On Mar 23, 9:53*pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <da6a83c7-b485-42fd-a42d-3f6ba2d1f...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> *ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 10:51*pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <be624973-b157-4f59-8944-a0a994793...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > *ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 22, 9:57*pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote: <snip>
> > > > > Apple is playing for the best outcome within a corrupt system. They
> > > > > gave AT&T exclusivity originally because they needed a carrier to
> > > > > invest some resources in specific technology (for visual
> > > > > voicemail), offer their customers a reasonably priced unlimited
> > > > > data plan, and allow them (Apple) wide ranging control over the
> > > > > handset. They later gave AT&T exclusivity in exchange for a very
> > > > > large subsidy and continued extensive control, including the
> > > > > ability to offer apps and content for the device without giving
> > > > > AT&T a cut, even when that content is downloaded via AT&T's
> > > > > network.
>
> > > > > Here's the key issue: none of these is something a handset vendor
> > > > > should have to bargain for!
>
> > > > *sigh*- you keep repeating the same thing with NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER-
> > > > other handset makers manage to offer tethering, offer apps and
> > > > content w/out giving at&t a cut, etc with no problems. *apple makes
> > > > these deals with the carriers for MORE PROFIT, and THAT'S IT.
>
> > > You appear to have misunderstood my argument about tethering. It wasn't
> > > that Apple couldn't offer tethering because AT&T wouldn't let them. It
> > > was that in a market that wasn't distorted by the carriers in various
> > > consumer-hostile ways, tethering wouldn't need to be a feature
> > > implemented by the handset maker and officially blessed by the carrier,
> > > and that in such a market it would have been implemented on the iPhone
> > > within a week of the iPhone supporting third-party apps.
>
> > uh, the "customer hostile ways" you describe is ALL apple's doing; *it
> > is apple that insists on absolute control of what's allowed on the
> > iphone, not on the carrier's side. *apple, and only apple controls the
> > apple store, and could allow a 3rd party tethering app if apple
> > wanted.
>
> That's an utterly baseless statement. AT&T's terms of service disallow
> tethering without a data plan specifically supporting it (which AT&T
> chooses not to offer for the iPhone),

yup, and other phones w/out a data plan that allow tethering still do
it- shows explicitly that the handset makers can still include the
capability!

> and it's virtually certain that
> Apple's agreement with AT&T bans Apple from selling applications which
> violate AT&T's ToS.
>
> You seem to have a rather strange habit of attributing bad outcomes to
> Apple that Apple would have no conceivable interest in bringing about.

i look at your comments- that it's the carrier preventing tethering
apps, then i look at reality- many phones from many carriers allow
tethering, regardless of your data plan. then i find you pinning the
blame on the carrier that apple doesn't allow tethering to not make
sense.

<snip>
> > > They use their ownership of the wireless networks to set themselves up
> > > as sole providers of certain high-level services. There are very few
> > > large cellular service providers and it's a hassle to switch from oneto
> > > the other, so they can charge high prices.
>
> > it's ridiculously little hassle to change carriers- took about 10
> > minutes last time i did it. *i could have just done it online and had
> > the phone fed'exed to me too. *it's not like the old days when you
> > need a new number of something...
>
> Most people are under contract, and many phones are locked, such that
> changing carriers requires changing phones.

even requiring a new phone takes about 10 minutes.

> One generally also has to
> pass a credit check, pay a setup fee, and either spend 30 minutes in a
> store or wait a couple of days. And one generally ends up under contract
> for another two years when the process is done.

a contract has nothing to do with 'hassle'. sign one or not, up to
you. i've never spent 30 minutes in the store for a phone. but then
i wouldn't- if it's busy, i leave and come back later.

> Compare this with the market for Internet-based services, where
> switching to a new provider consists of typing a different URL into your
> browser or possibly spending 30 seconds installing a new app.

yeah, weird how having to get new hardware takes longer than going to
a new website.