 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / August 2009The cathedral plus the bazaar: Open source and Apple (design) envy
June 26, 2009 1:12 PM PDT The cathedral plus the bazaar: Open source and Apple (design) envy http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10274039-16.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1 _3-0-20 "Why free software usability tends to suck." Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the open- source development process is often not the best way to achieve it. Thomas now works for Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, which arguably offers the industry's best Linux experience for personal computers. I got a sneak peek at a future Ubuntu release while at dinner with Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth Wednesday night, and it was gorgeous. Mac freak I may be, but the day Canonical releases that version of Ubuntu is the day my devotion to Apple will be severely tested. Yes, it's that good. But it's "that good" because there's a company behind it, a company dedicated to making Linux usable for average consumers. .... Once a product's basic performance is more than good enough, competition forces firms to compete on convenience or customization. In these situations, specialist firms emerge and the necessary locus of integration typically shifts to the interface with the customer. Hence, Apple reigns in smartphones because it's a comparatively new market and Apple can control the complete design of the product. Microsoft and Google, on the other hand, will struggle to compete because they are only delivering software, and depend heavily on the device manufacturer. (It's likely that Apple is also exercising significant influence over AT&T and the other wireless carriers, influence that Apple's competitors likely lack.) .... comments I would emphasize that its not the smart phone market Apple is beginning to dominate, its the "handheld, always-connected, mobile device market". Apple has fundamentally changed the rules because it recognizes that its platform is really a handheld computer that is also a phone and general-purpose communication device (every mobile phone manufacturer believes the platform is a phone with some data capabilities). Huge difference and huge control necessary to make the early customer experience delightful. .... another comment When I first bought my iPod touch (1st generation) about eighteen months ago, I thought of it as a music player with e-mail and a web browser. The game completely changed when Apple opened the App Store. While the iPod touch does require a WiFi connection, it does plenty of things without a network. As I've mentioned here on Cnet before, ever since the App Store went online, I think my MacBook has left the house twice. It *is* a small handheld computer. While Apple certainly has had its stumbles, the overall customer experience with this little device has been completely superior to that of any other electronics device I've ever used. This class of devices is where the next decade's war will be fought: not between desktop operating systems, not even in web browser apps running on desktop PCs. It's all about getting your content and services to a handheld device. ... Macs are definitely consumer machines first and Apple markets to the mainstream consumers. That's no surprise. I am a developer, but I am also a consumer. I love Apple's iLife suite. I have yet to find anything that can compete, either on Windows or Linux. The hodge-podge of crappy applications on both Windows and Linux leave much to be desired. While I spend most of my time in an IDE or vim, I also want the ability to watch Netflix movies, or make DVDs out of my home movies and photos. Have you ever tried doing that on Linux or BSD? Without dual-booting into Windows, I mean? And I don't care if the system is closed. I just don't care. It doesn't affect my workflow. I don't want to look at the source. I have better things to do with my time. As for the UNIX tools, I have everything I need. OS X took the majority of the useful stuff and left behind the decades of cruft that have accumulated in BSD. And for what OS X doesn't provide, there's MacPorts. I have yet to find any of my UNIX tools that don't run on OS X. And, for the record, I'm glad that Apple changed the filesystem hierarchy. The old FSH is cluttered and obsolete. ............................................................................ I agree with all the above points and consider them insightful in understanding why the iPhone is such a difficult target for other firms to take on. It actullay justifies my opinion of those who complain the iPhone is not like their idea of a smart phone as being complete idiots who miss the point. The iPhone is not being bought as a smart phone, the smart phone ala windows mobile etc. is a failed concept in the market place. Vic At 28 Jun 2009 18:14:03 -0700 There's an app for that...on the $99 iPhone @ AT&T wrote: > I agree with all the above points and consider them insightful in > understanding why the iPhone is such a difficult target for other > firms to take on. It actullay justifies my opinion of those who > complain the iPhone is not like their idea of a smart phone as being > complete idiots who miss the point. Arguably, like most closed-minded people, you miss the point because you only see one side- yours. the iPhonemeets your limited needs, so it's the pinnacle of human achievement. I agree the iPhone is a nifty device and a great mobile companion for many people. But it isnt a "mobile computer" due to its intentional limitations. The Apple concept of a mobile device, IMO, is actually a dangerous one. You see the rainbows and unicorns side of "easy to use," and an app store full of 60,000 apps, and like the sirens' song, that's pretty hard to resist. I, however, see the dark side of a closed infrastructure driving me to the iTunes and App stores, and "safe" pablum apps using only the official APIs, so no real improvements can be made to the core functions of the device- file viewers using the internal file viewer APIs, email using the email APIs, etc. Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X and Y, your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no how. I see not a smartphone, but an iPod on steroids, beholden to content providers and mobile operators above its users- an Atari 2600 for the 21st century- running a closed architecture, using factory-approved apps delivered by factory-approved means and using only licensed accessories. > The iPhone is not being bought as > a smart phone, the smart phone ala windows mobile etc. is a failed > concept in the market place. Probably true. The real problem with the smartphone concept as defined by Palm OS and Windows CE was the software was always ahead of what the hardware could reliably deliver- they always "bit off more than they could chew." Blackberry got it mostly right, realizing these crappy anemic devices can barely handle anything more than text, and proceeded to build amazing email-centric devices that made no apologies for crummy WAP browsers, and lack of media supprt (or even .jpg picture support on some models!) Apple looked at the marketplace and fixed everything that could be a potential problem... ...for APPLE! They crippled developer access to hardware to "increase stability,"- the lockout of unapproved apps circumventing the app store commissions was just a lucky side benefit. The ban on "duplicate functionality" that might otherwise allow alternate media players that could use competing music stores simply "prevents user confusion." John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've started a class-action lawsuit already. I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a centralized app distribution system preventing apps to be sourced anywhere else, no user-accessible file system, with files only available to the app that created them, media files not transferable to other computers (because only pirates do THAT!), and the next Mac OS preventing more than one third- party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe? I agree that Microsoft's concept of porting Windows '98 to to the 3.5" screen wasn't anywhere near a resounding success, but the concept wasn't a bad one. Sure the UI is a litle clumsy, but anyone who's used a Winows PC gets the gist of navigating right away. They're not as hard to use as you pretend. Where they screwd up, IMO, is where they didn't complete the emulation: "X" icons that minimize apps rather than close them, for example. It was almost like a bait and switch- first we show you "it's just like Windows" then after you dive in we change all the rules! Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the product is nearly perfect as is.) Windows Mobile developers took an awkward UI running on underpowered hardware and made it do amazing things its designers couldn't have possibly envisioned. Hardware manufacturers used the standard I/O ports (CF and SDIO) to create hardware to convert simple PDAs into dedicated controllers, diagnostic tools, measuring instruments, etc. This was an exciting time in portable computing akin to the day when custom hardware boards, both commercal and amateur, were being developed for Trash-80s and Apple IIs. Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children- Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty, they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told Santa might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple is fighting and threatening them, and forcing mainstream development to stay away- Sling and Skype can't play both sides and build the AT&T- approved WiFi-only apps for app store use and also sell 3G capable versions for the jailbreak crowd. Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves by associating with the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the app store either. Sure, Apple raised the bar for UI, no doubt, but at what price? Other platforms, some that may not have even launched yet, that do not owe any allegiances to the RIAA or MPAA, will catch up with the Apple UI but also offer a more open and robust user experience one of these days. Hopefully, for Apple, they'll have attained critical mass by then. Apple still hasn't had to deal with problems other platforms have struggled with already; major architecture/chipset changes, multiple form factors, weighing backwards compatibility vs. improving the OS or hardware, heck, they haven't even introduced more than one screen resolution yet! That'll be an exciting time in the App Store approval department, when virtually every one of 60,000 apps gets updated or additional versions for multiple resolutions! Then the slogan might be "There's Two Apps for That!" ;) > Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but > since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X > and Y, your app simply ain't gonna playback format Z, no way, no > how. Not inside the iPod app, no, but inside your own app you presumably can since you *can* get streaming radio apps etc. > John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the > iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've > started a class-action lawsuit already. Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference. > I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next > line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was > beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe? Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD? > Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple > has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in > developers to improve the product. (Or it just might be hubris that the > product is nearly perfect as is.) No, I think it's because they're targetting a different market. Which they have every right to do, and by the looks of it, was a very good decision! > Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children- > Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty, > they can't go to the app store. If they want more toys, they're told Santa > might bring them next firmware release day. The jailbreaker underground > is doing their best, but rather than nudge-nudge-wink-winking them, Apple > is fighting and threatening them, Are they? I got the impression it was much more along the "nudge nudge wink wink" lines, with Apple doing the minimum necessary to keep the carriers happy. They rattle the sabre as required every now and again, but the OS upgrades have repeatedly *failed* to screw over the jailbreak people when they easily could have. > Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves by associating with > the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the app store either. Do you have a reference for that? "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message news:slrnh4h0l o.v6q.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net... >> Apps can dress up the native functions in eye-catching new ways, but >> since, for example, the iPod APIs only support playback of format X [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not inside the iPod app, no, but inside your own app you presumably > can since you *can* get streaming radio apps etc. Of the streaming apps I've seen or tried, they all seem to play streams in formats (MP3, AAC) the iPhone handles natively already, at least judging by what comes over my PC from the same sources (NPR, etc.) >> John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the >> iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've >> started a class-action lawsuit already. > > Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly > (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference. Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one? Apple doesn't get a "pass" because they're Apple. >> I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the >> next [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that > whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD? It was neither. Read it slowly: it was a hypothetical- hence the use of the word "if". "IF the next Macs were as locked down as the iPhone, WOULD users agree..." I'm not suggesting this a slippery slope Apple will ride up to Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices employed on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer. >> Apple's start-from-scratch mobile UI was a much better idea. Where Apple >> has failed completely, however, is by showing an utter lack of faith in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which they have every right to do, and by the looks of it, was > a very good decision! We'll never know that. It might have been a better decision to have had a real GPS app a year ago- maybe the iPhone would be the largest selling PND right now! >> Apple on the other hand, treats the iPhone developers like children- >> Apple's laid out their toys neatly in the sandbox. If they're naughty, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > but the OS upgrades have repeatedly *failed* to screw over the > jailbreak people when they easily could have. I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply flash back to "legit" before upgrading. And Apple is fighting to make jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA <http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not sabre-rattling. >> Upstanding iPhone partners don't soil themselves by associating with >> the jailbreakers, or Apple won't let them play in the app store either. > > Do you have a reference for that? Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from casual observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business partner like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model. This is why a single point of distribution is dangerous. The shake-the-baby app is FUNNY (and I'm a father of three!); why should Apple, or anyone else, stop YOU from buying porn if you want to? Why should AT&T have ANY say in the app store? (AT&T is perfectly within their right to tell you not to use it on their network, of course, and even build a technological barrier to enforce that, but to ask for an app to modified or removed?) If logic like that applied to computers, we'd never have seen a DVD backup app- Sony would've asked Apple and Microsoft to "pull it from their app stores." >> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly >> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference. > > Really? You'd rather be mugged by a "nice guy" rather than a mean one? No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that we *might* be in the future. If it was Microsoft doing it, we would know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line. >> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that >> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Macs- I'm just saying a lot of people here are defending practices employed > on the iPhone that they'd be horrified to see on a computer. That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer. Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other? > I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply > flash back to "legit" before upgrading. ... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff. But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they easily could. > Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken > version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they > had an iPhone version "ready to roll" a year ago. There seems, from casual > observation, to be a (perfect logical) incentive to keep a business partner > like Apple happy, and not undermine their business model. Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy" products. > >> Microsoft are a monopolist with convictions for abusing that monopoly > >> (albeit not in the mobile marketplace). That makes a difference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that > we *might* be in the future. No, the iPhone is locked-down now. You seem to have missed Dvorak's point- if Microsoft had released the exact same iPhone, (though presumably connecting to Zune software or WMP instead of iTunes, of course!) with all of its software coming from the "Microsoft App store," requiring MS' approval to be included, the entire industry would've been screaming bloody murder. > If it was Microsoft doing it, we would > know they can't be trusted. If it's any non-monopolist, then the > market will probably do a good job of keeping them in line. Hence "mugged by a nice guy." Apple has never been a monopolist in computers because they've never been in that power position, (though they threw their weight around plenty battling clone makers in the Apple II days) but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look at the iPod infrastructure, where Apple is in a near-monopoly position. The Pre debuts with the ability to sync with iTunes, (which everyone now considers the de facto "standard" in music management) and Apple immediately responds with warnings that future iTunes updates could break third-party sync functionality. If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in the streets because it would mean someone might actually use it! ;) > >> Do you have some reason to believe that that will happen, or is that > >> whole paragraph just a huge pile of FUD? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer. > Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other? An iPhone has the power of Wintel and Mac OS laptops built several years ago, so excuses that some of the restrictions, like prohibiting background execution, are due to "limited RAM/power, etc." make less sense given that context. And limiting app distribution to a single "source seems to be a universal sin of closed platforms like game consoles. Why does that make any more sense on a "mobile computing platform" than on a computer? > > I'm not sure it'd be that easy to "screw them over" when they could simply > > flash back to "legit" before upgrading. > > ... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff. > But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they > easily could. What "non-official stuff" are you referring to? Upgrading an unlocked phone legitimately, relocks the phones. I'm not aware of that happening with any other flashable phone. Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like diamonds, are forever. > > Not at all- just observation. Sling poo-pooed the idea of a jailbroken > > version when asked, as did Tom Tom when making noise in the press that they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or they just don't want to undermine their own brand by making "dodgy" > products. That's a perfectly valid theory as well. I'll concede that point to you. >> That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer. >> Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >execution, are due to "limited RAM/power, etc." make less sense given that >context. More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such multitasking easily. One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS. (iFans will of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true RTOS actually is and why that matters.)  SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? > One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS. (iFans will > of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true > RTOS actually is and why that matters.) Oooo, look--Navas went to a convention and heard a buzz-term. And he's trolling around, hoping someone here will tell him what it means... > More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such > multitasking easily. the iphone multitasks very easily and standard cell phones don't have the horsepower to do cool stuff, such as multitouch or having a gpu. > One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS. ah yes, 'true rtos' like 'true multitasking.' the fact remains that iphone os works fine. not perfect, but nothing is. and what about google android? certainly linux is not a good choice for phones because it's not a 'true rtos' either, right? yet nobody seems to bash that. > (iFans will > of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true > RTOS actually is and why that matters.) it actually doesn't matter as much as you think it does, as the iphone, google android and now the palm pre show. >> More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such >> multitasking easily. > >the iphone multitasks very easily and standard cell phones don't have >the horsepower to do cool stuff, such as multitouch or having a gpu. Shows how little you know about these phones. >> One problem, of course, is that Mac OS X isn't a true RTOS. > >ah yes, 'true rtos' like 'true multitasking.' Nope. Do your homework. >the fact remains that >iphone os works fine. not perfect, but nothing is. It suffers from not being a true RTOS. >and what about google android? certainly linux is not a good choice >for phones because it's not a 'true rtos' either, right? yet nobody >seems to bash that. Fair criticism, although there are reasonably real-time version of Linux. >> (iFans will >> of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true >> RTOS actually is and why that matters.) > >it actually doesn't matter as much as you think it does, as the iphone, >google android and now the palm pre show. It actually matters a great deal, as shown by how much processing power and battery the iPhone needs to not even measure up to much lesser phones. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? > >> More to the point, standard cell phones with far less resources do such > >> multitasking easily. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Shows how little you know about these phones. the iphone very definitely multitasks and how many cellphones have hardware such as a multi-touch interface, graphics coprocessor and a multi-axis accelerometer, with dual core cpus expected next year? > >> (iFans will > >> of course claim it is everything, but then they don't know what a true [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and battery the iPhone needs to not even measure up to much lesser > phones. you have that backwards. the iphone has power and it is used. remind me again how many cellphones have opengl es 2.0. also, the palm pre uses the same cpu as the iphone, why no hatred for that? >> No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that >> we *might* be in the future. > > No, the iPhone is locked-down now. You seem to have missed Dvorak's point- > if Microsoft had released the exact same iPhone How can you think I have missed that point when we have been specifically discussing it? > The Pre debuts with the ability to sync with iTunes, (which everyone > now considers the de facto "standard" in music management) and Apple > immediately responds with warnings that future iTunes updates could > break third-party sync functionality. Er, of course they said that. They presumably don't have access to the Pre source code, they don't know how it works, they have no way of guaranteeing that it will work (not to mentiom very little motivation to come up with such a guarantee, of course ;-) ). This surely is actually a point considerably in favour of Apple - they have managed to get most (all?) of the music on iTunes to be DRM-free, so you can use iTunes to purchase your music no matter what phone you use. > If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in the > streets because it would mean someone might actually use it! ;) I thought Microsoft had shut down their music sales business? >> That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer. >> Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other? > > An iPhone has the power of Wintel and Mac OS laptops built several years ago, Which still doesn't make it a desktop computer. > And limiting app distribution to a single "source seems to be a universal > sin of closed platforms like game consoles. Why does that make any more > sense on a "mobile computing platform" than on a computer? Apparently it does make a difference, because as you say people wouldn't tolerate it on a desktop computer, but most people seem to be fine with it on the iPhone or on games consoles. >> ... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff. >> But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they >> easily could. > > What "non-official stuff" are you referring to? The non-official apps the user has installed on the phone. > Upgrading an unlocked phone legitimately, relocks the phones. I'm > not aware of that happening with any other flashable phone. You seem to be confusing SIM unlocking, and jailbreaking. > Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like diamonds, are forever. As far as I'm aware, that's because most SIM unlocks work by setting the SIM lock flag to "off", whereas the iPhone SIM unlock hacks work by disabling the code which enforces the SIM lock. So when you re-flash the code, the flag is still set to "locked" and the lock comes back. > >> No, but we haven't been "mugged", you're just raising the spectre that > >> we *might* be in the future. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How can you think I have missed that point when we have been > specifically discussing it? I wondered that myself, but you referred to the "future." > > The Pre debuts with the ability to sync with iTunes, (which everyone > > now considers the de facto "standard" in music management) and Apple [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > guaranteeing that it will work (not to mentiom very little motivation > to come up with such a guarantee, of course ;-) ). Apple didn't have to say anything. If Palm wants to claim their product works with iTunes, Windows 8, Goodyear Tires, Heinz Ketchup, or whatever, it's Palm's problem to insure continued compatiblity. Apple was simply issuing a not-so-veiled threat. Between that and their "we protect our patents" statement when Palm announced it'd do multi-touch, I have to wonder if Apple is more worried about the Pre than the tech press feels they should be! > This surely is actually a point considerably in favour of Apple - they > have managed to get most (all?) of the music on iTunes to be DRM-free, > so you can use iTunes to purchase your music no matter what phone you > use. Yes, but Palm took it a step further, didn't they, and added syncing as well. That's what triggered the threat- if the iTunes store is more about supporting high-margin iPod hardware sales than a profit center in its own right, Apple has a vested interest in keeping it "in the family" rather than allow it to become a generic music sync tool like Windows Media Player is. > > If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in the > > streets because it would mean someone might actually use it! ;) > > I thought Microsoft had shut down their music sales business? Not at all. They're stil pushing their $15/month unlimited download subscription service. > >> That makes even less sense. An phone is not a desktop computer. > >> Why *should* what's done on one be appropriate for the other? > > > > An iPhone has the power of Wintel and Mac OS laptops built several years ago, > > Which still doesn't make it a desktop computer. True, but that doesn't really give a coherent reason _not to_ either. It's not a PSP, but it plays games... > > And limiting app distribution to a single "source seems to be a universal > > sin of closed platforms like game consoles. Why does that make any more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wouldn't tolerate it on a desktop computer, but most people seem to be > fine with it on the iPhone or on games consoles. I'm not so sure. The jailbreak community is small by comparision, but it exists because NOT everyone is "satisfied." "Satisfied" and "accepting" are two vastly different things. The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations, not _because_ of them! I'm certainly not making a case to close the app store! It's a phenominal idea, executed well. I'm just asking why distribution is _limited_ to it (for all intents- I'm ignoring internal corporate distribution as outside the point of this discussion.) I shouldn't have to specify that last point, but whenever I ask why Apple doesn't dothis or that, I'm constantly told it's because the Apple implementation is "better" (e.g. when I ask why there's no drag and drop music loading in "disk mode" without using iTunes.) Apple's implementation may be better, but that doesn't answer why alternates shouldn't be available. Even in game consoles there's a thriving hacking community- XBoxes and handheld NDS devices have been broken to allow 3rd-party unofficial apps to be run. I'd say "most people" are accepting, not satisfied. > >> ... and the upgrade could easily remove the non-official stuff. > >> But it doesn't, because Apple didn't make it do that, even though they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The non-official apps the user has installed on the phone. Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade! (Though you can't really blame Apple- an pgrade wipes the entire device, and only Apple's excellent backup/restore mechanism in iTunes gives the illusion the OS is upgraded "in place" without disturbing data. The data, in fact, is simply restored. We could hardly expect Apple to properly backup and restore "unauthorized" data added via alternate methods Apple might be unaware of. All jailbreak apps must be reinstalled post-upgrade.) > > Upgrading an unlocked phone legitimately, relocks the phones. I'm > > not aware of that happening with any other flashable phone. > > You seem to be confusing SIM unlocking, and jailbreaking. No, I was just making the point- I assumed it was self-evident that Apple undid all jailbeaking and erased those apps and data with each upgrade. My apologies. > > Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like diamonds, are forever. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > re-flash the code, the flag is still set to "locked" and the lock > comes back. I assumed it must be some sort of "bypass" rather than a true unlock since it doesn't "stick"- thanks for the clarification. > > > Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like diamonds, are forever. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I assumed it must be some sort of "bypass" rather than a true unlock since > it doesn't "stick"- thanks for the clarification. it does stick on the 2g iphone. > > > > Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like diamonds, are forever. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > it does stick on the 2g iphone. Are you positive? I thought it only remained unlocked after the last couple of updates because the baseband radio wasn't being updated (like on the 3G.) I assume the radio finally gets updated in 3.0 (just guessing- I haven't looked seriously yet.) I've always "reunlocked" with each update anyway just to be safe. > > > > > Except for the iPhone, SIM unlocks, like diamonds, are forever. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > haven't looked seriously yet.) I've always "reunlocked" with each update > anyway just to be safe. yes, i'm positive. the 2g baseband is not updated in 3.0 and the phone will remain unlocked, even if you leave the unlock checkbox unchecked when jailbreaking it. the 3g does get a new baseband and requires ultrasn0w as opposed to yellowsn0w. and keeping with that theme, the 3.0 quickpwn tool is now called redsn0w. > Yes, but Palm took it a step further, didn't they, and added syncing as well. > That's what triggered the threat- if the iTunes store is more about > supporting high-margin iPod hardware sales than a profit center in its own > right, Apple has a vested interest in keeping it "in the family" rather > than allow it to become a generic music sync tool like Windows Media Player > is. Well, yes, of course. That's my point - even though it's not necessarily in their own interests, Apple did what was in their customers' interests and changed iTunes to deliver DRM-free music. Once they did that, it became impossible for them to prevent other companies making their devices sync with that music - whether directly through iTunes or through some tiny add-on makes little difference. >> > If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in the >> > streets because it would mean someone might actually use it! ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not at all. They're stil pushing their $15/month unlimited download > subscription service. I was thinking of "MSN Music store", which they shut down. When they did so, they screwed over everyone who had ever bought music from it, by shutting down the DRM servers too. >> Apparently it does make a difference, because as you say people >> wouldn't tolerate it on a desktop computer, but most people seem to be >> fine with it on the iPhone or on games consoles. > > I'm not so sure. The jailbreak community is small by comparision, but it > exists because NOT everyone is "satisfied." I did deliberately say "most people" not "all people" ;-) > The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations, > not _because_ of them! I think you have that wrong. Everything about the iPhone is a compromise between the competing interests of mobile phone companies, media companies, consumers, and Apple itself. I think Apple have done a pretty good job of balancing these interests, and this is what has lead directly to the iPhone being a success. For example, the iPhone has the "flaw/limitation" that you can't tether it (or, in 3.0, you can but only if the carrier lets you). This is obviously done to make the carriers happy, but in return it means that iPhone carrier contracts tend to offer genuinely unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges). > I'm certainly not making a case to close the app store! It's a > phenominal idea, executed well. I'm just asking why distribution > is _limited_ to it (for all intents- I'm ignoring internal corporate > distribution as outside the point of this discussion.) Why are you asking this when you know the answer? (a) Apple want to protect the reputation of their product (which is a reasonable goal), and (b) they make a margin on all sales (which in my view is reasonable for the service that they are providing the app developer). You're perfectly free to disagree with their decision and say they should have done something else, but it's fairly obvious why they have done things the way they have, and I don't think any of it is particularly consumer-hostile. > Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade! Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade"). With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-) > (Though you can't really blame Apple- an pgrade wipes the entire > device, and only Apple's excellent backup/restore mechanism in > iTunes gives the illusion the OS is upgraded "in place" without > disturbing data. The data, in fact, is simply restored. Indeed, it is very pleasing when I get a replacement phone and I take it out of the box, plug it into iTunes and twenty minutes later it's magically turned into "my" phone. So much better than previous phones I had where I had to spend ages re-entering my entire contact list. > > Yes, but Palm took it a step further, didn't they, and added syncing as > > well. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > directly through iTunes or through some tiny add-on makes little > difference. other devices can certainly access the music but apple could make it very difficult to access the itunes library which contains playlists, song ratings, etc. > > The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations, > > not _because_ of them! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a pretty good job of balancing these interests, and this is what has > lead directly to the iPhone being a success. well put. > > Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update > ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade"). but you could put the device into recovery mode and install a stock firmware, so it's not worth bothering to do that. > With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair > as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some > other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it > doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from > backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-) early unlock attempts did sometimes brick the phones, but that's because the unlock was so primitive and the hackers didn't really understand what they were doing. now it's fairly reliable, with the issue being that apple keeps patching the exploits that the unlock methods use. > > (Though you can't really blame Apple- an pgrade wipes the entire > > device, and only Apple's excellent backup/restore mechanism in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > phones I had where I had to spend ages re-entering my entire contact > list. yep, and it's not just contacts, but *everything*. > other devices can certainly access the music but apple could make it > very difficult to access the itunes library which contains playlists, > song ratings, etc. They could, but they don't - it seems to be a simple XML file "iTunes Music Library.xml". In fact, not only do they not try and hide this information - they deliberately make it easy to get at! According to http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660 : "The purpose of the iTunes Music Library.xml file is to make your music and playlists available to other applications on your computer." >> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of >> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but you could put the device into recovery mode and install a stock > firmware, so it's not worth bothering to do that. Only because Apple let you. They could have made it so that the "recovery mode" could be disabled, if they'd wanted to. >> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair >> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > early unlock attempts did sometimes brick the phones, Do you mean "brick" as in it simply made the phone not work anymore until you wiped it and restored it, or do you really mean the proper meaning of the word, i.e. it became permanently unusable unless returned to the manufacturer (or similar)? > > other devices can certainly access the music but apple could make it > > very difficult to access the itunes library which contains playlists, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "iTunes Music Library.xml". In fact, not only do they not try and > hide this information - they deliberately make it easy to get at! right now it's easy, but if they really wanted to shut people down, they could encrypt it, for example > >> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of > >> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Only because Apple let you. They could have made it so that the > "recovery mode" could be disabled, if they'd wanted to. right, but there's no point in disabling a normal firmware upgrade unless you also disable the recovery mode, and that would make fixing them harder. updates do reset the jailbreak, and with the 3gs, they've made some changes that might potentially affect the ability to jailbreak in the future. it would not surprise me at all that one day you won't be able to jailbreak right away, if at all. > >> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair > >> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > meaning of the word, i.e. it became permanently unusable unless > returned to the manufacturer (or similar)? some of the phones could be fixed with a restore but apple did warn that the possibility existed that unlocking could cause 'irreparable damage'. i don't know how many phones actually were bricked (any definition), but early unlock attempts were rather buggy. later unlock schemes were not as fragile. <http://www.macworld.com/article/60181/2007/09/iphoneunlock.html> >> They could, but they don't - it seems to be a simple XML file >> "iTunes Music Library.xml". In fact, not only do they not try and >> hide this information - they deliberately make it easy to get at! > > right now it's easy, but if they really wanted to shut people down, > they could encrypt it, for example Well, yes. Like I just said "They could, but they don't". So Apple are being nice and consumer-friendly, even though they don't have to be. >> Only because Apple let you. They could have made it so that the >> "recovery mode" could be disabled, if they'd wanted to. > > right, but there's no point in disabling a normal firmware upgrade > unless you also disable the recovery mode, and that would make fixing > them harder. It'd still be easy for Apple themselves to fix them, and they could charge a nice fat fee for your non-warranty repair too! > some of the phones could be fixed with a restore but apple did warn > that the possibility existed that unlocking could cause 'irreparable > damage'. "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?" ;-) >> The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations, >> not _because_ of them! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables > a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges). Benefit compared to what? The $15 dumbphone and $30 smartphone data plans AT&T had prior to the iPhone, and still have, also offer genuinely unlimited data access (those terms are identical to the iPhone plan) but don't prevent you from using a phone capable of tethering (and most of the phones AT&T sold were capable). The only thing new about iPhone tethering is that they gave AT&T the ability to turn it off with an AT&T SIM in the phone, even on iPhones not purchased from AT&T. While having the firmware enforce what was formerly just a contractual T&C issue might be a benefit to someone, that someone is definitely not the person who paid for the phone. >> Those ARE wiped out with every upgrade! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from > backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-) Um, unlocking with every other GSM phone I've purchased from a US carrier has been a matter of phoning the carrier and asking for the subsidy password. If that had bricked the phone I would have taken it back to the carrier and got it fixed or replaced. The innovation introduced for the iPhone sold by AT&T, at least compared to the way other phones are sold now, is the inability to get the carrier to remove the SIM lock at all. Since being able to use random SIMs in a phone with good band coverage is hugely useful when you travel it is no wonder this feature encourages hacking. The beneficiary of this iPhone feature is, again, not the person who paid for the phone. More than this, you changed topics between the above two paragraphs. My wife's iPhone came from Apple with no SIM lock, and hence requires no unlocking, yet she still can't choose to use applications other than those blessed by Apple on a device someone paid big bucks for. As I understand the state of things the need to jailbreak the phone, no matter where you bought the phone, is a feature which may be unique to the iPhone, so I'm not exactly clear what you are comparing the iPhone's ease of jailbreaking to. Not having to do it at all is much, much easier. As far as I can see Apple bent over backwards to make the carriers and itself happy, entirely at the expense of those who pay for the phones. Dennis Ferguson >> For example, the iPhone has the "flaw/limitation" that you can't >> tether it (or, in 3.0, you can but only if the carrier lets you). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but don't prevent you from using a phone capable of tethering (and most > of the phones AT&T sold were capable). I don't know anything about AT&T - it doesn't operate in my country. But from what other people have said in this group, and from common sense, I believe you are mistaken. > While having the firmware enforce what was formerly just a > contractual T&C issue might be a benefit to someone, that someone is > definitely not the person who paid for the phone. It is a benefit for the people who don't want tethering and don't want to have to pay for it. > Um, unlocking with every other GSM phone I've purchased from a US > carrier has been a matter of phoning the carrier and asking for > the subsidy password. Obviously, I was talking about unlocking "unofficially". Unlocking "officially" tends to cost money, if it's available at all. > The innovation introduced for the iPhone sold by AT&T, at least > compared to the way other phones are sold now, is the inability to > get the carrier to remove the SIM lock at all. That's surely up to AT&T, not Apple. You can get officially unlocked iPhones, so it's clearly possible. > As I understand the state of things the need to jailbreak the > phone, no matter where you bought the phone, is a feature which may > be unique to the iPhone, so I'm not exactly clear what you are > comparing the iPhone's ease of jailbreaking to. You're confusing unlocking and jailbreaking again. I wasn't comparing the ease of jailbreaking to anything. >Obviously, I was talking about unlocking "unofficially". >Unlocking "officially" tends to cost money, if it's available at all. Unlocking officially is free here in the USA. It's unofficial unlocking that costs money. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? > >Obviously, I was talking about unlocking "unofficially". > >Unlocking "officially" tends to cost money, if it's available at all. > > Unlocking officially is free here in the USA. > It's unofficial unlocking that costs money. unofficially unlocking an iphone is free. >> Yes, but Palm took it a step further, didn't they, and added syncing as >> well. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > directly through iTunes or through some tiny add-on makes little > difference. One could argue that Apple was forced to go to DRM-free due to competitive forces (Amazon) rather than any "customer interest." Having said that, I don't think Apple ever really WANTED to sell DRM- it was just a way to make digital music sales palatable to content providers. It's probably in Apple's interest (as a hardware manufacturer, anyway) to allow free "sharing" of music, (even illegally!), since it increases the consumer's value proposition of buying an iPod rather than a portable CD player, much the same way "illegally" recording your LPs to cassette helped the Walkman/portable cassette player industry, or recording TV shows cemented the success of the VCR. >>> > If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When they did so, they screwed over everyone who had ever bought music > from it, by shutting down the DRM servers too. Oh, "Plays For Sure"- the DRM servers are actually still open today (of course you can no longer buy content), and should stay open until at least 2011. After that, the music will still play on the last five PCs you last authorized prior to shutting the service down. Not a perfect solution, no, but that gave customers several years to move the music to a non-DRM format, like burning it to CD. On the bright side, that debacle is probably what led to DRM-free music from Amazon then Apple as a viable business model. Nothing fosters change better than a large angry mob of consumers! >> The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations, >> not _because_ of them! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a pretty good job of balancing these interests, and this is what has > lead directly to the iPhone being a success. The iPhone is only a success if people buy and use it. How does compromising the consumer's interest benefit a consumer at all? It might be neccessary to do so to secure a particular profitable deal, but that doesn't directly benefit the consumer, hence my use of "in spite of." If, as a company, your interest is to sell more units of product, typically the consumer's interest is the same as yours, since catering to their interests will make the product more desirable. Can ANY consumer seriously say "I'm glad my iPhone only syncs music with one computer!" Or "it's certainly more convenient that I can't use Skype over 3G. It's less confusing that way!" Neither of those things will be a deal-breaker for the majority of consumers, but they don't _contribute_ to the iPhone's success. They're simply very minor inconveniences in the totality of the product's advantages and disadvantages, therefore, again, "success in spite of..." There's a point, when a company becomes the 800 lb. gorrila in an industry when you can tell your vendors to get stuffed and dictate the terms of many agreements. You accuse Microsoft of abusing their monopolistic power (and they have from time to time), but there are times when that's in the consumer's best interest. Apple negotiating better prices or higher quality parts benefits consumers, for example. Apple clearly "owns" both the portable digital music player market, and the digital content distribution market (iTunes store) right now, making them the 800 lb. gorilla. This puts them in the position to tell record company execs "our customers can use whatever damn song they please as their ringtone, just they can on any Nokia phone. Making them rebuying the same songs again for another buck is just kicking them when they're down!" Unfortunately, though, when the gorilla gets a cut from the extra buck, he finds himself in less of a fightin' mood... Sadly, therefore, Apple's position as both a vendor of hardware and content can easily create an anti-consumer conflict of interest. Again, look at the good ol' cassette Walkman. If you're simply a hardware manufacturer, as Sony was in the 1970s, or a blank tape manufacturer, you're automatically in favor of as liberal a "fair use" definition as the law can give, and will even vigorously defend those "rights" in court (the "Betamax" case.) You want consumers to buy as many blank tapes as possible, and as many players to play them on as they can carry. Look at Sony's position in the days before they owned content: they gave us the VCR and the Walkman. Devices whose marketplace appeal are enhanced by, if not predicated on, the easy ability to duplicate copyrighted materials. If Apple never had an iTunes store, don't you think perhaps they might have designed some parts of the iPod/iPhone experience differently over the years? Perhaps integrated FM radio with a direct record from FM feature? Line input mode to copy songs from your buddy's unit from headphone jack to headphone jack, or even wirelessly? I'm not neccessarily suggesting this would be a superior iPod to today's, just that the design decisions and feature set would be predicated on a completely different set of users' scenarios, far more focused on giving the consumer more "power," if only to keep him or her from buying competitors' devices. If AT&T had slammed the door in Apple's face rather than enter a multi-year exclusivity agreement, don't you think we'd have seen a different iPhone, designed to give "control" to the consumer to make the iPhone as powerful as possible despite what roadblocks mobile operators tried to throw at it? They'd have to if they were trying convince consumers to eschew cheaper subsidized phones in favor of an unsubsidized iPhone. And you could be damned sure it'd have tethered right out of the box! ;) > For example, the iPhone has the "flaw/limitation" that you can't > tether it (or, in 3.0, you can but only if the carrier lets you). > This is obviously done to make the carriers happy, but in return > it means that iPhone carrier contracts tend to offer genuinely > unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables > a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges). Except, at least in the US, that's not true. EVERY mobile operator here offered unlimited data plans before the iPhone existed, as long as the data is only used on the phone, rather than by a tethered PDA or comuter. The only difference is that on most phones it's not as easily enforced by the operator, since most other phones do not block tethering without getting the operator's "permission"! >> I'm certainly not making a case to close the app store! It's a >> phenominal idea, executed well. I'm just asking why distribution [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and (b) they make a margin on all sales (which in my view is > reasonable for the service that they are providing the app developer). Yes, I know the answer, but was illustrating an example where a feature was clearly not in the consumer's best interest! If it was truly a case of putting the consumer first, "(a)" could be easily handled by the appropriate warning dialog, much like computers or other phones have "non-certified" or "non-signed" app warnings, and "(b)" wouldn't have to be "handled," as both consumers and developers could easily see the advantages of the using a centralized store. Paying $1 for an app at the app store for an instant download would be easier and more convenient than buying directly from a developer's website for $0.70 and having to install it from your computer via iTunes, or whatever. > You're perfectly free to disagree with their decision and say they > should have done something else, but it's fairly obvious why they > have done things the way they have, and I don't think any of it > is particularly consumer-hostile. And you're perfectly free to believe that, but I don't. I'm also not suggesting that these (alleged!) consumer-hostile decisions "ruin" the phone, any more than closed distribution methods "ruin" the Sony Playstation platform. I'm just saying that removing the restrictions would make them better products for consumers. > Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of > any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their > way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the > iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update > ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade"). That would be difficult, since reflashing the phone to an "official" release would make it indistinguishable from a never-jailbroken one. If Apple tried to prevent that, I suspect the jailbreakers would simply have a different tool to reflash. > With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair > as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some > other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it > doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from > backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-) Pretty much that's the way any other smartphone works as well, unless the user does something pretty stupid, like flash firmware for model "A" onto model "B". The Windows Mobile ROM flashing tools I've used to flash unofficial ROMs were actually the real factory tools themselves, slightly modified to hide the phone's current ROM level. (Like with the iPhone, WinMo phone's generally don't let you revert to an older revision. The software simply tells you you're already using a more recent upgrade then aborts. The WinMo "hack" upgrade tools are the real tools fixed to always "read" your phone's current firmware level as 1.0.0, so EVERY firmware, regardless of how old, looks like an "upgrade" and is, therefore, flashable. A smart guy with a spare weekend and a hex editior could probably rig iTunes' upgrade module in a similar fashion.) >> (Though you can't really blame Apple- an pgrade wipes the entire >> device, and only Apple's excellent backup/restore mechanism in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > phones I had where I had to spend ages re-entering my entire contact > list. That's more of an issue of just not having the right tools. I've been transferring phone books from one mobile to another long before there was such a thing as a "smartphone." With smartphones it's not much different than with the iPhone. With my last WinMo phone, (that I received by mail order,) I opened it but was running late for an appointment, so rather plug it into a computer and sync, I stuck my SIM and microSD card from my old phone in the new, entered my operator's data settings (it was unlocked so they weren't preset), my server's settings, and restored the phone's data over cellular on the way to the appointment. (As you could do with the iPhone as well, since it supports Exchange and MobileMe.) What the iPhone DOES do better than anyone else, without question, is firmware upgrades. You can still botch the procedure, but it practically takes intentional malice to do so! I'll happily give Apple and the iPhone their "props" when they're due, and that is as well an executed feature as I've ever seen on a mobile device. >> Yes, but Palm took it a step further, didn't they, and added syncing as >> well. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > directly through iTunes or through some tiny add-on makes little > difference. One could argue that Apple was forced to go to DRM-free due to competitive forces (Amazon) rather than any "customer interest." Having said that, I don't think Apple ever really WANTED to sell DRM- it was just a way to make digital music sales palatable to content providers. It's probably in Apple's interest (as a hardware manufacturer, anyway) to allow free "sharing" of music, (even illegally!), since it increases the consumer's value proposition of buying an iPod rather than a portable CD player, much the same way "illegally" recording your LPs to cassette helped the Walkman/portable cassette player industry, or recording TV shows cemented the success of the VCR. >>> > If Palm had built the Pre to sync with Zune, MS would be dancing in >>> > the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When they did so, they screwed over everyone who had ever bought music > from it, by shutting down the DRM servers too. Oh, "Plays For Sure"- the DRM servers are actually still open today (of course you can no longer buy content), and should stay open until at least 2011. After that, the music will still play on the last five PCs you last authorized prior to shutting the service down. Not a perfect solution, no, but that gave customers several years to move the music to a non-DRM format, like burning it to CD. On the bright side, that debacle is probably what led to DRM-free music from Amazon then Apple as a viable business model. Nothing fosters change better than a large angry mob of consumers! >> The iPhone is a huge success _despite_ its flaws and limitations, >> not _because_ of them! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a pretty good job of balancing these interests, and this is what has > lead directly to the iPhone being a success. The iPhone is only a success if people buy and use it. How does compromising the consumer's interest benefit a consumer at all? It might be neccessary to do so to secure a particular profitable deal, but that doesn't directly benefit the consumer, hence my use of "in spite of." If, as a company, your interest is to sell more units of product, typically the consumer's interest is the same as yours, since catering to their interests will make the product more desirable. Can ANY consumer seriously say "I'm glad my iPhone only syncs music with one computer!" Or "it's certainly more convenient that I can't use Skype over 3G. It's less confusing that way!" Neither of those things will be a deal-breaker for the majority of consumers, but they don't _contribute_ to the iPhone's success. They're simply very minor inconveniences in the totality of the product's advantages and disadvantages, therefore, again, "success in spite of..." There's a point, when a company becomes the 800 lb. gorrila in an industry when you can tell your vendors to get stuffed and dictate the terms of many agreements. You accuse Microsoft of abusing their monopolistic power (and they have from time to time), but there are times when that's in the consumer's best interest. Apple negotiating better prices or higher quality parts benefits consumers, for example. Apple clearly "owns" both the portable digital music player market, and the digital content distribution market (iTunes store) right now, making them the 800 lb. gorilla. This puts them in the position to tell record company execs "our customers can use whatever damn song they please as their ringtone, just they can on any Nokia phone. Making them rebuying the same songs again for another buck is just kicking them when they're down!" Unfortunately, though, when the gorilla gets a cut from the extra buck, he finds himself in less of a fightin' mood... Sadly, therefore, Apple's position as both a vendor of hardware and content can easily create an anti-consumer conflict of interest. Again, look at the good ol' cassette Walkman. If you're simply a hardware manufacturer, as Sony was in the 1970s, or a blank tape manufacturer, you're automatically in favor of as liberal a "fair use" definition as the law can give, and will even vigorously defend those "rights" in court (the "Betamax" case.) You want consumers to buy as many blank tapes as possible, and as many players to play them on as they can carry. Look at Sony's position in the days before they owned content: they gave us the VCR and the Walkman. Devices whose marketplace appeal are enhanced by, if not predicated on, the easy ability to duplicate copyrighted materials. If Apple never had an iTunes store, don't you think perhaps they might have designed some parts of the iPod/iPhone experience differently over the years? Perhaps integrated FM radio with a direct record from FM feature? Line input mode to copy songs from your buddy's unit from headphone jack to headphone jack, or even wirelessly? I'm not neccessarily suggesting this would be a superior iPod to today's, just that the design decisions and feature set would be predicated on a completely different set of users' scenarios, far more focused on giving the consumer more "power," if only to keep him or her from buying competitors' devices. If AT&T had slammed the door in Apple's face rather than enter a multi-year exclusivity agreement, don't you think we'd have seen a different iPhone, designed to give "control" to the consumer to make the iPhone as powerful as possible despite what roadblocks mobile operators tried to throw at it? They'd have to if they were trying convince consumers to eschew cheaper subsidized phones in favor of an unsubsidized iPhone. And you could be damned sure it'd have tethered right out of the box! ;) > For example, the iPhone has the "flaw/limitation" that you can't > tether it (or, in 3.0, you can but only if the carrier lets you). > This is obviously done to make the carriers happy, but in return > it means that iPhone carrier contracts tend to offer genuinely > unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables > a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges). Except, at least in the US, that's not true. EVERY mobile operator here offered unlimited data plans before the iPhone existed, as long as the data is only used on the phone, rather than by a tethered PDA or comuter. The only difference is that on most phones it's not as easily enforced by the operator, since most other phones do not block tethering without getting the operator's "permission"! >> I'm certainly not making a case to close the app store! It's a >> phenominal idea, executed well. I'm just asking why distribution [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and (b) they make a margin on all sales (which in my view is > reasonable for the service that they are providing the app developer). Yes, I know the answer, but was illustrating an example where a feature was clearly not in the consumer's best interest! If it was truly a case of putting the consumer first, "(a)" could be easily handled by the appropriate warning dialog, much like computers or other phones have "non-certified" or "non-signed" app warnings, and "(b)" wouldn't have to be "handled," as both consumers and developers could easily see the advantages of the using a centralized store. Paying $1 for an app at the app store for an instant download would be easier and more convenient than buying directly from a developer's website for $0.70 and having to install it from your computer via iTunes, or whatever. > You're perfectly free to disagree with their decision and say they > should have done something else, but it's fairly obvious why they > have done things the way they have, and I don't think any of it > is particularly consumer-hostile. And you're perfectly free to believe that, but I don't. I'm also not suggesting that these (alleged!) consumer-hostile decisions "ruin" the phone, any more than closed distribution methods "ruin" the Sony Playstation platform. I'm just saying that removing the restrictions would make them better products for consumers. > Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of > any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their > way to stop them. At the very least, for example, when updating the > iPhone OS iTunes could detect the jailbreak and refuse to update > ("phone in non-standard state, warranty voided, cannot upgrade"). That would be difficult, since reflashing the phone to an "official" release would make it indistinguishable from a never-jailbroken one. If Apple tried to prevent that, I suspect the jailbreakers would simply have a different tool to reflash. > With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair > as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some > other hard-to-undo problem, but with the iPhone as far as I'm aware it > doesn't matter what you do, you can always just reset and restore from > backup. It practically encourages hacking! ;-) Pretty much that's the way any other smartphone works as well, unless the user does something pretty stupid, like flash firmware for model "A" onto model "B". The Windows Mobile ROM flashing tools I've used to flash unofficial ROMs were actually the real factory tools themselves, slightly modified to hide the phone's current ROM level. (Like with the iPhone, WinMo phone's generally don't let you revert to an older revision. The software simply tells you you're already using a more recent upgrade then aborts. The WinMo "hack" upgrade tools are the real tools fixed to always "read" your phone's current firmware level as 1.0.0, so EVERY firmware, regardless of how old, looks like an "upgrade" and is, therefore, flashable. A smart guy with a spare weekend and a hex editior could probably rig iTunes' upgrade module in a similar fashion.) >> (Though you can't really blame Apple- an pgrade wipes the entire >> device, and only Apple's excellent backup/restore mechanism in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > phones I had where I had to spend ages re-entering my entire contact > list. That's more of an issue of just not having the right tools. I've been transferring phone books from one mobile to another long before there was such a thing as a "smartphone." With smartphones it's not much different than with the iPhone. With my last WinMo phone, (that I received by mail order,) I opened it but was running late for an appointment, so rather plug it into a computer and sync, I stuck my SIM and microSD card from my old phone in the new, entered my operator's data settings (it was unlocked so they weren't preset), my server's settings, and restored the phone's data over cellular on the way to the appointment. (As you could do with the iPhone as well, since it supports Exchange and MobileMe.) What the iPhone DOES do better than anyone else, without question, is firmware upgrades. You can still botch the procedure, but it practically takes intentional malice to do so! I'll happily give Apple and the iPhone their "props" when they're due, and that is as well an executed feature as I've ever seen on a mobile device. > One could argue that Apple was forced to go to DRM-free due to competitive > forces (Amazon) rather than any "customer interest." You certainly could argue that, yes ;-) > Having said that, I don't think Apple ever really WANTED to sell DRM- it was > just a way to make digital music sales palatable to content providers. I think you are right, and this was very much the case. > The iPhone is only a success if people buy and use it. How does > compromising the consumer's interest benefit a consumer at all? It's hardly in the consumer's interest if their "phone + music player" device doesn't work on any networks because the mobile operators refuse to support it, and has no media content because the media companies refuse to supply any for it. > Can ANY consumer seriously say "I'm glad my iPhone only syncs music > with one computer!" I don't think that's a feature at all. I think it's just something which is tricky to get to work well, and which not enough people want for Apple to prioritise adding it. > Or "it's certainly more convenient that I can't use Skype over 3G. That's obviously for the benefit of the mobile network operators, as I said. > There's a point, when a company becomes the 800 lb. gorrila in an industry > when you can tell your vendors to get stuffed and dictate the terms of many > agreements. Apple can, perhaps, do that to an extent to the media companies, nowadays. Not so much in the past. And what has happened? The situation Apple has brought about is pretty much all to the benefit of the consumer (no DRM, no restrictions). Apple cannot do that to the mobile operators. It's quite remarkable that they managed to achieve as much as they did when they originally launched the iPhone 2G. > If Apple never had an iTunes store, don't you think perhaps they might have > designed some parts of the iPod/iPhone experience differently over the > years? Perhaps integrated FM radio with a direct record from FM feature? > Line input mode to copy songs from your buddy's unit from headphone jack to > headphone jack, or even wirelessly? Possibly. But if people really wanted those things, they'd have bought devices that had them, and not iPods. > If AT&T had slammed the door in Apple's face rather than enter a multi-year > exclusivity agreement, don't you think we'd have seen a different iPhone, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > subsidized phones in favor of an unsubsidized iPhone. And you could be > damned sure it'd have tethered right out of the box! ;) And mobile network operators would have just blocked your SIM if you tried to use it. Hardly a win for the consumer. > Except, at least in the US, that's not true. EVERY mobile operator here > offered unlimited data plans before the iPhone existed, as long as the data > is only used on the phone, rather than by a tethered PDA or comuter. And how do they know you're not breaking the rules and tethering anyway? > If it was truly a case of putting the consumer first, It isn't a case of putting the consumer first. I said that explicitly in my post! > "(a)" could be easily handled by the appropriate warning dialog, > much like computers or other phones have "non-certified" or > "non-signed" app warnings, I don't think that "handles" it at all. Nobody pays any attention to warning messages like that. In Windows they're so common you just click through without reading. >> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of >> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That would be difficult, since reflashing the phone to an "official" release > would make it indistinguishable from a never-jailbroken one. But how would you reflash it back to an "official" release? > If Apple tried to prevent that, I suspect the jailbreakers would > simply have a different tool to reflash. I suspect that's not possible. >> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair >> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > user does something pretty stupid, like flash firmware for model "A" onto > model "B". I haven't owned any other "smartphones" personally. The phone I had before the iPhone was the Nokia N80 (unless that counts as a "smartphone"?), if I remember right, because no other phone had been made that was better from my point of view. > A smart guy with a spare weekend and a hex editior could probably > rig iTunes' upgrade module in a similar fashion.) As above, I suspect that, no, they couldn't. In fact, in the case of the 3G(S) in particular, no, they definitely can't. > That's more of an issue of just not having the right tools. I've been > transferring phone books from one mobile to another long before there was > such a thing as a "smartphone." My first mobile was in 1997. It was a long time before you could do anything of that sort ;-) >> Can ANY consumer seriously say "I'm glad my iPhone only syncs music >> with one computer!" > >I don't think that's a feature at all. I think it's just something >which is tricky to get to work well, and which not enough people >want for Apple to prioritise adding it. Get serious. >> Except, at least in the US, that's not true. EVERY mobile operator here >> offered unlimited data plans before the iPhone existed, as long as the data >> is only used on the phone, rather than by a tethered PDA or comuter. > >And how do they know you're not breaking the rules and tethering >anyway? Actually pretty easy to tell from the traffic. >> "(a)" could be easily handled by the appropriate warning dialog, >> much like computers or other phones have "non-certified" or >> "non-signed" app warnings, > >I don't think that "handles" it at all. Everyone other than Apple seems to think so. >Nobody pays any attention to >warning messages like that. In Windows they're so common you just >click through without reading. That's the choice of the consumer, and not for the manufacturer. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? > >> Can ANY consumer seriously say "I'm glad my iPhone only syncs music > >> with one computer!" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Get serious. he is. > >> Except, at least in the US, that's not true. EVERY mobile operator here > >> offered unlimited data plans before the iPhone existed, as long as the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Actually pretty easy to tell from the traffic. unless the iphone tattles, it's not as easy as you imply. > > The iPhone is only a success if people buy and use it. How does > > compromising the consumer's interest benefit a consumer at all? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > refuse to support it, and has no media content because the media > companies refuse to supply any for it. Why would MOs treat an iPhone any differently than the myriad of unlocked unbranded smartphones already available in the marketplace? Releasing an unlocked phone with no carrier support is hardly a newsWorthy event, particularly in Europe, and often, popular unlocked handsdts eventually get picked up by MOs for subsidies based on consumer demand- take the Nokia N95. It sold nearly a million units, IIRC, before any MO picked it up. > > Can ANY consumer seriously say "I'm glad my iPhone only syncs music > > with one computer!" > > I don't think that's a feature at all. I think it's just something > which is tricky to get to work well, and which not enough people > want for Apple to prioritise adding it. Ironically, the virtually identical iPod Touch syncs media with multiple computers, as designed, so the only two explanations I Can imagine are that there's a two year-old bug in the iPhone they still haven't licked, or it's by design. (Who this restriction might "benefit" is a mystery to me, however, yet a lingering bug surviving a handful of firmware updates, including two point-ohs seems unlikely.) > > Or "it's certainly more convenient that I can't use Skype over 3G. > > That's obviously for the benefit of the mobile network operators, > as I said. Which again points out how anti-consumer single-point distribution is. Since Apple owns and operates the store, they assume responsibility for its content. On any other platform it's a non-issue. Microsoft, or HTC, or Nokia, et al, have no control over what Skype includes or doesn't include in software that end-users download directly from Skype.com. But if it's in the app store, it becomes Apple's business. If you look at the restrictions on developers in Microsoft's upcoming copy- cat app store, they're just as draconian as Apple's, but that's ok, because the Windows Marketplace will NOT be the sole source of content. > > There's a point, when a company becomes the 800 lb. gorrila in an industry > > when you can tell your vendors to get stuffed and dictate the terms of many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > situation Apple has brought about is pretty much all to the benefit > of the consumer (no DRM, no restrictions). "The situation Apple has brought about?" Perhaps, if you credit Apple for responding to competitive pressure! > Apple cannot do that to the mobile operators. It's quite remarkable > that they managed to achieve as much as they did when they originally > launched the iPhone 2G. What exactly did they "acheive" that wasn't completely self-serving? Sell unsubsidized handsets and negotiate backend kick-backs, which simply diverted the benefit of the subsidy from the consumer to Apple? Appe didn't really wrangle any extra concessions from opertors, they convinced them to screw over their customers to Apple's benefit. > > If Apple never had an iTunes store, don't you think perhaps they might have > > designed some parts of the iPod/iPhone experience differently over the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Possibly. But if people really wanted those things, they'd have bought > devices that had them, and not iPods. iTunes is a value add that might have compensated for lack of features, and the simplistic iPod UI was also a powerful tool, essentially the same argument I'm making about the iPhone- the positives outweight the negatives to such a degree for most people that the device is a success. > > If AT&T had slammed the door in Apple's face rather than enter a multi-year > > exclusivity agreement, don't you think we'd have seen a different iPhone, > > designed to give "control" to the consumer to make the iPhone as powerful as > > possible despite what roadblocks mobile operators tried to throw at it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And mobile network operators would have just blocked your SIM if you > tried to use it. Hardly a win for the consumer. And I spread FUD? Name a single MO anywhere that has blocked a GSM-based device based on its abilities. That's the beauty of GSM- your SIM card has service, not your device. You stick your card in the compatible device of your choice, regardless of its origin. My T-Mobile USA two-line family plan doesn't have a T-Mo phone on it- it has my AT&T Tilt and my wife's AT&T iPhone. Why doesn't T-Mo "block" these handsets? Perhaps because I give them 72 reasons not to, every month, each with George Washington's portrait on it. > > Except, at least in the US, that's not true. EVERY mobile operator here > > offered unlimited data plans before the iPhone existed, as long as the data > > is only used on the phone, rather than by a tethered PDA or comuter. > > And how do they know you're not breaking the rules and tethering > anyway? They don't. Because most phones don't squeal on their owners. Or,as I like to joke, while my phone is uglier and clumsier to use than my wife's iPhone, my phone knows who owns it. > > If it was truly a case of putting the consumer first, > > It isn't a case of putting the consumer first. I said that explicitly > in my post! You said "It is a benefit for the people who don't want tethering and don't want to have to pay for it..." which doesn't make sense- you don't pay for tethering just because your phone has the ability, you pay to use that ability. You also suggested that preventing tethering was some kind of quid pro quo to carriers: " in return it means that iPhone carrier contracts tend to offer genuinely unlimited data access (barring roaming). So this "flaw" enables a benefit for the consumer (no hidden/unexpected charges)" yet I really don't see evidence of that- MOs that tende to sell unlimited data on other phones offer it for iPhones, and MOs with caps on other phones' plans seem to cap iPhones as well. > > "(a)" could be easily handled by the appropriate warning dialog, > > much like computers or other phones have "non-certified" or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > warning messages like that. In Windows they're so common you just > click through without reading. So you're advocating a device's design should be built around the needs of it stupidest users? > >> Ah, OK, I haven't tried jailbreaking my phone. I just haven't heard of > >> any complaints from jailbreak users due to Apple going out of their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But how would you reflash it back to an "official" release? With the same tool I currently Jailbreak with, except by deselecting the "jailbreak" option, I expect. > > If Apple tried to prevent that, I suspect the jailbreakers would > > simply have a different tool to reflash. > > I suspect that's not possible. Obviously the device is designed to be flashed, using iTunes. Therefore, iTunes has the ability to tell the device to open wide and swallow a firmware upgrade. Hackers figure out how iTunes makes the iPhone say "aaah," simulates that in a third-party tool, and as my friends across the pond say, Bob's your Uncle... > >> With other phones, unlocking them was always a rather nervous affair > >> as there was the possibility of bricking the phone or causing some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as a "smartphone"?), if I remember right, because no other phone > had been made that was better from my point of view. The N80 fits my definition- runs an OS and has user-installable third-party app support. > > That's more of an issue of just not having the right tools. I've been > > transferring phone books from one mobile to another long before there was > > such a thing as a "smartphone." > > My first mobile was in 1997. It was a long time before you could do > anything of that sort ;-) Au contraire, mon ami. I moved the phone book from my circa-1997 Nokia 5120 (my first phone that supported a data cable and phone book transfer) to my circa-1999 Nokia 7160 via my PC. The 7160, which, in addition to phone book transfer, also supported on-phone WAP browsing and tethering via cable and infrared (at blinding 1G speeds of up to 14.4kbps!) I tethered my first Windows Mobile device (long before they called it Windows Mobile!) a Casio E-100, through that phone, and could even beam contacts between the PDA and phone via IR. I vowed then never to use a phone that required a cable to sync ever again, and I haven't. Every phone I've used since has had IR, bluetooth or both. I transfered my contacts via IR from phone to phone. (7160 to Nokia 3360 to Nokia 8290- my first GSM phone) then from the 8290 to my first smartphone, a Symbian-based Nokia 3650, via SIM card, then from there it's all been Outlook and WinMo. >> The >> situation Apple has brought about is pretty much all to the benefit >> of the consumer (no DRM, no restrictions). > "The situation Apple has brought about?" Perhaps, if you credit Apple for > responding to competitive pressure! And only in the US. Apple's non-US iTunes stores still have DRM. I know this for a fact in the Japanese store. Apple doesn't give a damn about the consumer. Apple only cares about making money. The sooner people realize this fundamental fact, the better. > What exactly did they "acheive" that wasn't completely self-serving? Sell > unsubsidized handsets and negotiate backend kick-backs, which simply > diverted the benefit of the subsidy from the consumer to Apple? Appe > didn't really wrangle any extra concessions from opertors, they convinced > them to screw over their customers to Apple's benefit. Which is why Apple ended up with AT&T - the US MO with the second worst customer service (after SPRINT). > And I spread FUD? Name a single MO anywhere that has blocked a GSM-based > device based on its abilities. AT&T. iToy. > My T-Mobile USA two-line family > plan doesn't have a T-Mo phone on it- it has my AT&T Tilt and my wife's > AT&T iPhone. Why doesn't T-Mo "block" these handsets? Perhaps because I > give them 72 reasons not to, every month, each with George Washington's > portrait on it. On the other hand, AT&T will block any iToy IMEI that doesn't have an iToy plan. Try putting a GoPhone SIM inside an iToy. It is ridiculous to argue that, somehow, a consumer is ripping off AT&T by using a smartphone with GoPhone service. GoPhone service allows data - including tethering! - at exhorbitant packet rates. AT&T gets paid quite well for GoPhone usage. What's different is that with prepay services like GoPhone, a light user may end up paying a lot less than a flat-rate user. >> And how do they know you're not breaking the rules and tethering >> anyway? > They don't. Because most phones don't squeal on their owners. Or,as I > like to joke, while my phone is uglier and clumsier to use than my wife's > iPhone, my phone knows who owns it. Actually, even without a squeal, they can detect tethering. However, with ordinary phones, either you are pay-per-use for data, or you have a data plan on top of your phone; either way the MO does not care if you tether. Tethering is only an issue with the discounted data plans which are intended to be used for specific purposes: iPhone plans, BlackBerry plans, Verizon's V-CAST service. In order to sell these services, these plans are offered at a lower cost than the normal data plan. It didn't take long for hackers to figure out that this was a cheap way of tethering; hence the bans. > You said "It is a benefit for the people who don't want tethering and don't > want to have to pay for it..." which doesn't make sense- you don't pay for > tethering just because your phone has the ability, you pay to use that > ability. The basic notion behind the cheap data plans is that if you only use those services, most people won't use anything near what they are allocated. That's a good wager; my BlackBerry data plan is 5GB, but my BB typically consumes about 50MB to 70MB/month. Except when I tether. It's no different for iToy users. Once you disregard a few outliers, most iToy users use less than 100MB month. So, you sell a half-price data plan to suckers who use maybe 1-2% of what you sold them. That's pure profit. Then you have the outliers - a very small number. If they're using your media store, you don't care because you're making money off of them that way. If they're tethering, you catch them and make them upgrade to a full-price data plan. Verizon does this quite well. > I tethered > my first Windows Mobile device (long before they called it Windows Mobile!) > a Casio E-100, through that phone, and could even beam contacts between the > PDA and phone via IR. Sheesh. What is it about American cell phones and their lack of IR, anyway? IR is *damn* useful and much easier to do a casual contact transfer than Bluetooth. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. > Apple doesn't give a damn about the consumer. Apple only cares about > making money. The sooner people realize this fundamental fact, the better. I'm not sure that makes them different than any other company! ;) > > And I spread FUD? Name a single MO anywhere that has blocked a GSM-based > > device based on its abilities. > > AT&T. iToy. The discussion was really a "what if" considering if the iPhone had been sold unlocked directly from Apple without any deal with AT&T or anyone else. I'm unaware of any compatible unlocked handsets "blocked" from any GSM carrier. I realize operators sometimes exert extra control over their own branded handsets. > >> And how do they know you're not breaking the rules and tethering > >> anyway? > > They don't. Because most phones don't squeal on their owners. Or,as I > > like to joke, while my phone is uglier and clumsier to use than my wife's > > iPhone, my phone knows who owns it. > Actually, even without a squeal, they can detect tethering. > > However, with ordinary phones, either you are pay-per-use for data, or > you have a data plan on top of your phone; either way the MO does not > care if you tether. Here in the states, every carrier (except T-Mobile, who forbids it entirely) charges a large additional amount ($30-45/month) above and beyond the regular data price to allow tethering, and then caps the formerly "unlimited" plan at 5GB. With such a vested interest in only letting the appropriate 'paid" customers tether, and with tethering as detectable as you say, many US-carriers seem to running tethering on the "honor system." > Tethering is only an issue with the discounted data plans which are > intended to be used for specific purposes: iPhone plans, BlackBerry > plans, Verizon's V-CAST service. In order to sell these services, these > plans are offered at a lower cost than the normal data plan. It didn't > take long for hackers to figure out that this was a cheap way of > tethering; hence the bans. Right, and these people continue to do it. Where are the service cancellations for the "detected"? Many smartphone users place alternate tethering programs on their devices to escape detection, which would imply the phone (or more accurately, it's tethering software/drivers) "squeal." > The basic notion behind the cheap data plans is that if you only use > those services, most people won't use anything near what they are > allocated. That's a good wager; my BlackBerry data plan is 5GB, but my BB > typically consumes about 50MB to 70MB/month. Except when I tether. > > It's no different for iToy users. Once you disregard a few outliers, most iToy users use less than 100MB month. [Just as an FYI, AT&T says the average iPhone uses 400MB, (probably since the iPhone uses more data "doing nothing" than other phones, like serving ads into games.) But this doesn't change your point...] > So, you sell a half-price data plan to suckers who use maybe 1-2% of what > you sold them. That's pure profit. No, that's a win/win. From the miserable adoption rate of metered plans in the US, consumers have spoken- they don't want data "buckets." Unlimited plans put customers at ease, and operators can offer them secure in the knowledge no one will actually use much. > Then you have the outliers - a very small number. If they're using your > media store, you don't care because you're making money off of them that > way. If they're tethering, you catch them and make them upgrade to a > full-price data plan. Verizon does this quite well. I'd argue it's because Verizon essentially has no users with non-Verizon handsets, and like Sprint's, VZW handsets "squeal." A quick peek through online forums dedicated to Windows Mobile CDMA phones will show that many have "solved" that problem. > > I tethered > > my first Windows Mobile device (long before they called it Windows Mobile!) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anyway? IR is *damn* useful and much easier to do a casual contact > transfer than Bluetooth. It's not just America- I can't find any European PDA phones currently manufactured wth IR. Hard to blame them since very few used it. I liked it for a variety of reasons, including never needing a proprietary sync cable for my various phones and PDAs. I had an IR dongle on my PC and was always ready to sync anything. > Apple doesn't give a damn about the consumer. Apple only cares about > making money. The sooner people realize this fundamental fact, the > better. just like any other public company. in fact, the shareholders demand it. > > My T-Mobile USA two-line family > > plan doesn't have a T-Mo phone on it- it has my AT&T Tilt and my wife's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > On the other hand, AT&T will block any iToy IMEI that doesn't have an iToy > plan. Try putting a GoPhone SIM inside an iToy. it works fine. > It is ridiculous to argue that, somehow, a consumer is ripping off AT&T by > using a smartphone with GoPhone service. GoPhone service allows data - > including tethering! - at exhorbitant packet rates. AT&T gets paid quite > well for GoPhone usage. What's different is that with prepay services > like GoPhone, a light user may end up paying a lot less than a flat-rate > user. and that's why at&t is motivated to restrict it. nothing unusual there. gophone is for casual users, not heavy users who have an iphone and want to avoid paying $70/mo. at&t used to have an unlimited data plan on gophone, but due to abuse mainly from iphone users, they killed it and a few months later brought it back as a 100 meg plan for the same price and eliminated the middle option of 5 meg for $10. so now, it's either a paltry 1 meg for $5 or 100 meg for $20. >> It is ridiculous to argue that, somehow, a consumer is ripping off AT&T by >> using a smartphone with GoPhone service. GoPhone service allows data - [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >option of 5 meg for $10. so now, it's either a paltry 1 meg for $5 or >100 meg for $20. T-Mobile is a much better deal for pay-as-you-go (FlexPay monthly) with data, offering Unlimited Web and Messaging for $20/month. <http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/Interstitial.aspx?class=fpaynocontractb> <http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/addons/services/information.aspx?PAsset=InternetEma il&tp=Svc_Tab_OtherPhones> SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >at&t used to have an unlimited data plan on gophone, but due to abuse > >mainly from iphone users, they killed it and a few months later brought [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > T-Mobile is a much better deal for pay-as-you-go (FlexPay monthly) with > data, offering Unlimited Web and Messaging for $20/month. The advantage of AT&T's plan, back when it was unlimited, was that you didn't need to buy a voice plan with it. > The advantage of AT&T's plan, back when it was unlimited, was that you > didn't need to buy a voice plan with it. Sprint now offers pay as you go 3G data without a voice plan, $20 for 250MB for 30 days, but you have to pay for a USB dongle. Sold only at Best Buy. The problems with T-Mobile FlexPay data are three-fold. First, there's not a lot of 3G yet, second, it's technically for use on the handset only not for tethering, third, you have to have an expensive flex pay plan to get it. I can't wait to see what AT&T does with tethering on the iPhone, and whether or not they end up cracking down on tethering on other handsets once they start charging iPhone users extra for tethering. >The problems with T-Mobile FlexPay data are three-fold. First, there's >not a lot of 3G yet, Actually widely available. >second, it's technically for use on the handset >only not for tethering, Same problem on other carriers. >third, you have to have an expensive flex pay >plan to get it. FlexPay is actually an excellent value. You're just blowing smoke as usual. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >The problems with T-Mobile FlexPay data are three-fold. First, there's > >not a lot of 3G yet, > > Actually widely available. actually, not as much as other carriers. > >third, you have to have an expensive flex pay > >plan to get it. > > FlexPay is actually an excellent value. it is a decent value, but so are offerings from other carriers. it's not the only choice nor is it the best value for everyone. > You're just blowing smoke as usual. ironic, again. >> >The problems with T-Mobile FlexPay data are three-fold. First, there's >> >not a lot of 3G yet, >> >> Actually widely available. > >actually, not as much as other carriers. Depends on what areas you care about. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the area I care about, T-Mobile 3G coverage is very good, on par with other carriers, and speeds are excellent, as good or better than other carriers. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2lthdw1.png> SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> >The problems with T-Mobile FlexPay data are three-fold. First, there's > >> >not a lot of 3G yet, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with other carriers, and speeds are excellent, as good or better than > other carriers. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2lthdw1.png> not everyone lives or visits san francisco. > actually, not as much as other carriers. There's actually two parts to your "actually." First, in many parts of the country there is no 3G yet on T-Mobile. Second, at least in the western region, even if there is technically 3G, T-Mobile coverage is very lacking. > it is a decent value, but so are offerings from other carriers. it's > not the only choice nor is it the best value for everyone. Flexpay is more expensive than other prepaid plans, plus you have much poorer coverage that is the hallmark of T-Mobile, at least in the western region. You wouldn't sign up for FlexPay for voice-only, you'd only do it if you wanted the $20 unlimited mobile web service. For example, for less than $33/month you can get 1500 minutes _and_ 1500 texts on Verizon's MVNO PagePlus. Far, far better coverage, and unless you're using 1200 or more off-peak minutes on FlexPay, a lot more useful for most people to have all their minutes as anytime minutes, as well as to have texting included at no extra cost. I think most people would pay the extra $3 for the extra 1200 peak minutes, plus the 1500 texts, plus the much better coverage. OTOH, the $20 for unlimited Mobile Web on T-Mobile is a good deal if you have T-Mobile 3G coverage _and_ if you can tether without them cutting off your service. If you add MyFaves for $10 a month more you could essentially get unlimited calling by using Google Voice with one of the Fave numbers being your Google Voice number, and unlimited data, for $60/month total. T-Mobile finally put in a tower near my house so at least I'd have coverage at home! Personally, I find that WiFi has become so ubiquitous that the times I need 3G data on the phone or laptop it's cheaper just to pay $1.20/MB and use it wisely. I think too many people get sucked in by "unlimited" without realizing that it may not always be the best option. YMMV. >> actually, not as much as other carriers. > >There's actually two parts to your "actually." First, in many parts of >the country there is no 3G yet on T-Mobile. Second, at least in the >western region, even if there is technically 3G, T-Mobile coverage is >very lacking. Still not over your anti-GSM agenda, I see -- T-Mobile 3G coverage is actually quite good here in Northern California, as shown in the coverage map I posted earlier, and as anyone knows with any actual experience on the T-Mobile 3G network. >> it is a decent value, but so are offerings from other carriers. it's >> not the only choice nor is it the best value for everyone. > >Flexpay is more expensive than other prepaid plans, plus you have much >poorer coverage that is the hallmark of T-Mobile, at least in the >western region. You wouldn't sign up for FlexPay for voice-only. [SNIP] Total nonsense. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >There's actually two parts to your "actually." First, in many parts of > >the country there is no 3G yet on T-Mobile. Second, at least in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > coverage map I posted earlier, and as anyone knows with any actual > experience on the T-Mobile 3G network. They're rolling out in the bigger cities, yes, but there are still a lot of places, like Victorville, where T-Mo doesn't have 3G yet and there is no ETA. We're a little over an hour northeast of Los Angeles. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA sjsobol@JustThe.net > They're rolling out in the bigger cities, yes, but there are still a lot > of places, like Victorville, where T-Mo doesn't have 3G yet and there is > no ETA. > > We're a little over an hour northeast of Los Angeles. I was back east a few weeks ago, and my brother was looking into getting 3G data service. He has Sprint cell service, and Sprint 3G service is pretty good there, but T-Mobile had not yet deployed 3G in his part of south Florida. Of course it's not an anti-GSM agenda, as our favorite troll said. AT&T 3G service has greatly improved and is almost caught up with Verizon. It has nothing to do with GSM or CDMA (especially since all 3G is CDMA of one sort or another!). >Of course it's not an anti-GSM agenda, as our favorite troll said. It quite clearly is. >AT&T >3G service has greatly improved and is almost caught up with Verizon. Actually superior. >It >has nothing to do with GSM or CDMA (especially since all 3G is CDMA of >one sort or another!). CDMA2000 and UMTS are different technologies. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >> >There's actually two parts to your "actually." First, in many parts of >> >the country there is no 3G yet on T-Mobile. Second, at least in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >We're a little over an hour northeast of Los Angeles. Fair enough, although Victorville is in the high desert with a population of about 100K, and what I wrote was "Northern California", much farther than an "hour northeast of Los Angeles". I spent the 4th weekend in the Sacramento area, and had good 3G coverage from Davis to Roseville and down toward Stockton. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >They're rolling out in the bigger cities, yes, but there are still a lot > >of places, like Victorville, where T-Mo doesn't have 3G yet and there is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > population of about 100K, and what I wrote was "Northern California", > much farther than an "hour northeast of Los Angeles". Acknowledged. My point was simply that T-Mo is still in the middle of their 3G rollout and, while I'm not surprised that you have good 3G data coverage, plenty of small- and mid-sized cities still don't. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA sjsobol@JustThe.net > > it is a decent value, but so are offerings from other carriers. it's > > not the only choice nor is it the best value for everyone. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > western region. You wouldn't sign up for FlexPay for voice-only, you'd > only do it if you wanted the $20 unlimited mobile web service. That'd depend on one's needs. Flexpay plans are essentially the same as T-Mo's regular plans with no credit checks or deposits, so very heavy users with lousy credit will find value they wouldn't get from traditional prepaid plans, (or even PP's talk and text,) get features like "free" M2M and N&W, and have access to more advanced/new phones if they choose. (And, BTW, it's actually only $10 for data, not $20- John is referring to the unlimited data/messaging bundle in his quote.) The cheapest voice plan is $30, so voice plus unlimited data starts at $40. I you REALLY just want unlimited data on T-Mo, you could exploit a current loophole and setup a phone on regular prepaid, go online and switch to a "Sidekick plan"- a $1/day unlimited data and messaging plan intended only for the Sidekick line of "hiptop" phones. You then change your non-Sidekick's data settings to use the Sidekick's settins, and you're good to go, at least until T-Mo closes that loophole. > For example, for less than $33/month you can get 1500 minutes _and_ > 1500 texts on Verizon's MVNO PagePlus. Far, far better coverage, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > most people would pay the extra $3 for the extra 1200 peak minutes, > plus the 1500 texts, plus the much better coverage. Unless you need data- PP is $1.25/MB. "Unlimited" might be overkill for most people, but average data used by users with data plans is about 30MB/month, IIRC. That'd be suicide on PagePlus. > OTOH, the $20 for unlimited Mobile Web on T-Mobile is a good deal if > you have T-Mobile 3G coverage _and_ if you can tether without them [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "unlimited" without realizing that it may not always be the best > option. YMMV. Unlimited, for me, means not having to worry, and not having to reconfigure my phone's connections. If I'm reading Usenet on my phone (as I am now) it's far easier to tap the send/receive icon and just use my unlimited slow EDGE data, than tapping my connection manager icon, turning on battery-killing WiFi, logging in to an a new access point (if I haven't used it before,) switching back to my NNTP program and tapping send/receive. I only use WiFi when the speed will make a significant difference, like a large upload/download, or browsing "real" web pages. I only use ancient Windows Mobile phones on PagePlus since they can easily exploit the PagePlus/Verizon free Quick2Net 14.4kbps loophole. A moldly-oldy, but new-to-me, Samsung i730 touchscreen QWERTY is coming from an eBay seller as we speak to upgrade my current non-touchscreen i600! The i730 is about the size and weight of a cinderblock, but it has WiFi, BT, and free Q2N- everything I want in a PP phone! >>> it is a decent value, but so are offerings from other carriers. it's >>> not the only choice nor is it the best value for everyone. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > quote.) The cheapest voice plan is $30, so voice plus unlimited data > starts at $40. Yes, I see that now. What about tethering? > I you REALLY just want unlimited data on T-Mo, you could exploit a > current loophole and setup a phone on regular prepaid, go online and > switch to a "Sidekick plan"- a $1/day unlimited data and messaging plan > intended only for the Sidekick line of "hiptop" phones. You then change > your non-Sidekick's data settings to use the Sidekick's settins, and > you're good to go, at least until T-Mo closes that loophole. Yeah that's a good idea, assuming you can tether, and assuming they don't close the loophole. > > The cheapest voice plan is $30, so voice plus unlimited data > > starts at $40. > > Yes, I see that now. What about tethering? So far it's "don't ask, don't tell"- it's prohibited by the TOS of course, but T-Mo no longer offers a tethering plan, and no one has reported being threatened or terminated on HoFo or other forums I follow. (T-Mo technically only allows internet access on computers via a PC card/USB dongle.) T-Mo does have a 10GB/month soft cap- they threaten to throttle bandwidth to 50kbps when you hit it. > > I you REALLY just want unlimited data on T-Mo, you could exploit a > > current loophole and setup a phone on regular prepaid, go online and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yeah that's a good idea, assuming you can tether, and assuming they > don't close the loophole. Like above, tethering works if the phone supports it (again, against the TOS.) Since it's prepaid, you could just stop buying refills if they close the loophole, of course. I certainly wouldn't suggest buying some $500 Uberfone to use this or any service dependent on a loophole or a TOS violation. >That'd depend on one's needs. Flexpay plans are essentially the same as >T-Mo's regular plans with no credit checks or deposits, so very heavy >users with lousy credit will find value they wouldn't get from >traditional prepaid plans, (or even PP's talk and text,) get features >like "free" M2M and N&W, and have access to more advanced/new phones if >they choose. Correct. >(And, BTW, it's actually only $10 for data, >not $20- John is referring to the unlimited data/messaging bundle in his >quote.) The cheapest voice plan is $30, so voice plus unlimited data >starts at $40. Correct if you don't want a messaging package. If you do want a messaging package, then the only option is Unlimited Web + Unlimited Messages for phones @ $19.95/month Thank you for the clarification. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >> >The problems with T-Mobile FlexPay data are three-fold. First, there's >> >not a lot of 3G yet, >> >> Actually widely available. > >actually, not as much as other carriers. Depends on what areas you care about. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the area I care about, T-Mobile 3G coverage is very good, on par with other carriers, and speeds are excellent, as good or better than other carriers. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2lthdw1.png> SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > >> >The problems with T-Mobile FlexPay data are three-fold. First, there's > >> >not a lot of 3G yet, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with other carriers, and speeds are excellent, as good or better than > other carriers. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2lthdw1.png> While that's perhaps true, good (or even great,) coverage in any one area hardly qualifies as "widely available." I'm as about as big a T-Mo fanboy as you'll find around here, but let's be realistic- their nationwide coverage is still not up to the levels of the other big three carriers for voice or data. They sell on the strength of their value nd customer service, not a bullet-proof network. >FlexPay is actually an excellent value. Can you turn it on and off easily, or is there a lot of hassle involved? Basically I'm just looking for "real" service (with data) when I'm in the US, but I don't want to pay anything when I'm not. Sometimes I go 3 weeks between trips, sometimes 6 months, so leaving service active the whole time is beyond my budget, but I do miss having data easily available. > >FlexPay is actually an excellent value. > > Can you turn it on and off easily, or is there a lot of hassle involved? You'd have to cancel and re-establish service each visit to avoid paying continuously. There's no contract, but there'd be an activation fee ($36, IIRC,) and a full month's service to pay up front on each activation. (Since Flexpay is basically prepaid, there's no pro-rated refund for the unused portion of the month when you cancel.) > Basically I'm just looking for "real" service (with data) when I'm in > the US, but I don't want to pay anything when I'm not. Sometimes I go 3 > weeks between trips, sometimes 6 months, so leaving service active the > whole time is beyond my budget, but I do miss having data easily > available. My suggestion would be starting an accoun on T-Mo's regular prepaid, opening with a $100 refill to get you "gold reward" status (once" gold," all refills have a 365-day expiry.) Each time you're going to visit the US, go to the T-Mo website's OLAM (online account management) and switch from the regular prepaid plan to the "Sidekick" plan ($1/day unlimited data/messaging, $0.15/minute voice). When you get back, switch back to the regular prepaid plan to stop the $1/day charge, and the remaining balance will continue the rest of the year. Assuming you don't blow through $100 the first year, any refill card, as low as $10, will extend your remaining balance for another year. (I have three "gold rewards" accounts- at least two of which I don't really need, but for just $10/year I just can't seem to let them expire!) Unlike the regular prepaid plan, where higher denomination cards give you a lower per-minute voice rate, the Sidekick plan is fixed rate so there's no "penalty" buying smaller cards. The only reson I recommended a $100 card to begin with is to get the one-year expiry option right away. Alternatively, you can buy smaller cards (they last 90 days) and you'll get Gold status after buying $100 worth in aggregate. Keep in mind, as I said earlier, this exploits the loophole (that's existed for years) that T-Mo doesn't attempt to technologically restrict this plan to "Sidekick" phones via the network, though the TOS says a Sidekick is required. Any unlocked (or T-Mo locked) phone with the ability to enter a new APN, (hiptop.t-mobile.com) should work, but I'd test your phone with the service using the $3 credit a T-Mo prepaid SIM comes with before shelling out $100 on a refill. T-Mo offers a prepaid 3G Nokia (3555) for $50 on their website- it's only UMTS rather than HSDPA, but cheap HSDPA phones with T-Mo' AWS band are hard to come by without a contract. >My suggestion would be starting an accoun on T-Mo's regular prepaid, >opening with a $100 refill to get you "gold reward" status (once" gold," [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >but cheap HSDPA phones with T-Mo' AWS band are hard to come by without a >contract. I'm currently using T-Mobile prepaid and have been for several years, but I'd always assumed that you needed a Sidekick serial number or something to use that plan, thanks for the heads up, I'll definitely try this later this month. > I'm currently using T-Mobile prepaid and have been for several years, > but I'd always assumed that you needed a Sidekick serial number or > something to use that plan, thanks for the heads up, I'll definitely try > this later this month. Worst case scenario, it costs you a buck! Some folks report it worked if they left the username and pw blank in the data profile, others used "guest" for both. Seems to be phone-dependent. Good luck! >> >FlexPay is actually an excellent value. >> >> Can you turn it on and off easily, or is there a lot of hassle involved? > >You'd have to cancel and re-establish service each visit to avoid paying >continuously. Correct. >There's no contract, but there'd be an activation fee ($36, IIRC,) and a The activation fee is routinely waived. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >>> >FlexPay is actually an excellent value. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Correct. I was hoping I could jump back and forth between that and a regular prepaid plan that could sit inactive for a while. >>There's no contract, but there'd be an activation fee ($36, IIRC,) and a > >The activation fee is routinely waived. According to the website it's completely waived at the moment. >>>> >FlexPay is actually an excellent value. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I was hoping I could jump back and forth between that and a regular > prepaid plan that could sit inactive for a while. Not flexpay- there's currently no way to convert a prepaid account to Flexpay, or vice-versa. You can just cycle between the different prepaid accounts (Pay as you go, Pay by day, Sidekick) >>>There's no contract, but there'd be an activation fee ($36, IIRC,) and a >> >>The activation fee is routinely waived. > > According to the website it's completely waived at the moment. It seems to be a promotion that comes and goes. I'm a pessimist. I just assume the moment I needed to activate, the fees would be back in play! ;) >> FlexPay is actually an excellent value. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whole time is beyond my budget, but I do miss having data easily > available. A lot depends on how much data you need, and whether you need data on the handset or data on a laptop. One recently indroduced service is Sprint 3G prepaid data via Virgin Mobile. There's no need to keep the Virgin data account active, you buy blocks of data as needed, see "http://web.virginmobileusa.com/broadbandPlans". You do have the initial cost for the USB card for data, and Sprint has fairly poor coverage in the U.S., but it's generally okay in urban areas--just don't go to Alaska, or Montana! You can keep a T-Mobile prepaid voice account active for 73 cents per month, which should be within your budget (to do this you have to go "Gold" which means buying $100 airtime card (for $88), then you can buy $10 cards (for $8.80) once a year from then on). Unfortunately, T-Mobile prepaid does not offer data services. I guess you could activate a new FlexPay account every time you come, but you have to get a phone from T-Mobile, you can't just buy a new SIM card (at least on line), so every time you sign up you're paying about $50. Also, the FlexPay account is no great bargain, you'd only get it if (versus other prepaid options) if you needed the $10 unlimited data add-on on the handset. You can keep a PagePlus prepaid account active for about $2.50/month, and pay as you go for data ($1.20/MB) and voice (6-12 cents per minute) (actually a little less since their refill cards are discounted). This could get expensive if you use more than just a small amount of data. WalMart now sells a product called "StraightTalk" prepaid which includes 1000 voice minutes, 1000 texts, and 30MB of data for up to 30 days of service for $30. But like FlexPay, you have to buy a phone when you sign up, you can't use an existing Verizon CDMA phone. >>> FlexPay is actually an excellent value. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >A lot depends on how much data you need, and whether you need data on >the handset or data on a laptop. I'm looking for handset data, I've already got unlimited EVDO anywhere in North America on my laptop. My current hope is that I can get a MiFi onto my existing plan, effectively giving me a free hotspot anywhere I go, but at the moment TELUS is being somewhat difficult about confirming whether or not they'll activate the hardware on their network. >You can keep a T-Mobile prepaid voice account active for 73 cents per >month, which should be within your budget (to do this you have to go >"Gold" which means buying $100 airtime card (for $88), then you can buy >$10 cards (for $8.80) once a year from then on). Unfortunately, T-Mobile >prepaid does not offer data services. This is what I'm currently doing, although obviously without data. Rogers is now offering $1/MB US roaming, which isn't too bad if I'm careful, but since it's a valid business expense, it would be handy to have flat rate on-device data while I'm traveling rather then keeping my data usage to the base minimum of business needs. >I guess you could activate a new FlexPay account every time you come, >but you have to get a phone from T-Mobile, you can't just buy a new SIM >card (at least on line), so every time you sign up you're paying about >$50. Also, the FlexPay account is no great bargain, you'd only get it if >(versus other prepaid options) if you needed the $10 unlimited data >add-on on the handset. A new account isn't worth the hassle, I'd only do this if I could suspend an account while I'm not using it or similar. >You can keep a PagePlus prepaid account active for about $2.50/month, >and pay as you go for data ($1.20/MB) and voice (6-12 cents per minute) >(actually a little less since their refill cards are discounted). This >could get expensive if you use more than just a small amount of data. Yeah, I actually pay less then that for roaming data. My goal would be to find something in the $30-$60/month range that I could turn on and off without too much pain, GSM preferred since I use GSM at home and already have a couple GSM devices, switching to some $20 "feature" phone to use a prepaid carrier isn't really worthwhile. >I guess you could activate a new FlexPay account every time you come, >but you have to get a phone from T-Mobile, you can't just buy a new SIM >card (at least on line), so every time you sign up you're paying about >$50. 1. You do not have to get a phone from T-Mobile -- you can use any workable phone, and you can buy just a SIM card -- I've done it. >Also, the FlexPay account is no great bargain, you'd only get it if >(versus other prepaid options) if you needed the $10 unlimited data >add-on on the handset. 2. FlexPay is actually a good value. 3. Unlimited data (and messaging) is actually $20 per month. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? > Basically I'm just looking for "real" service (with data) when I'm in > the US, but I don't want to pay anything when I'm not. Sometimes I go 3 > weeks between trips, sometimes 6 months, so leaving service active the > whole time is beyond my budget, but I do miss having data easily > available. Think about it.....Where would you need data service when you're in the US? Hotel? Free Wifi Restaurant? Free Wifi Coffee Shop Free Wifi Data is easily available almost anywhere there are commercial establishments within 50 feet trying to attract computer customers. Ok, so you'll not be browsing apple.com from the back seat of a cab....big deal. Signature----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? >> Basically I'm just looking for "real" service (with data) when I'm in >> the US, but I don't want to pay anything when I'm not. Sometimes I go 3 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Hotel? Free Wifi Many hotels have surprisingly bad wifi. You've also not been to Vegas. >Restaurant? Free Wifi Some do, most of the ones we've been to in Dallas suburbs don't have free wifi. >Coffee Shop Free Wifi I can't say I spend much time in coffee shops so I can't speak to this one. > Hotel? Free Wifi > Restaurant? Free Wifi > Coffee Shop Free Wifi On a commuter train or bus. I.e., in the Washington D.C. Metro there is Verizon service even on the underground portion. On BART, much of it is above ground and 3G works, and on CalTrain all of it is above ground and 3G works. I find paying by the MB for 3G is fine because I need it so rarely that even $30/month for using a Sidekick plan with the workaround that Todd explained, is more than I would spend. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:Bhp4m.5004$Jb1.4675 @flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com: > paying by the MB for 3G is fine because I need it so rarely That was my question's point to this user. With free wifi becoming so much easier to find, some areas with 5 or 6 free wifis in a single shopping center, the need for overpriced sellphone data access becomes less and less important. You can't drive down main street and do emails, or you shouldn't at least, unless you have a chauffeur most of us rarely have. So, what do you do, you pull into some place, connect to sellphone data and do what you do. In that same place, if you took the time to look, there's probably several totally unlocked, totally free wifis the device will simply logon to without the sellphone expense.... The mobility issue sounds great and it IS lots of fun to listen to Kix Country in Bundesberg, Queensland, AU while cruising the interstate....but it sure isn't worth $70/month to do so. I marginally justify the $25/mo I'm paying Verizon for tethered data, now. If it increases as the Borg assume control, I'll dump it immediately as $25 is about my limit. I may dump it anyway when the dreaded 5GB limit is finally imposed. 5GB cruising commercial webpages full of flash spam you'll be paying by the byte for looking at cnn.com, eats 5GB in no time at all! It isn't an issue on an iPhone that doesn't support the spam movies, but tethered to a real computer that does, data loads go way up. ====================================================================== I just got off the phone with this guy: http://www.buzzirkmobilezer01.com/ who isn't interested in consumer sales of Zer01's new VoIP GSM service, I found out. He's part of the Amway pyramid scheme looking for Amway- style dealers to market the new service. His wife used to be an Amway distributor he admitted to me when I told him it sounded like Amway. I didn't want to be a Zer01 dealer making $50,000 to $100,000 per month on shared commissions, so our conversation was brief. Consumers won't be put online until August-something he wouldn't promise me, after they get the dealer pyramid scheme setup and running. I've read they'll be using data from ATT Wireless. I asked him how they intended to get 3.1Mbps UNLIMITED data service out of ATTWS' 3G with no AUP and no throttling, but he was on a roll-to-sell and wasn't interested in the physics that fascinates me. Even if it won't go any faster than ATTWS' 3G, it's really going to turn the sellphone business on its head if they can deliver what they promise for $79/month. Check it out. I was amazed when he called. I wouldn't want to "get in on the ground floor" and start selling a phone system that didn't work, though. It's bad enough selling phones on a system that's reasonably functional to the consumers. I'm not sure consumers are going to like WinMo VoIP client-over-GSM Data at this time. Didn't ATTWS JUST tell iphone customers they were running out of bandwidth for the things iPhoners expect it to do? So, why are they adding very high speed Zer01 data customers to the load with no limits on GB or bandwidth, so the Zer01 people say of course, to exascerbate the situation on their so-called overloaded system?? GSM in Charleston is T-mobile and ATTWS. They're the only nationwide carriers on that technology here. Zer01 has got to use one of them's system to connect. ATTWS has 3G on about 70% of the city, with EDGE in the bedroom communities of the NW of the metro area...never built out 3G. T-mo is better and maybe the phones will select T-mo as this distributor said Zer01 has agreements with every GSM carrier in the US/Canada. Most interesting....if it works. Cricket Aircard to Skype is still $40 but has no features like these guys offer. $80 with their feature set, and NO AUP UNLIMITED INTERNET DATA without throttling is a real bargain! Signature----- Larry Noone will be safe until the last lawyer has been strangled by the entrails of the last cleric. >That was my question's point to this user. That would be me. >With free wifi becoming so >much easier to find, some areas with 5 or 6 free wifis in a single >shopping center I don't tend to spend my precious time away from home in shopping centers, but when I do, I'm in and out in a hurry and don't really want to have to play Marco-Polo with hotspots I can see but aren't close enough to connect to, especially since I can't tell if they're free until I get close enough to actually use it. Grapevine Mills Mall, for example, didn't have any free wifi covering the majority of the mall when I was there about a year ago, nothing at all in the food court, the only thing I found was some coffee shop with foul smelling swill. Hotels in the area used to be decent sources for free access, but more and more they look free until you try and use it, when you discover a captive portal prompts for the password rather then using a wifi password. > the need for overpriced sellphone data access becomes >less and less important. You can't drive down main street and do >emails, or you shouldn't at least, unless you have a chauffeur most of >us rarely have. I nearly always have a chauffeur, when I travel on business it's mainly the hotel shuttle driver or one of my coworkers who gets a better deal on car rentals then I do. None of the free indoor wifi helps me use Google Maps when I'm with another out-of-towner and we're lost, nor does it get me an email from the boss telling us that he's going out for drinks (which means drinks are on him) > > Hotel? Free Wifi > > Restaurant? Free Wifi [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > even $30/month for using a Sidekick plan with the workaround that Todd > explained, is more than I would spend. The real power of that workaround is that it's billed on a per-day basis, so, assuming you had a T-Mo prepaid account already, you could just fire it up on days you needed ubiquitous or continuous access, like if your broadband goes down, or you find yourself in a hotel that charges for WiFi. ("What's browsed in Vegas, is PAID in Vegas!") ;) > Ironically, the virtually identical iPod Touch syncs media with multiple > computers, as designed, so the only two explanations I Can imagine are that > there's a two year-old bug in the iPhone they still haven't licked, or it's > by design. (Who this restriction might "benefit" is a mystery to me, > however, yet a lingering bug surviving a handful of firmware updates, > including two point-ohs seems unlikely.) Yes, it is odd. As you say, it's hard to see who it's for the benefit of though if it's some evil conspiracy against the