I'm giving my money to the best of the worst (T-Mobile) even though I had to take a huge coverage hit to do so. The carriers should not be allowed to leverage their networks to build a vertical monopoly on the devices and content allowed on those networks.
Read the damn document I linked before you go spouting off your Libertarian theories again. I have some Libertarian leanings and despite them I think this makes a good argument for applying carterfone to the cell industry.
The free market will take care of that. People already choose providers based on the features they provide. If you don't like the restrictions your carrier places on your phone, choose another one, don't go crying to the government.
We don't have a free market for cell phones! That's the whole point that nobody understands. Four carriers is not competition. It's an oligopoly. How is it competition when they all raise their SMS prices within three months of each other? How is it competition when none of them will allow unsigned applications to run on their phones? How is it competition when nobody new can break into the market because of the combination of start-up costs (billions) and a lack of available spectrum?
The government will only make things worse. Witness the Cable Card debacle for a good example of the government attempting to do something like what you're demanding and failing miserably at it.
Yes, because the carterfone decision can be compared to the Cable Card clusterfuck. The carterfone decision never led to open devices or consumer choice. Ma Bell still has a lockdown on the POTS network and won't allow you to use a phone unless you get it from her. Oh, wait....
the margins in the wireless industry (last I checked) were rather thin overall
It's hard to know what the margins actually are because most of them are owned by parent companies (T-Mo by Deutsche Telekom, VZW by Verizon and Vodafone, etc, etc) and don't report separate results, but even assuming that's the case I don't buy it as justification for this behavior. That was one of the "bad" things that Ma Bell did -- forcing long distance users to subsidize local service. Once Ma Bell was broken up long distance prices dropped like a brick and local service went up to reflect the true costs. In any case, why should my functionality be reduced because of their business model?
Though the amount of features available to the US market sucks
And that's entirely the fault of the carriers. In Europe you don't even typically buy a phone when you get service. You buy a phone at a Nokia store and then find a carrier to get service with. That's also how landline service worked the last time I checked -- I buy a phone (an el-cheapo at Wally World or a $300 one at Staples, doesn't matter) and then get service. The device makers have an incentive to add features to compete with each other. If the carterfone rule hadn't been applied then we might not have ever had analog modems, fax machines, answering machines, etc, etc, etc. Think of the innovation possible with cell phones if the carriers got out of the way.
Basic service must not be a huge moneymaker for them
I'd dispute that. Voice minutes cost them next to nothing to provide. A friend of mine works at the local university. They have their own telephone switch and telecom department and lease dedicated flat-rate trunks to carry their off-campus traffic. How much do you think they pay for voice minutes to the US and Canada? With the flat-rate trunks it works out to less then a hundredth of a penny per minute. With all the long distance and backbone assets that Verizon, AT&T and Sprint own, somehow I doubt that voice isn't rolling in the dough for them. It may not have as big of a margin as data or SMS, but it makes enough money.
So if all you want is a phone, go with a carrier that uses vendor lock-in to screw their other customers! You'll probably get a better deal.
I'd also dispute that. T-Mobile doesn't use vendor lock-in and they are about the best value in mobility, if you live an area with coverage. Right now they are even offering a promotion of 1,000 minutes for $39.99/mo with full N&W. That's 3.999 cents a minute. Verizon's $39.99 offering is 450 minutes or 8.8886 cents a minute. Granted, it all depends on your needs, coverage and where your friends are (mobile to mobile is nice), but I think it dispels the fact that you need to screw your customers to offer a good price on voice. If anything, T-Mo would have the highest backend cost for voice too, given that they don't own their own backhaul networks in the United States like the other carriers do.
Who pays for that? The people who run up huge finance charges, that's who
Your paying for that as well. Ever hear of the merchant fee? Even if you don't eat finance charges the merchant is eating 1.5-3.0% of every sale when you use your credit card. In fact, I'm helping you to pay for that as well because the merchant isn't allowed to pass that charge along to you -- so the cash users wind up subsidizing the credit card ones. Net result: prices go up, Visa, Mastercard and your bank all get richer.
Well, the problem with that is that the CDMA carriers will refuse to activate unbranded devices on their networks. But he still could have decided to release an unbranded GSM version. Any T-Mobile or AT&T customer would have been able to use it. Plus all the regional carriers (Suncom, Cellular One, etc) that use GSM. Plus virtually any mobile user outside of the United States or Asia is already on GSM.
