This FAQ addresses the frequently asked questions regarding the Apple
iPhone. If you have any suggestions or corrections for the iPhone FAQ,
please send them to iraDOTjDOTschechtman@gmail.com (replace DOT with a
period).
This FAQ will be re-posted periodically to alt.cellular.attws,
alt.cellular.t-mobile, alt.cellular.verizon, alt.cellular.sprintpcs,
comp.sys.mac.advocacy, and other relevant groups.
Q. How do I change the battery on my iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, you must send the phone back to Apple's service
depot for battery replacement. The cost is $86.95. See "http://
tinyurl.com"/iphonebatteryreplacement. If you don’t mind voiding your
warranty (or your iPhone is already out of warranty), and you are good
working with small electronics, a number of companies sell replacement
batteries for both the 2G and 3G iPhones at far lower prices. In
Google shopping search for “iPhone 3G Battery Replacement.“ The iPhone
is easy to open, i.e. the 3G model has two Phillips 00 screws on the
bottom that hold the phone together. Note that on the original iPhone
the battery is soldered in, so you’ll need to unsolder the original
battery and solder in the new one. It’s not all that hard to do, but
if you’ve never soldered before you might want to practice on some
wires first. Be careful about using after-market batteries of unknown
orgin as lithium based batteries can be dangerous.
Q. How do I enable voice dialing on my iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, the current iPhone model does not support voice
dialing. There are some after-market voice dialing applications for
the iPhone available in the Apps store, but because the iPhone lacks a
button to press for voice dialing, you still have to use the screen to
start the application which makes the feature somewhat lame. You can
also purchase a Bluetooth device such as the Parrot Minikit Slim
Portable Bluetooth Car Kit for iPhone 3G, iPhone, which will transfer
the phonebook from the iPhone to itself and do voice dialing
externally.The next generation iPhone will likely support voice
dialing natively.
Q. Why can't I stream music from my iPhone to a Bluetooth stereo
headset?
A. Unfortunately, Apple did not include the necessary Bluetooth
profile, called Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) in the
original OS. This profile has been added in OS 3.0. Update your iPhone
and A2DP will work.
Q. How do I connect my notebook computer to the iPhone to use my
carrier's 3G network over Bluetooth or USB or WiFi?
A. Unfortunately, tethering is not yet supported on the iPhone. You
will need to sign up for separate 3G data service from your carrier.
Note that when Apple and the carrier do support tethering it is a
virtual certainty that the carrier will charge extra for it. The good
news is that tethering support is built into OS 3.0 and developers
have already had it working, see "http://tinyurl.com"/iphonetethering.
It’s just a matter of time before tethering will work.
Q. When I insert a prepaid SIM card when travelling in foreign
countries it doesn't work. What am I doing wrong?
A. Unfortunately, iPhones are subsidy-locked to the carrier. Unless
you have your iPhone unlocked (jail broken) you cannot use a prepaid
SIM card. While AT&T will unlock their other quad band phones, they
will not unlock the iPhone. Be very careful when travelling
internationally because the iPhone can "phone home" running up
enormous roaming chargers. Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
player).
Q. I can’t find a memory card slot on the iPhone. How can I transfer
photos from my digital camera to my iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, the iPhone lacks the Micro-SD or Mini-SD card slot
present on most smart phones. You must use iPhoto (on a Mac) or iTunes
to transfer photos.
Q. I want to use a Bluetooth keyboard with my iPhone but it doesn’t
seem to connect. What am I doing wrong?
A. Unfortunately, the iPhone does not support the proper Bluetooth
profile. You can use a Bluetooth keyboard only on jailbroken iPhones.
Q. The camera on my iPhone doesn’t have sufficient wide-angle range.
Is there any after-market device to fix this?
A. Yes. See "http://usbfever.com/index_eproduct_view.php?
products_id=789".
Q. The camera on my iPhone doesn’t have sufficient telephoto range. Is
there any after-market device to fix this?
A. Yes. See "http://mobile.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?
prod_id=03534".
Q. I frequently take long international airline flights and the iPhone
battery goes flat during the flight. How can I work around this?
A. Since the iPhone battery is not user-replaceable, a number of
companies have produced work-around products. In Google shopping
search for “iPhone battery external.”