consumer. >> > Or "it's certainly more convenient that I can't use Skype over 3G. >> >> That's obviously for the benefit of the mobile network operators, >> as I said. > > Which again points out how anti-consumer single-point distribution is. No, that simply brings us back to my argument that the restriction is *not* anti-consumer. > "The situation Apple has brought about?" Perhaps, if you credit Apple for > responding to competitive pressure! Hey, *you* were the one saying Apple is the "800 lb gorilla" which can do whatever it likes. Now suddenly if it does a good thing it's actually not a gorilla after all, and it had no choice? You can't have it both ways ;-) >> Apple cannot do that to the mobile operators. It's quite remarkable >> that they managed to achieve as much as they did when they originally >> launched the iPhone 2G. > > What exactly did they "acheive" that wasn't completely self-serving? It seems to me they shifted the power noticeably away from the network operators and towards the handset manufacturers. > iTunes is a value add that might have compensated for lack of features, and > the simplistic iPod UI was also a powerful tool, essentially the same > argument I'm making about the iPhone- the positives outweight the negatives > to such a degree for most people that the device is a success. It's hard to see that as a negative for the consumer ;-) >> And mobile network operators would have just blocked your SIM if you >> tried to use it. Hardly a win for the consumer. > > And I spread FUD? Name a single MO anywhere that has blocked a GSM-based > device based on its abilities. Based on what you *do* with it? All of them. > That's the beauty of GSM- your SIM card has service, not your device. The network knows what device you're using, though. >> And how do they know you're not breaking the rules and tethering >> anyway? > > They don't. Yet mysteriously they sell (and people buy) higher-priced contracts which allow tethering. Why is that, then? > You said "It is a benefit for the people who don't want tethering and don't > want to have to pay for it..." which doesn't make sense- you don't pay for > tethering just because your phone has the ability, you pay to use that > ability. If the carrier knows your phone doesn't have that ability, then they don't have to charge you more for you to subsidize the cost of people who are doing it even though they are not supposed to. >> I don't think that "handles" it at all. Nobody pays any attention to >> warning messages like that. In Windows they're so common you just >> click through without reading. > > So you're advocating a device's design should be built around the needs of > it stupidest users? Er, no. The needs of the "common" / "average" users are going to be quite high on the priority list though! If people were commonly having problems with their iPhone due to "unofficial" apps misbehaving, they would hardly be mollified by being told "it's your fault, you clicked OK". >> > If Apple tried to prevent that, I suspect the jailbreakers would >> > simply have a different tool to reflash. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > iTunes has the ability to tell the device to open wide and swallow a > firmware upgrade. You're missing the point. Let's suppose the code which says "no, actually I refuse to allow that 'upgrade'" is not in iTunes, it's on the iPhone itself. Then it doesn't matter what tool you use or what you do, you're not going to reflash the phone with something it doesn't like. > Au contraire, mon ami. I moved the phone book from my circa-1997 Nokia > 5120 (my first phone that supported a data cable and phone book transfer) > to my circa-1999 Nokia 7160 via my PC. OK, you're a very long way from being an average user then. In my experience, data cables for phones of that era were very expensive, and almost nobody had one. I think the Motorola RAZR V3 was the first phone I had that came with a data cable in the box, and that came out at the end of 2004. > > And I spread FUD? Name a single MO anywhere that has blocked a GSM- > > based device based on its abilities. > > Based on what you *do* with it? All of them. The MO allows or blocks certain features, depending on your subscription services, yes, and, here in the US, might require different data plans for different category of phone (dumb, smart, PC card/USB stick.) But as long as you pay for the "correct" plan, our GSM carriers don't care what phone you use. > > That's the beauty of GSM- your SIM card has service, not your device. > > The network knows what device you're using, though. Yes, if they care. Here, they only seem to monitor branded devices, and mostly to insure compliance with rate plans (smartphones using smartphone plans, etc.) > >> And how do they know you're not breaking the rules and tethering > >> anyway? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yet mysteriously they sell (and people buy) higher-priced contracts > which allow tethering. Why is that, then? Good question. A variety of reasons, probably. "Serious" (business) users can't afford the hassle of a user being terminated when their account is audited by the MO. Personal users who do serious amounts of tethering probably have the same reason, for others it's possibly a morality issue. For me, since I rarely tether, I opt not to buy a tethering plan and "sneak" tethering in when I need it- e.g. my home broadband connection goes down, or the hotel I'm staying at charges for WiFi. I suspect MOs could "catch" unauthorized tethering, but I doubt it'd be cost-effective without the willing complicity of the phone manufacturer (which Apple seems willing to do!) > > You said "It is a benefit for the people who don't want tethering and > > don't want to have to pay for it..." which doesn't make sense- you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't have to charge you more for you to subsidize the cost of people > who are doing it even though they are not supposed to. Nice theory, but is there a single MO you know of who offers a discount for phones incapable of tethering? If not, you'r just rationalizing. Many cheap dumbphones support tethering, and generally have the cheapest data rates. > >> I don't think that "handles" it at all. Nobody pays any attention to > >> warning messages like that. In Windows they're so common you just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would hardly be mollified by being told "it's your fault, you clicked > OK". Perhaps not, but the blame could, and should, be placed squarely on the app, not the phone. If you install some crappy app on your perfectly stable computer, and that app crashes all the time, do you really blame the computer? Are phone users so dim they need handholding? Why should a smartphone or its users need a nanny? I get the "protect" angle, but if "protecting" the dumbest users reduces functionality for savvy users, that a lousy design decision. > >> > If Apple tried to prevent that, I suspect the jailbreakers would > >> > simply have a different tool to reflash. > >> > >> I suspect that's not possible. > > > > Obviously the device is designed to be flashed, using iTunes. Therefore, > > iTunes has the ability to tell the device to open wide and swallow a > > firmware upgrade. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > use or what you do, you're not going to reflash the phone with > something it doesn't like. How does the phone _know_ it won't like it? Presumably firmware X has no clues to what firmware Y may contain. Obviously certain signatures, checksums, etc. might be used, but theoretically they could be faked as well. > > Au contraire, mon ami. I moved the phone book from my circa-1997 Nokia > > 5120 (my first phone that supported a data cable and phone book > > transfer) to my circa-1999 Nokia 7160 via my PC. > > OK, you're a very long way from being an average user then. Of course- otherwise I'd probably be happy with an iPhone! ;) > In my > experience, data cables for phones of that era were very expensive, > and almost nobody had one. Not terribly- my first was about $35 US from Nokia and included transfer software, and, IIRC, a driver to use the phone as a modem. They were just too esoteric an item to "waste" profits bundling them with every phone. The iPhone dock might be a god analogy. Why bundle it with the 3G when most 2G users never used them - the few that really want them could buy them a an accessory andreduce thecost for everyone else.. The point is that the functionality existed for those who cared. >I think the Motorola RAZR V3 was the first > phone I had that came with a data cable in the box, and that came out > at the end of 2004. Heck, smartphones like the Handspring (eventually Palm) Treo and Windows "Pocket PC phones" go back to 2002 and included sync cables. >> Au contraire, mon ami. I moved the phone book from my circa-1997 Nokia >> 5120 (my first phone that supported a data cable and phone book transfer) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >experience, data cables for phones of that era were very expensive, >and almost nobody had one. ... My recollections is that cables were roughly what they are today, typically in the range of $25-30, and fairly popular among business users, who were a substantial portion of the market. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it? >What the iPhone DOES do better than anyone else, without question, is >firmware upgrades. You can still botch the procedure, but it practically >takes intentional malice to do so! I'll happily give Apple and the iPhone >their "props" when they're due, and that is as well an executed feature as >I've ever seen on a mobile device. There are other phones with consumer friendly update tools, including my Sony Ericsson TM506, and still other phones that can be updated OTA (over the air). SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? >> The Pre debuts with the ability to sync with iTunes, (which everyone >> now considers the de facto "standard" in music management) and Apple [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >guaranteeing that it will work (not to mentiom very little motivation >to come up with such a guarantee, of course ;-) ). That's not the issue, and is at best disingenuous, since Apple has an interest in preventing (breaking) syncing of non-Apple products with iTunes. >This surely is actually a point considerably in favour of Apple - they >have managed to get most (all?) of the music on iTunes to be DRM-free, >so you can use iTunes to purchase your music no matter what phone you >use. Not really -- DRM-free MP3 was available from Amazon before iTunes went DMR-free. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? >>Er, of course they said that. They presumably don't have access to the >>Pre source code, they don't know how it works, they have no way of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > interest in preventing (breaking) syncing of non-Apple products with > iTunes. Not much of an interest - there's no way they could prevent Palm (or anyone) providing some trivial tiny app that syncs the iTunes music library with any device they want to, given that the iTunes music files are just unprotected files on the computer. >>This surely is actually a point considerably in favour of Apple - they >>have managed to get most (all?) of the music on iTunes to be DRM-free, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not really -- DRM-free MP3 was available from Amazon before iTunes went > DMR-free. "That's not the issue, and is at best disingenuous." > Not much of an interest - there's no way they could prevent Palm > (or anyone) providing some trivial tiny app that syncs the iTunes > music library with any device they want to, given that the iTunes > music files are just unprotected files on the computer. Arguably, the "value" of iTunes syncing is notthe use of the library- on my PC, iTunes, WMP and Zune all point to the same set of files- but working within the bulk of the iTunes feature set- smart playlists, etc. For people who exploit iTunes' features to their fullest, upgrading from one iPod to another or to an iPhone is a no-brainer to preserve that desired functionality. Enter the Pre, that will sync with iTunes, and be compatible with not only your music files, but playlists as well, and you've potentially got an alternate upgrade path for users wanting to graduate from an iPod to n "iPod phone." Sure the "true believers" probably won't consider a third-party device, but it might convince a few in the US to stick with Sprint and a Pre as their MP3 phone rather than jump to AT&T for an iPhone. > DRM-free MP3 DRM free MP3s have been available on usenet since the third day MP3 was released as a codec...(c;] We've moved on to DRM-free FLAC and OGG, now. FLAC is best....but large and totally unnecessary on a portable box with a cheap pair of ear buds plugged into them on a white cord. Signature----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? > And Apple is fighting to make > jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA > <http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf> That's not > sabre-rattling. That is, however, quite enough reason never to buy an iPhone. Not even Microsoft is that evil. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. > http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf Remember when lots of DOS software use to come packaged with serial port dongles, hardware locks you had to have or the programs wouldn't even boot? The dongle backlash pretty much destroyed that concept when the computing public simply stopped buying dongle-protected software, no matter how wonderful it was. A similar public backlash needs to result before Apple will stop this sh.t. As long as the really stupid fanbois will continue to shell out for locked up products with built in box offices....nothing will change. There appears to have been great success in the "dumbing down of America" as the buyers of this crapware seem to be the victims of our wonderful Sheeple Education System.....who will do as they are told without question. Signature----- Larry If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something, is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him? > Remember when lots of DOS software use to come packaged with serial port > dongles, hardware locks you had to have or the programs wouldn't even boot? And now Apple has convinced people to BUY the dongle for a couple hundred dollars. Amazing. >> And Apple is fighting to make >> jailbreaking illegal in the next DMCA [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That is, however, quite enough reason never to buy an iPhone. Not even >Microsoft is that evil. Oh really? From the standard Microsoft License Agreement: Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not: * work around any technical limitations in the software; * reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation; SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? > Apple looked at the marketplace and fixed everything that could be a > potential problem... ...for APPLE! They crippled developer access to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > players that could use competing music stores simply "prevents user > confusion." There's an old adage, design a system that an idiot can use, and only an idiot will want to use it. Still, I think most iPhone buyers go into the iPhone experience with a fairly good idea of what it can and can't do. Still, there's certainly a market for a device where applications that can't be done well are not done at all, rather than done in a way that frustrates the non-techie consumer. > John Dvorak joked in a recent column, that if Microsoft had produced the > iPhone instead of Apple, with the same restrictions, someone would've > started a class-action lawsuit already. It would have happened. The whole EU would have sued Apple. > I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next > line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > party app from running at a time, would the Mac users all agree this was > beneficial to the user experience as the iPhone users seem to believe? Yes. >There's an old adage, design a system that an idiot can use, and only an >idiot will want to use it. Still, I think most iPhone buyers go into the >iPhone experience with a fairly good idea of what it can and can't do. I think just the opposite based on many new iPhone users I know. They've heard it's very cool, but have no idea why. SignatureBest regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do fans keep making excuses for it? > > I'm not as funny as Dvorak, so I typically just ask aloud that if the next > > line of Macs and MacBooks had the same restrictions as the iPhone - a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes. nonsense. "There's an app for that...on the $99 iPhone @ AT&T" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:1b54f0d2-b488-48f0-b127- 27aad24b312b@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com: > Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the open- > source development process is often not the best way to achieve it. Open source is horrible. All their fantastic software is just awful. Case in point: http://www.openoffice.org/ http://www.abisource.com/ http://flac.sourceforge.net/ http://www.vorbis.com/ http://openbossa.indt.org/canola/ http://maemo.org/ http://www.kde.org/ http://sourceforge.net/ http://code.google.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codebase It's all horrible, buggy, crashes, impossible to run, cryptic, fun, amazing, impressive, and will keep you from any productive work for years and years.... Never install open source software. Only genuine Applesauce is fit to run on your shiny boxes, irregardless of price. It's only money. SET TONGUE-IN-CHEEK TO OFF ----- Larry Congrats on your discovery of Ubuntu. Just think what a Linux expert you would have been if you'd cast off the OSX training wheels a week after you first booted it. Got Root? > > Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the > > open- source development process is often not the best way to achieve > > it. > Open source is horrible. All their fantastic software is just awful. > Case in point: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > amazing, impressive, and will keep you from any productive work for > years and years.... John Gruber answered this point 5 years ago: http://daringfireball.net/2004/04/spray_on_usability SignatureIn a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.