Instead he decided to go the carrier-specific route. This lets him add carrier dependent features (visual voicemail) but I think it's a disservice to innovation and his customers. But what do I know?:)
Given that people are already willing to pay $350 for an iPod, it would seem like basic GSM phone functionality could have been added for another $100 and sold independently of the carriers. It wouldn't be a true smartphone, but it probably would have appealed to more people. How many people do you know with smartphones vs iPods? Hell, my Grandmother has an iPod....
If you think it's only the nasty carriers that would make this a closed device, you're deluding yourself--look how "open" the ipod is.
I'm not deluding myself over anything with Apple. (Here goes my Karma) Their entire business model is based around marketing a flashy product that is basically inaccessible to the power user and barely customizable at all beyond what Apple "thinks" you need.
That said, given that Jobs has stood up to the music labels before with DRM (presumably because it suits him as well as his consumers), it would have been nice to see him fight the carriers on the issue of crippling features. Obviously he didn't decide to do that.
I have had complete control over what I do with the phone in terms of ringtones, java mini-apps, etc.
Yes, Cingular isn't as bad as Verizon (ugh, fuck Verizon...) in that regard, but you are missing the point.
Years ago, Nokia wanted to release the E61 smartphone in the United States. Cingular refused to carry it unless Nokia removed the Wi-Fi feature from the device. So we get the E62 -- functionally the same, minus Wi-Fi support.
It's pretty obvious how that benefits Cingular (buy a data plan or your smartphone is a brick), but how the hell does it benefit the consumer, exactly? The carriers are going for a vertical monopoly on devices (they control which ones can be sold), and content (they refuse to allow third party content on their networks). This is exactly the model that Ma Bell used, only now the agencies that are supposed to protect us (FCC, the state utilities commissions, etc, etc) refuse to do so because we have "competition". How is an industry dominated by four major players that all act the same competitive? You'd almost think they have a gentleman's agreement or something...
I'm not trying to be a Cingular/At&t fanboy, but I think it can be said that some carriers are better than others
Yes, and in my experience it's in this order: T-Mobile -> Sprint -> AT&T -> Verizon, for most to least friendly carriers. AT&T isn't being as nasty as Verizon yet, but give them time. They are already getting as nasty as Verizon is with their policies and prices. The only saving grace on the hardware is that as an AT&T customer is that you have the option of dropping full price for an unbranded GSM phone and using it. That's not even an option on Verizon or Sprint with CDMA service.
here is one carrier (I think it's verizon, but correct me if I'm wrong) that totally replaces the user interface of all their phones with their own in-house one. The new interface apparently locks most of the functionality and is much less usable than the standard interface, and forces the customer to purchase all the extras through verizon.
That would indeed be Verizon. You can't do jack shit with a Verizon phone unless it comes through Verizon's "Get it Now" service. And Motorola/Nokia can't even offer full price phones to Verizon customers, because Verizon won't let unbranded phones on their network. Again, it's obvious how this helps Verizon (revenue from Get it Now), but how does it help the consumer?
Read the document I linked. I think you'll find it interesting:)
Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.
Replace "Apple", with "Cingular"^W"AT&T" and you might be accurate there. I'm no Apple fanboy and I don't even own an iPod but if you think that Apple wants these restrictions you are insane. This was the best deal they could get with a national carrier (Verizon demanded even worse restrictions) so they are going with it.
Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me. It wouldn't have had all the carrier dependent features, but it would have been a workable iPod/phone combo, it would have been affordable, and it might even have set a precedent for selling these things outside the iron grasp of the carriers who want them locked down and crippled so they can provide their own revenue stream.
That would have been a nice way to Jobs to do something pro-consumer and stick it to the carriers for forcing all of these restrictions on him. Guess that was too much to hope for. Yeah, it's all about the money:(
Slashdot Mirror
smoke as much as he wants (try that in the US!)
With the added advantage of now he doesn't have to worry too much about saving for retirement ;)
Uhh. Paris Hilton?
Paris! You must find your way out of this place or you will surely die. Make your way to the Sparrow Prince! He will guide you the rest of the way. Now go! Make haste!
How is the actual voice quality since well it's a phone and all?
Probably shitty, cuz it's Cingular^wAT&T and they make everybody use a half-rate codec even in those markets where they have enough network capacity to allow you to use full-rate. What, 60mhz of spectrum isn't enough for you to let me use full-rate? T-Mobile does friggen NYC on 5mhz....
Of course, the to-go joke here could also be: "What, you wanna use your phone to talk to people? What a concept!"