Also, look into whether or not your airline (and the plane used on
your particular flight) has any sort of power jacks at the seat. Some
airlines have power jacks even in coach. Be sure to bring the proper
adapters for the type of system used by your airline (i.e. 120VAC to
5VDC USB adapter, 12VDC to 5VDC USB adapter, or EmPower to 5VDC USB
adapter).
Q. I want to use my iPhone for work related stuff, but my IT
department doesn’t support it. How can I convince them to add support
to the iPhone for enterprise applications?
A. The main problem with the iPhone in terms of enterprise support is
the inablility to push applications to the iPhone. Enterprises don’t
want to have to use iTunes, with the phone wired to a desktop, to push
applications. The other problem with the iPhone is that enterprises
don’t want to be locked to AT&T as a carrier, though for personally
owned iPhones this should not be an issue. On the plus side,
enterprises like the low cost of the iPhone.
Once the exclusivity arrangement with AT&T is over, if there is a
version of the iPhone for Verizon, then IT departments will offer more
support for the iPhone. In the meantime, you’ll have to go with
Blackberry or Windows Mobile if you want full IT support on a smart
phone.
Q. The internal memory on the iPhone is insufficient for storing the
amount of music and videos I would like. I don’t want to carry around
a laptop, but an external hard drive would be okay. Is there any after-
market USB add-on drive to expand the storage to something like the
120GB on the iPod Classic?
A. Unfortunately, there is no way to connect a USB drive to the USB
port of the iPhone. Your best bet is to carry around a netbook, and
transfer music and videos back and forth between the netbook and the
iPhone. It is not clear if the SIMA Hitch will work with the iPhone
(it works with FAT32 formatted iPods). It’s likely that as Apple
expands the iPhone line there will be different models available and
at least one model will have disk based storage (like the iPod
Classic).
Q. I often have no signal on my iPhone, why is this?
A. Unfortunately, while the iPhone is a very advanced device, it’s
only as good as the network that it operates on. Unfortunately, in the
U.S., the smaller AT&T Wireless network significantly lags the larger
Verizon Wireless network in terms of coverage, especially outside of
urban areas. Since Verizon operates a CDMA network, the GSM iPhone
cannot roam onto Verizon.
Interestingly, Apple first approached Verizon with the iPhone and
Verizon turned them down because of Apple’s proposal for monthly
revenue sharing.
You have several options regarding phone calls outside of the GSM
network coverage area. If you have a laptop, you can sign up with a
VOIP provider such as Skype, and make calls over the Internet (i.e. at
hotels with free wireless). You can carry along a prepaid CDMA phone
that works on Verizon. You can use pay phones. Of course if you never
venture out of GSM coverage areas, this is unnecessary, but most
iPhone users in the U.S. often find themselves in areas without any
GSM coverage.
Q. Is their a way to listen to the radio on the iPhone?
A. Unfortunately, the Apple iPod Radio Remote is incompatible with the
iPhone. However there is an after-market FM radio available. See
"http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.13773".
Q. Will my iPhone work in Japan?
A. No. Unfortunately, Japan uses a different 3G and voice system than
is present in the iPhone. You cannot use your iPhone in Korea either.
There is a Japanese model of the iPhone available, but because the
iPhone lacks many of the advanced features that Japanese consumers
expect in their phones, sales have been abysmal. In fact the Japanese
carrier for the iPhone has had to rush out add-on accessories to
address the iPhone’s shortcomings, for example the lack of an
integrated TV tuner. See "http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/
08/10/30/japanese_iphone_owners_to_be_offered_tv_tuner_add_ on.html".
Q. Where are the best places to buy iPhone accessories?
A. "http://www.monoprice.com/products/search.asp?keyword=iphone" and
"http://www.dealextreme.com/search.dx/search.iphone".
Q. Why does Apple make highly desirable, and seemingly easy to
implement features, so difficult?
A. In some cases the software or drivers necessary to implement these
features has simply not yet been written. The iPhone is a relatively
new platform, and it will take Apple a while to catch up with phones
using other operating systems (Windows Mobile, Palm, RIM, Symbian,
Android).
In some cases Apple wants to protect its revenue stream and does not
want to offer any features that would cause users to purchase fewer
applications or content (i.e. that’s why there is no FM radio built
in).
In some cases it’s not entirely Apple, it’s also the carrier. For
example, AT&T would rather get a cut of roaming revenue from foreign
carriers than to have an iPhone user stick in a prepaid SIM card.
