(c) The OS/2 Guy (c) <os2guy@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 6:44 am, Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:23:22 -0800 (PST), (c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 23, 12:06 am, Ian Robinson <j...@canicula.invalid> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:29:37 +0000, c) The OS/2 Guy (c) wrote
> > >> (in article
> > >> <dce94fc9-4b34-4bf3-844b-2ed2c29db...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > >>> Next we have the loss of SMStexting. Ok,so you don't text and who
> > >>> cares because you can rely on the browser function to get you to an
> > >>> online texting service.
> >
> > >> Why would you lose SMS messaging on an unlocked iPhone?
> > > You don't lose SMS messaging but you might as well. It is entirely
> > > dependent upon your unauthorized service provider's data service.
> >
> > Huh? So you know of some network provider that doesn't provide SMS? I
> > personally have never met heard of one in europe.
>
> I know of no other network provider that provides SMS messaging
> enhanced and improved through the use of Apple's OS X server side
> software features.
What is that then? An sms is an sms.
> Sprint, Verizon, Metro - none of them have that
> nor do any of them offer enhanced Edge speeds and reliability.
Here many people have edge, but noone uses them as 3G is very common and
available in more places.
> the same message sent to you from a hacked iPhone and a non-hacked
> iPhone and see which one arrives first and which one is more apt to
> fail to arrive altogether.
In 10 years of having a mobile phone I have never had an SMS fail to get
to me, or one of mine fail to get through. 31st December 1999 at 23:55 I
remember was a bit tricky actually sending one, but never had one fail
after that point.
They are also in general fairly instant, so it would be hard pressed to
see how an iPhone could better that, unless you are saying a hacked
iPhone wouldn't work as well as a £10 pay-as-you-go phone.
> When you go through the iTunes/AT&T
> activiation process, AT&T sends you a welcome SMS message within
> seconds of your iPhone's activation. Sprint, Verizon, Metro messages
> never arrive that fast and are often hours later. But still, they do
> have and offer SMS messaging and the hacked iPhone user has no choice
> but to accept the second-rate service.
ok - so what you are really saying here is not that the iPhone is good,
but that every other network operator in the states is useless? Because
here the only options you have is that you have network coverage or you
don't. Phone calls or providers are all much of a muchness, the only
thing is different is what upgrades they give you, how much free stuff
they give you and if they mess up your bills.
> > > Apple/Service Provider deal includes the provision of OS X server-side
> > > implementations as well as required Edge enhancements by the Service
> > > Provider.
> >
> > Well, I wouldn't call it an enhancement, but yes, it requires edge at the
> > moment (which is available from other providers).
>
> Edge is available from other providers but it is a very slow Edge
> compared to At&T's enhanced Edge service. Again, it is a second-rate
> Edge service when compared to AT&T's. Compare T-Mobile's Edge service
> to Verizon's and they are about the same but neither service reaches
> the speed and reliability of AT&T's.
Again I am talking about the UK. Edge is slower than what I am used to,
so the best most reliable edge is still slower than I am used to.
> > > What you end up with on an unlocked iPhone is a hit or miss
> > > feature that is harder to implement. What the hackers will suggest is
> > > to avoid the iPhone's SMS messaging feature and use the many free
> > > online text messaging services.
> >
> > I have never heard that suggested, especially as they are hard to find,
> > unlike SMS services.
>
> There are two that come to mind, off hand, they are ChinSMS and WeSMS
> - and there are several others.
OK, well I have never used them as the phone is free and easily
available.
> > > In the short run the unlocked iPhone seems appealing.
> >
> > Indeed, I could get a phone service that was more reliable and many times
> > cheaper without having to be stuck in an expensive 18 month contract.
>
> This is true, you can get a cheap phone service but reliability is in
> the eye of the beholder and unbiased reports by a vendor's customer
> base.
no, reliability is a figure which can be established objectively
> Never believe a cell phone company's claims of having the least
> dropped calls because all services are spotty to begin with, they have
> to be because of the nature of the beast.
No wireless company here makes claims about least dropped calls as it
really isn't a problem here, so they are probably all the same.
I make about 500 minutes of calls a months, and one call was dropped
about 4 months ago. It really is a non-issue here.
> What I know is this: I do a lot of calling throughout the day with a
> great many people who use different providers. I'm getting good at
> identifying the cell phone carrier.
ok, here you would have no way of telling. They are all the same.
> And if you call another AT&T subscriber
> your minutes are free - which is one of the main reasons why I pony up
> the monthly iPhone/AT&T fees for my five employees. We often hold
> hour-long conference calls and there is never the worry of "have we
> been on too long?"
I never worry anyway as I have so many minutes on my plan - certainly
more than I would want to be on the phone for!
> > > In the long run
> > > it results in higher fees for less service and features.
> >
> > Not in the UK it wouldn't.
>
> The problem in the UK is not an Apple or iPhone fault - it is the
> fault of the UK citizenry who have allowed cell phone providers to get
> away with highway robbery.
Well, no, it is partly apples fault. It has nothing to do with phone
providers, who just give their phones to the network providers, who
generally provide them free on contract.