What I care about is reception range/quality and battery life
An oft unappreciated phone (and the one I use on a day to day basis) is the Motorola V195. It's offered by T-Mobile and Cellular One, but it's GSM, so you can get it unlocked and use it with anyone.
It has the highest RF output of any non-brick phone I've ever seen (1.7 watts on GSM850/900 and 1.0 on GSM1800/1900), the best reception, an insanely long battery life (rated for 10.5 hours of talk time -- I tend to get six or seven, depending on signal strength), class 1 (long range) bluetooth, plus it's a quad-band phone and will work in any country with a GSM network.
Yeah, it has no camera (who cares?) and is slim on features. But if all you want is a phone, I'm hard pressed to think of a better GSM one. And the full retail price is only $120.00 ($20 with contract) from T-Mobile. I'll cry a lot less when my $120 phone goes into the swimming pool/toilet/stolen then I will when something happens to my $600 iPhone. And that's with contract -- wonder what they'll charge you to get one at "full price" once you are already under contract?
A websearch on "Michael-Moore net-worth" certainly makes it easy to believe that he's worth a couple tens of millions of dollars.
Well, even if his networth is in the tens of millions, that doesn't mean that he can (or wants to) liquidate enough of it to finance a movie on his own. A sizable chunk of my networth is tied up in long term investments, some of which I can't even get at without a huge tax hit (retirement accounts).
But, regardless, my point was that generally speaking, unless your name is Lucas or Spielberg, going it alone isn't a viable option in Hollywood these days. It will (or already is?) be a viable option for music artists long before it becomes a viable option for cinema. Anybody can obtain the recording equipment to master songs and make CDs -- as far as I can see the only tangible benefit that RIAA provides if you sign with them is marketing.
Contrast that to a movie where you need actors, stunt people, effects people, sound people, filming people, extras, shooting locations, etc, etc, etc.
It's not like artists are forced into signing the distribution deals
Unless your name is George Lucas, odds are that you probably don't have the resources to create your own movie without involving a studio/distribution company at some point.
Sicko "only" cost $9,000,000 -- cheap for a movie these days. Does Moore have $9,000,000 lying around somewhere?
(And for that matter, engage seriously the actual history of European colonialism, that you're glorifying there.)
And what exactly was wrong with European colonialism? Looked at from a biological/evolutionary/whatever-the-hell-you-wann a-call-it standpoint and not from a morality standpoint, what exactly was the problem? One group of organisms moved into the area of another group of organisms. One group was able to adapt, expand and survive. The other group wasn't. In case you missed it, that's how nature works.
And don't even try to make the morality argument either. It's a mistake to judge past cultures by modern standards of what is right and wrong. That's one of the first lessons of anthropology.
For all the flaws of European/Western civilization, I for one am sick of feeling like we have to apologize for it. Witness the recent flap in Iran over the movie 300. Ignore the fact that Hollywood completely screwed it up and stereotyped the Persians (ask any Native American how well Hollywood has treated them....) I actually heard some less informed overly PC people suggesting that we should apologize for the Battle of Thermopylae! That battle quite possibly represents the birthplace of Western civilization -- the first time that the Greek city states united against a common enemy. And we should feel sorry for it? Do these morons even realize that it was the Persians invading Greece and not the other way around? Do they realize the historical implications of that battle and campaign?
Ugh! It drives me up the wall to hear people rant about Western civilization. It's not my fault that your ancestors couldn't adapt in time to avoid being assimilated/conquered/whatever by my ancestors. And don't even try and play the technological card either. Had they the means to cross the ocean, the Romans would have steamrolled over the native cultures of the New World just as easily as the Europeans did later.
(that, and the whole lowest-bidder thing for parts...)
Yeah, but that's never bit them in the ass at all. Oh, wait....
Have you ever considered that they all do it to some extent simply because it isn't possible to offer the service at a reasonable price without some restrictions?
Oh that must be it! It has nothing to do with greed at all! It's all about being able to offer the product at a reasonable price. Let me use Verizon as an example because I've had the most experience with them (customer for 6 years until I switched to T-Mobile), but I'm in no way singling them out because a Cingular customer could probably make the same arguments:
That's just some of the more restrictive/anti-consumer policies they've adopted. I haven't even touched on the phone lock-downs. I'm sure the fact that they've become less and less friendly over the years has nothing at all to do with the fact that the number of players in the wireless industry has been reduced by buy-outs and mergers.