In some cases, the hardware was not designed to support the feature.
I.e. there’s no button to press for voice dialing because there are no
hard buttons on the phone at all.
The iPhone was designed and marketed as phone/web browser/media
player. Now it’s transitioning into a Smart Phone, and that transition
isn’t going to be without some problems. Be patient. Future iPhones
will likely solve most of the issues, and iPhone users will someday
have many of the same features already enjoyed by Blackberry Storm and
Windows Mobile users. For the next year or so, if you can't live
without some features, you'll have to choose a different smart phone.
> Be careful about using after-market batteries of unknown
> orgin as lithium based batteries can be dangerous.
I'd be really careful about using batteries from an unknown source. It's
one thing when it's in a camera or laptop, but the phone is right by
your head a lot of the time. $87 is a lot, but it may be worth it.
> also purchase a Bluetooth device such as the Parrot Minikit Slim
> Portable Bluetooth Car Kit for iPhone 3G, iPhone, which will transfer
> the phonebook from the iPhone to itself and do voice dialing
> externally.The next generation iPhone will likely support voice
> dialing natively.
Oy, talk about a kludge to get around a serious omission of functionality.
> Unfortunately, Apple did not include the necessary Bluetooth
> profile, called Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) in the
> original OS. This profile has been added in OS 3.0. Update your iPhone
> and A2DP will work.
I guess I've never considered a wire a problem. With a Bluetooth
headphone it's one more device to keep charged for minimal benefit.
> Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> player).
Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
> Unfortunately, the iPhone lacks the Micro-SD or Mini-SD card slot
> present on most smart phones. You must use iPhoto (on a Mac) or iTunes
> to transfer photos.
Can you e-mail pictures to yourself from a laptop and store them in the
iPhone's memory? In any case, I'm sure someone will claim that few
iPhone users would ever want to transfer photos from a digital camera to
an iPhone in situations where a computer is not available. After all,
such capability insults the iPhone's built in camera.
> A. Yes. See "http://mobile.brando.com.hk/prod_detail.php?
> prod_id=03534".
Amusing.
> Also, look into whether or not your airline (and the plane used on
> your particular flight) has any sort of power jacks at the seat. Some
> airlines have power jacks even in coach. Be sure to bring the proper
> adapters for the type of system used by your airline (i.e. 120VAC to
> 5VDC USB adapter, 12VDC to 5VDC USB adapter, or EmPower to 5VDC USB
> adapter).
More gadgets and wires to carry.
> It’s likely that as Apple
> expands the iPhone line there will be different models available and
> at least one model will have disk based storage (like the iPod
> Classic).
Yeah, that's a pet peeve of mine too. If the iPhone is supposed to be
this great device for video, why isn't there some sort of thin disk
drive you can glomp onto it for more storage, just like you glomp on a
battery sleeve for more battery life. If an iPod Classic (and a Zune)
can have 120GB of storage, why not an iPhone?
> You can carry along a prepaid CDMA phone
> that works on Verizon.
Let me plug PagePlus, a Verizon MVNO, but again, who wants to be
carrying yet another device.
Maybe the next hardware release will address some of this stuff.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, ira.j.schechtman@gmail.com posted:
> A. No. Unfortunately, Japan uses a different 3G and voice system than
> is present in the iPhone. You cannot use your iPhone in Korea either.
As much as I love to torment iToy fanboys, the above statement isn't true.
Foreign iPhones work quite well in both Japan and Korea. This includes
North Korea, should you be privileged to be allowed the use of a mobile
phone in the limited areas where the service is offered.
The first generation iPhone was GSM-only and as such did not work in
Japan or Korea. Japan's 3G network is the same UMTS 2100 system used in
most of the world (with the notable exception of North America).
The last I heard, iPhone is not marketed in South Korea yet because Apple
refuses to comply with South Korea's WIPI (wireless platform for
interoperability) standard. Other mobile phone companies offer WIPI
compliant phones in Korea.
-- 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.
In article
<35826104-0242-4347-810a-dcbc8f57c0c3@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
<ira.j.schechtman@gmail.com> wrote:
> iPhone FAQ
>
> This FAQ addresses the frequently asked questions regarding the Apple
> iPhone. If you have any suggestions or corrections for the iPhone FAQ,
> please send them to iraDOTjDOTschechtman@gmail.com (replace DOT with a
> period).