> When surveys are taken in the UK about
> buying an iPhone the biggest complaint comes down to the cost of the
> service, not the cost of the iPhone itself.
Indeed. It is very expensive for what you get compared to what we are
used to. So is that not apples fault?
> And the reason for that
> is the iPhone and the iTouch are priced the same - you just get more
> with the iPhone but to get that "more" you have to agree to a highway
> robbery phone service contract.
Indeed.
> Thus, it is understandable why a UK
> citizen would want to use the iPhone even if it was hacked - at least
> they will be able to make one or two calls or send one or two messages
> even check the quick status on an eBay auction using the browser.
Well, not really. The reason I would want a hacked one is so I could
make hours of phone calls and lots of messages without having to pay so
much for it.
> The
> iPhone makes all that possible but it is the UK cell phone provider
> who is choking the citizen for more money.
Ahh - I am guessing you mean the network provider (O2) then?
> What many want Apple to do
> is drop the price of the iPhone so they can afford the cell phone
> service and that's unreasonable because they are asking Apple to
> subsidize the British cell phone industry just so citizens can use the
> iPhone.
You have a strange view on the British mobile phone industry. It is
fiercly competitive.
I would love an iPhone, I spent ages playing with one and I have no
problem paying the price of the phone, but i am not prepared to pay
$50/month for less service than I am currently getting with a network
provider that is not as good in my area.
Apple has moved in with an American centric phone model and seem
suprised that it doesn't work here, were we are used to better services
cheaper.
> Apple is a business and not in business to subsidize cell
> phone companies. Those using a hacked iPhone in the UK will always be
> second-class iPhone users and that's the fault of their own
> government.
Government? What do the government have to do with cell phones? Now you
seem to be away with the faeries.
> > > if you've never known good service and had access to all the iPhone's
> > > fine features then you don't know or understand what it is you are
> > > missing. You just know that the [hacked] iPhone you own doesn't seem
> > > worth it.
> >
> > The iPhone has a nice interface - it is a bit light on features and the
> > only thing you would lose on a different provider is visual voicemail, the
> > loss of which would depend on how much you use voicemail.
>
> LOL! To some that's like saying the loss would depend on how much you
> use the brakes on your car.
No, everyone needs the brakes on a car. I personally don't need visual
voicemail
> You don't just lose selective
> voice mail. You lose future authorized programs
Ahh - you lose the promise that something may come along later? That is
a big loss!
> - programs you will
> have to rely on to get from third party 12-year old hackers who are
> more than likely going to cause you more harm with their errant
> programs then you ever wanted.
Why do you have to have other programs? When you buy a product you buy
it as it is today, not on the promise that tommorow it will be much
better.
> There is the loss of never "moving up"
> to wireless Bluetooth stereo sound and phone service;
Like the nokia N95 or soemthing you mean? You can get those if you want
them - they are a lot cheaper here.
But why do you want a stereo phone service? :-)
> to having
> "Alex" (the most amazing syntsized voice included in leopard) to read
> you your email, RSS news, weather, stock quotes, etc.;
Wow - that would be handy if you completely forgot how to read or were
blinded, but could remember how to access it.
> to having the
> ability to video record an event as it happens and send it off
> immediately to your own web page, YouTube or your grandmother;
Well, yes, like you can do on pretty well every other phone, except they
tend to have better cameras.
>to
> having the ability of voice activation to auto-dial your grandma or
> the police if needed.
Again, like almost every other phone made this century.
> And these are just the tip of the iceberg of
> features that will eventually come to the iPhone and hacked iPhone
> users won't get them. Ahh... but they can be assured of buying Tetris
> and Solitare for a premium from a third party hacker who says "I
> promise it won't harm your iPhone and if it crashes or freezes just
> reset it..."
So what you are saying is that if you pay the enormous iPhone contract,
one day it will have the features that most phone users take for granted
already?
You have a very convincing argument there!
> > > Which is why Apple suggests the purchase of an iTouch if you want the
> > > iPod and Video features and can live with a second flip phone for your
> > > phone/messaging needs.
> >
> > What is a 'flip phone' - I have a capable phone, but it has no flipping?
>
> In order to get your signature on a contract many cell phone companies
> will offer a free cell phone or a low-cost cell phone. These phones
> are almost always featureless, barely work properly and are basically
> good for "emergencies" and not serious cell phoning but they got you
> signed to that contract. So if you want a better cell phone they will
> be happy to sell it to you for $99 or $199 or $299 and you say you
> want internet access? Toss in another $80 a month... :-)
Huh? Well, this is about europe and that is not how we do things. We get
phones for free or next to free that are far from featurless, such as
the N series nokias.
I have a nokia N73, on a 12 month contract and works very well for
'serious cell phoning' and not serious stuff too and costs me £25 (just
slightly over $50) less a month than the top iPhone plan for 150 minutes
more of time.
Data-wise I get more than I ever used (free), an hour of free video
calling, practically unlimited skype calls, 1500 sms messages, 250 mms
messages, uncrippled bluetooth and java applications.
If the states is as bad as you imply, I can see why the iPhone has only
managed to sell 26,000 in its first few weeks (the estimate was
100,000).
--
Woody
www.alienrat.com