The free market also doesn't work instantaneously
You Libertarians speak of the "free market" with a reverence seldom seen outside of religious followers. You realize that we've tried a completely "free market" and laissez-faire economic policy before and it didn't work, right? From coal workers whose condition was little better then slavery, to child labor, to standard oil, blah, blah, blah.
The people that spout the "free market" as a solution to everything scare me almost as much as the committed Marxist-Leninist.
In fact, as you point out, it's the existence of things like the FCC that prevent competition and prevent the free market from working. Eliminate these restrictions on the free market, and you'll get better phone service.
I'll get better phone service by getting rid of the FCC and letting anybody start transmitting on the same channels/bands that Verizon/T-Mo/etc are currently using? How does this work again?
Trying to legislate better phone service will not work.
I'm not trying to legislate phone service. I'm trying to level the playing field by preventing the carriers from exploiting their position to dictate what kinds of features Motorola/Nokia/etc are allowed to include in their products. There is no reason why Verizon should be allowed to tell Motorola what they can include in their product. Would you consider it acceptable if Time Warner told you what kind of TV you could use? Or what about your power company telling you what kind of light bulbs or microwave you had to use? You have choice in those markets -- as long as the device is complaint with certain standards (obviously the light bulbs and microwave need to work on 120V/AC/60hz) and doesn't harm the power company/cable company you can use whatever you want and the device maker can include whatever features they want.
I am with T-Mobile. Which phones are you using? T-Mobile branded ones or unbranded?
It's still possible to buy the phone and service separately (no crap loaded phone, no contract) in the U.S. with GSM providers (I believe ATT, T-mobile). It's just that nobody does it because for many people they typically only use their cell phones for talking (it does not matter how much crap is on the phone as long as they can make a call) or they're not willing to pay for the full cost of the cell phone.
Not quite. You can bring your own phone to T-Mobile or Cingular, but you still have to sign a contract to get a postpaid plan. T-Mobile considers any plan with nights & weekends to be "promotional" and it requires at least a 12 month contract. Dunno what Cingular's exact policy is, but it's something similar.
That right there is bullshit because the way the industry defends the practice of locking people into contracts is that they have to subsidize the phone. It would be very interesting to see what would happen to phone and service prices if the carriers were disallowed from selling them bundled to service/contracts.
Personally, I'm done with contracts because without the contract, I can easily bargain the service price down anytime I want as long as there's more than one service provider. Bargaining isn't fun, but it's better than being someone's bitch for 2 years.
I got a retentions deal with T-Mobile: $39.99/mo for 1,000 minutes. Required two year contract. I actually didn't feel bad about it because they aren't subsidizing my phone for me (I buy unbranded ones). I get a cheaper price and they get a commitment. Given that old cell phone plans are usually grandfathered in I'll probably have that price for a long time, unless I move out of their service area.
That feels better to me then "We'll give you this crippled, locked down phone with buggy software for free if you give us two years of your life"
Also, where is this linked article that you speak of? I don't see it in your message...
It's here and it was in my original message :)
BTW, I agree with everything that you said.
It was a magical coincidence that Jobs suddenly started decrying DRM as the devils work a few months before the deal was released
*shrug*, as I freely admitted, I haven't really followed it, because I really don't give a damn. I buy used CDs to deny RIAA/Apple the money. My car stereo plays mp3s on standard data CDs (you can fit a fair amount of music into 700 megs). If I ever wanted a portable player I'd probably look at something solid-state, with all the functionality of the iPod and half the cost. So far this hasn't been an issue.
Apple had the option to sell their phones the exact same way Nokia does. Every carrier sells Nokia phones. Nokia sells the carriers phones and gives them the keys to lock and unlock features. You can also buy a Nokia phone that is completely unlocked right from Nokia.
Right, but the whole point that I've been trying to make is that business model barely works in the United States thanks to the policies of the carriers. It doesn't work period for any of the CDMA carriers because they won't activate non-carrier-branded phones. It does work for AT&T and T-Mobile, but even at that, AT&T has made rumblings about banning non Cingular IMEI's from the network and T-Mobile refuses to let you use MyFaves on a non-MyFaves phone, even though there is no technical reason why it won't work (you can edit your favorites on their webpage).
So right there, Apple couldn't have sold it for Verizon or Sprint. And Cingular's data AUP is as restrictive as Verizon's -- technically you are in violation of the Verzion AUP/T&Cs if you use their data product to download or stream music. Kinda defeats the purpose of the iPhone, doesn't it?
I won't come out and defend Apple anymore then you will, but if you honestly think that they could have gone it alone (if they were inclined and they probably weren't) and done this without carrier cooperation, then I want some of what you are smoking. Regardless of the particulars of the iPhone deal and Apple's business model, the carriers in the United States have entirely too much control over the equipment makers.
What else do you think the costs are of running a wireless company? It's not cheap by any means, and is why you don't see little mom-and-pops throwing up towers all over the place. There's a serious capital expense involved, for startup and maintenance.
I've never said it was free or easy. Only that I tend to think that voice is profitable in it's own way and that defending their locking down of hardware on the basis of needing the revenue to make voice cheaper is a thin argument at best. That revenue may be going back into building more towers and expanding their native service area -- but I doubt that voice prices in the areas where they already have service would go up if they lost that revenue. And I'm not even rooting for them to lose that revenue -- only for them to stop trying to be a vertical monopoly with strict control over equipment and content. They'd still make money.
Tmobile seems to have piss coverage breadth compared to the 'big boys.'
Eh, they work where I need them too and that's what I care about. I'm a stubborn man of principle and refuse to do business with Verizon (crippled phones, nasty policies, rude CSRs) or AT&T (equally nasty policies and even worse customer service), so my choice was Sprint or T-Mobile. I wanted the freedom of GSM (easy to change phones, seamless global roaming) so T-Mobile it was. Granted, I considered ditching them when they ended the relationship with Cathrine Zeta-Jones ;)
I don't grant that assumption at all - I think many people would figure out how to get their own mp3s on the phone for free, use wireless not sold by the vendor, etc. They lock the phone down so you have to use "Get it now." Otherwise, why the hell would you - "Get it now" sucks! So I do think they use lock-in as a revenue generation tool. What other reason would there be to remove features from phones? Fun? The joy of underwhelming customers?
Even if that assumption is correct, you still haven't convinced me as to why they should be allowed to do this or why applying the carterfone rules to them is a bad idea. If you aren't all about consumer protection/rights then think of how much innovation is being held back by these types of policies. Read the parts of that document that contrast the internet to the mobile world.
The cell companies make their money from kids and businesspeople. The latter pays a lot for high-end service. The former is the driving force for ringtones, text messaging, etc (something else they absolutely gouge for).
Yes, we are raped up the ass on SMS. I use it quite heavily (IM clients on the phone) and pay for the unlimited package from T-Mobile: $14.99/mo. In a given month I'll do 2,000 - 2,500, so I'm still paying more then half a penny for each one. If it costs them a tenth of a penny to process an SMS I'd be surprised. You are screwed even more if you just want to use them once in awhile (think Google SMS to look up directions or phone numbers) and pay the per use rates. T-Mobile won't disable them for phone who don't want them (apparently they use them for voicemail notifications on the back end), yet they still charge people to receive them and you have no option to reject an incoming SMS (like you do an incoming call). That right there is complete bullshit, but that's the state of the industry these days.
I'm assuming the phone manufacturers would make it quite easy to do your own ringtones as a value-add if the service providers didn't scream bloody murder.
And the fact that they can't kind of proves my whole argument. Innovation is being artificially restrained by the revenue interests of the carriers. This needs to change.
At that point, since I have the self control to not use the thing like it's free money...why the hell wouldn't I use it everywhere? Saves me trips to the ATM and provides tangiable benefits over cash. And thanks to their control of merchants and people who eat finance charges, it's free to
and the fact that the RIAA has not pig piled on with lawsuits when Apple let EMI offer DRM free music shows pretty clearly that there is not some secret contract with the RIAA that prevents Apple from offering DRM free music to indie labels.
Well, one could argue that when iTunes and the iPod were unproven (had anybody prior to Apple been successful at selling music online?) Jobs had a lot less leverage with the labels then he does now. I didn't follow it that closely, because I don't care to line Apple or RIAAs pockets to buy crappy music (used CDs are a better value for me), but that's just a hunch on my part.
Accept Apple products at face value. Apple products are all tightly controlled platforms with integrated software and hardware
I never disputed that. I personally don't see the appeal in a lot of their pockets once you take away the pretty case, the marketing machine and the fact that half of your friends probably have them. I'm talking specifically about the iPod here, but it probably applies to other products as well. I even said as much in another post of mine somewhere around here.
I do dispute that AT&T is Apple's "bitch" though. And I do dispute that it's in Apple's best interest to force this product to be sold with a data plan. What do they care if you download your iTunes songs via Cingular's EDGE network or an open wi-fi point somewhere? I'm sure there was a bit of give and take on both Apple and AT&T's part in the negotiations for this product.
And you can't deny that the carriers have been crippling features and services for years in an attempt to force people into generating revenue for them. In a way they are worse then Apple in this regard -- at least with all of Apple's products you have another choice. What choice do you have with the cellular industry? To not have a cell phone? They all act the same. This seemed as good of a forum as any to bring that problem to light and get people to read the write-up that I linked in my original post.
My point was that it read like the AC was assuming that if they had gone with an unlocked/unbranded release that they would only have access to Cingular so they might as well have signed with Cingular anyway and done an exclusive deal.
Clearly I mis-read his post and must now go and kick myself in the ass and drink more coffee.
That's land line, which is irrelevant for an analysis of wireless. You're paying mainly for the wireless capacity, not for the land-based transmission part of the call.
Right, which also costs them next to nothing, unless they are having capacity issues in a given area, which is fairly rare with modern technology barring unusual events (9/11, the campus shootings, etc) that drive up the volume of traffic. Why do you think they can give away nights and weekends and mobile to mobile?
Sprint, for example, is predominantly a wireless company and has margins in the low single digits.
Sprint is a Tier 1 internet provider that owns a large chunk of the global internet backbone, so where are you getting this "predominantly a wireless company" idea from? And their low margins probably have more to do with the fact that they are still trying to assimilate Nextel (which may go down in history as one of the worst mergers ever) then anything unique to the wireless industry.
That answers itself - Tmobile is known (particularly where I live) for having an abysmal network, particularly where coverage is concerned.
Eh, in areas that they choose to cover the coverage is typically very good. They haven't really bothered at all with rural areas -- but the dirty little secret of the big boys is that if you took away their roaming agreements with the regional providers, they'd have huge coverage gaps as well.
One way to get a discount is to get a carrier that has coverage in a few areas you plan to be, rolling the dice that you won't get screwed elsewhere when traveling.
Eh, T-Mo has coverage in 85% of the local area where I go (Verizon might have been 95%). As far as traveling goes, every single place I've looked at for a vacation this summer (eventually settled on the Outer Banks) either has native T-Mo service or a roaming agreement with a local company. So I'm not overly concerned.
Price wasn't even my main reason for switching to them. It was mostly me being fed up with the fact that my CDMA Verizon phone stopped ringing for incoming calls (straight to v/m more then half the time) once they rolled out EV-DO in my area. They refused to fix it even though I documented that it happened on three different phones (what, are they all broken?) and that at least six other Verizon customers in my area (just the ones that I know) were having the same problem. Their customer service was rude and condescending and on top of all of that I can't even load a ringtone on my phone without hacking it? Screw them! I made a nice utility bill in photoshop that suggested I'd moved to the Adirondacks in an area with no coverage and ditched them without paying their $175 extortion^Wtermination fee.
I actually pay more for service with T-Mobile because they gave me a decent SMS package. I refused on general principle to give Verizon that money because of the way they treated me. Unless they think they can renew you for two years and get a big fat commission check out of the deal they don't give two shits about you.
So you're quite right - cash users and people who pay finance and late charges pay for the convenience of me using my credit card - which was my basic point all along.
But it sounds like you are assuming that you are costing them money and the other customers are supporting you. That's not the case. The profit margin on your account is a lot less then the profit margin on the person carrying a $10,000 balance at 19% APR, but you are still making them money.
Regardless, even if I accept your argument that the cell industry depends on ringtones and SMS as revenue and wouldn't survive/would raise voice prices without them, how exactly does that justify locking down my phone again? You realize that most people would continue to use "Get It Now" for these things right? How does the handful of people smart enough to bluetooth/usb an mp3 to their phone harm Verizon's bottom line? Cingular and T-Mobile (and Sprint?) all seem to be making enough money without doing this.
Would you still be singing the praises of your credit card if they only allowed you to shop in certain stores?
They have restricted themselves to the exact same network that would be available to an unlocked GSM phone and gained NOTHING
The last time I checked there is more then one GSM network in the United States.
Cable Card, on the other hand, is almost completely analogous to your suggestion of trying to force the cell phone companies to allow any device on their network.
No, it's not. If the cable companies acted like the cell companies you would have to buy your TV from them -- not just your set-top box. They would also refuse to carry the content of competing networks (recall Time Warner trying to refuse to carry Faux News because they own CNN -- it was smacked down) because it would harm their revenue stream.
Neither is cell service
Yeah, it's an oligopoly where the carriers have no incentive to do anything consumer friendly, because new players can't break into the market and people don't have the choice of not having cellular service. That's a lot better then a monopoly.
Demanding that the government step in and try to enforce restrictions on cellular networks is just asking for higher prices and less choice
The Government is already enforcing restrictions on them. Or are you telling me that I can just buy some GSM equipment and throw up a network without involving the Government? They are selling a service based around a limited resource (RF spectrum) that belongs to everybody. There is no reason that they should be able to control what I can do with my handset beyond making sure that it doesn't have a harmful impact on their network -- which any complaint device will not.
Accept the fact that the free market has failed us here. Or find me a carrier that doesn't engage in these practices. You won't be able to because they all do to some extent. I've voted with my wallet and I'm giving my money to the best of the worst (T-Mobile) even though I had to take a huge coverage hit to do so. The carriers should not be allowed to leverage their networks to build a vertical monopoly on the devices and content allowed on those networks.
Read the damn document I linked before you go spouting off your Libertarian theories again. I have some Libertarian leanings and despite them I think this makes a good argument for applying carterfone to the cell industry.
The free market will take care of that. People already choose providers based on the features they provide. If you don't like the restrictions your carrier places on your phone, choose another one, don't go crying to the government.
We don't have a free market for cell phones! That's the whole point that nobody understands. Four carriers is not competition. It's an oligopoly. How is it competition when they all raise their SMS prices within three months of each other? How is it competition when none of them will allow unsigned applications to run on their phones? How is it competition when nobody new can break into the market because of the combination of start-up costs (billions) and a lack of available spectrum?
The government will only make things worse. Witness the Cable Card debacle for a good example of the government attempting to do something like what you're demanding and failing miserably at it.
Yes, because the carterfone decision can be compared to the Cable Card clusterfuck. The carterfone decision never led to open devices or consumer choice. Ma Bell still has a lockdown on the POTS network and won't allow you to use a phone unless you get it from her. Oh, wait....
the margins in the wireless industry (last I checked) were rather thin overall
It's hard to know what the margins actually are because most of them are owned by parent companies (T-Mo by Deutsche Telekom, VZW by Verizon and Vodafone, etc, etc) and don't report separate results, but even assuming that's the case I don't buy it as justification for this behavior. That was one of the "bad" things that Ma Bell did -- forcing long distance users to subsidize local service. Once Ma Bell was broken up long distance prices dropped like a brick and local service went up to reflect the true costs. In any case, why should my functionality be reduced because of their business model?
Though the amount of features available to the US market sucks
And that's entirely the fault of the carriers. In Europe you don't even typically buy a phone when you get service. You buy a phone at a Nokia store and then find a carrier to get service with. That's also how landline service worked the last time I checked -- I buy a phone (an el-cheapo at Wally World or a $300 one at Staples, doesn't matter) and then get service. The device makers have an incentive to add features to compete with each other. If the carterfone rule hadn't been applied then we might not have ever had analog modems, fax machines, answering machines, etc, etc, etc. Think of the innovation possible with cell phones if the carriers got out of the way.
Basic service must not be a huge moneymaker for them
I'd dispute that. Voice minutes cost them next to nothing to provide. A friend of mine works at the local university. They have their own telephone switch and telecom department and lease dedicated flat-rate trunks to carry their off-campus traffic. How much do you think they pay for voice minutes to the US and Canada? With the flat-rate trunks it works out to less then a hundredth of a penny per minute. With all the long distance and backbone assets that Verizon, AT&T and Sprint own, somehow I doubt that voice isn't rolling in the dough for them. It may not have as big of a margin as data or SMS, but it makes enough money.
So if all you want is a phone, go with a carrier that uses vendor lock-in to screw their other customers! You'll probably get a better deal.
I'd also dispute that. T-Mobile doesn't use vendor lock-in and they are about the best value in mobility, if you live an area with coverage. Right now they are even offering a promotion of 1,000 minutes for $39.99/mo with full N&W. That's 3.999 cents a minute. Verizon's $39.99 offering is 450 minutes or 8.8886 cents a minute. Granted, it all depends on your needs, coverage and where your friends are (mobile to mobile is nice), but I think it dispels the fact that you need to screw your customers to offer a good price on voice. If anything, T-Mo would have the highest backend cost for voice too, given that they don't own their own backhaul networks in the United States like the other carriers do.
Who pays for that? The people who run up huge finance charges, that's who
Your paying for that as well. Ever hear of the merchant fee? Even if you don't eat finance charges the merchant is eating 1.5-3.0% of every sale when you use your credit card. In fact, I'm helping you to pay for that as well because the merchant isn't allowed to pass that charge along to you -- so the cash users wind up subsidizing the credit card ones. Net result: prices go up, Visa, Mastercard and your bank all get richer.
would be nice to see a cdma version, too
Well, the problem with that is that the CDMA carriers will refuse to activate unbranded devices on their networks. But he still could have decided to release an unbranded GSM version. Any T-Mobile or AT&T customer would have been able to use it. Plus all the regional carriers (Suncom, Cellular One, etc) that use GSM. Plus virtually any mobile user outside of the United States or Asia is already on GSM.
Instead he decided to go the carrier-specific route. This lets him add carrier dependent features (visual voicemail) but I think it's a disservice to innovation and his customers. But what do I know? :)
Given that people are already willing to pay $350 for an iPod, it would seem like basic GSM phone functionality could have been added for another $100 and sold independently of the carriers. It wouldn't be a true smartphone, but it probably would have appealed to more people. How many people do you know with smartphones vs iPods? Hell, my Grandmother has an iPod....
If you think it's only the nasty carriers that would make this a closed device, you're deluding yourself--look how "open" the ipod is.
I'm not deluding myself over anything with Apple. (Here goes my Karma) Their entire business model is based around marketing a flashy product that is basically inaccessible to the power user and barely customizable at all beyond what Apple "thinks" you need.
That said, given that Jobs has stood up to the music labels before with DRM (presumably because it suits him as well as his consumers), it would have been nice to see him fight the carriers on the issue of crippling features. Obviously he didn't decide to do that.
I have had complete control over what I do with the phone in terms of ringtones, java mini-apps, etc.
Yes, Cingular isn't as bad as Verizon (ugh, fuck Verizon...) in that regard, but you are missing the point.
Years ago, Nokia wanted to release the E61 smartphone in the United States. Cingular refused to carry it unless Nokia removed the Wi-Fi feature from the device. So we get the E62 -- functionally the same, minus Wi-Fi support.
It's pretty obvious how that benefits Cingular (buy a data plan or your smartphone is a brick), but how the hell does it benefit the consumer, exactly? The carriers are going for a vertical monopoly on devices (they control which ones can be sold), and content (they refuse to allow third party content on their networks). This is exactly the model that Ma Bell used, only now the agencies that are supposed to protect us (FCC, the state utilities commissions, etc, etc) refuse to do so because we have "competition". How is an industry dominated by four major players that all act the same competitive? You'd almost think they have a gentleman's agreement or something...
I'm not trying to be a Cingular/At&t fanboy, but I think it can be said that some carriers are better than others
Yes, and in my experience it's in this order: T-Mobile -> Sprint -> AT&T -> Verizon, for most to least friendly carriers. AT&T isn't being as nasty as Verizon yet, but give them time. They are already getting as nasty as Verizon is with their policies and prices. The only saving grace on the hardware is that as an AT&T customer is that you have the option of dropping full price for an unbranded GSM phone and using it. That's not even an option on Verizon or Sprint with CDMA service.
here is one carrier (I think it's verizon, but correct me if I'm wrong) that totally replaces the user interface of all their phones with their own in-house one. The new interface apparently locks most of the functionality and is much less usable than the standard interface, and forces the customer to purchase all the extras through verizon.
That would indeed be Verizon. You can't do jack shit with a Verizon phone unless it comes through Verizon's "Get it Now" service. And Motorola/Nokia can't even offer full price phones to Verizon customers, because Verizon won't let unbranded phones on their network. Again, it's obvious how this helps Verizon (revenue from Get it Now), but how does it help the consumer?
Read the document I linked. I think you'll find it interesting :)
Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.
Replace "Apple", with "Cingular"^W"AT&T" and you might be accurate there. I'm no Apple fanboy and I don't even own an iPod but if you think that Apple wants these restrictions you are insane. This was the best deal they could get with a national carrier (Verizon demanded even worse restrictions) so they are going with it.
Why they wouldn't have just released it as a unbranded GSM phone that any T-Mobile or AT&T customer could just throw a SIM card into is beyond me. It wouldn't have had all the carrier dependent features, but it would have been a workable iPod/phone combo, it would have been affordable, and it might even have set a precedent for selling these things outside the iron grasp of the carriers who want them locked down and crippled so they can provide their own revenue stream.
That would have been a nice way to Jobs to do something pro-consumer and stick it to the carriers for forcing all of these restrictions on him. Guess that was too much to hope for. Yeah, it's all about the money :(