If we see this posted every couple of weeks, we'll know it's really
John Navas in disguise.
On 2009-03-20, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> ira.j.schechtman@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> > GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> > iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> > player).
>
> Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
> devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
> small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
with the carriers.
> The last I heard, iPhone is not marketed in South Korea yet because Apple
> refuses to comply with South Korea's WIPI (wireless platform for
> interoperability) standard. Other mobile phone companies offer WIPI
> compliant phones in Korea.
incorrect Mark, Apple was simply waiting until the WIPI requirement was
dropped. It ended on Dec 10th 2008, so soon South Korea will have access
to the popular iPhone.
David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:49c5c469$0$87068$815e3792@news.qwest.net:
> Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote:
>
>> The last I heard, iPhone is not marketed in South Korea yet because
>> Apple refuses to comply with South Korea's WIPI (wireless platform
>> for interoperability) standard. Other mobile phone companies offer
>> WIPI compliant phones in Korea.
>
> incorrect Mark, Apple was simply waiting until the WIPI requirement
> was dropped. It ended on Dec 10th 2008, so soon South Korea will have
> access to the popular iPhone.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPI
>
In article <slrngsafhc.16fs.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>,
Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2009-03-20, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > ira.j.schechtman@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> > > GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> > > iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> > > player).
> >
> > Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
> > devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
> > small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
>
> My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
> from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
> She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
> the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
>
> Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> with the carriers.
It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
it. We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
agreements with carriers.
3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
people use it.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
On Mar 22, 9:05*am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrngsafhc.16fs.dcfergu...@akit-ferguson.com>,
> *Dennis Ferguson <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On 2009-03-20, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > ira.j.schecht...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> > > > GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> > > > iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> > > > player).
>
> > > Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
> > > devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that onlya
> > > small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
>
> > My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
> > from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
> > She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
> > the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
>
> > Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> > with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> > seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> > with the carriers.
>
> It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
> software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
> carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
> it.
always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
tether with?
> We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
> was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
> agreements with carriers.
>
> 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
> Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
> people use it.
why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
other phones that allow tethering?
In article
<30a12b62-e42b-4ec5-950b-138d936b2e8e@s12g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:05*am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrngsafhc.16fs.dcfergu...@akit-ferguson.com>,
> > *Dennis Ferguson <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > On 2009-03-20, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > > ira.j.schecht...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> > > > > GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> > > > > iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> > > > > player).
> >
> > > > Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
> > > > devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
> > > > small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
> >
> > > My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
> > > from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
> > > She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
> > > the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
> >
> > > Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> > > with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> > > seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> > > with the carriers.
> >
> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
> > carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
> > it.
>
> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
> tether with?
>
> > We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
> > was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
> > agreements with carriers.
> >
> > 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
> > Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
> > people use it.
>
> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
> other phones that allow tethering?
Looked at from one angle, Apple is partially at fault. The most
straightforward way to get tethering support for the iPhone is for Apple
to implement it as an official feature, and for carriers to official
support it. Apple apparently didn't start that process until recently.
But looking at things from that angle means ignoring all the ways in
which the carriers have completely screwed up the cellular industry, to
their benefit.
Wireless data services should work like wired data service. You pay for
a connection. There's a nearly universal standard. You bring your own
device, rather than the carrier being involved in what device you use.
And it's none of the carrier's business what services you use your
bandwidth for or what type of device you connect.
If we lived in that world, the iPhone (and everything else) would be
sold unsubsidized. You'd pick your provider, sign up, and punch a few
settings into the device so it could connect to their network. If some
third-party wrote a tethering app and submitted it to the App Store, it
would be approved and would remain available, because it won't be a
violation of anyone's terms of use.
It's not Apple's fault we don't live in that world. Apple would probably
prefer that world. It's entirely the fault of the carriers.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
On Mar 22, 5:38*pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:05*am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <slrngsafhc.16fs.dcfergu...@akit-ferguson.com>,
> > *Dennis Ferguson <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > On 2009-03-20, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > > ira.j.schecht...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Your best bet is to carry along an unlocked
> > > > > GSM phone and use a prepaid SIM card in that phone, and use your
> > > > > iPhone only on Wi-Fi networks (and of course as a music and video
> > > > > player).
>
> > > > Oh great, one more thing to carry. I want to reduce the number of
> > > > devices, not increase them. But I'm sure someone will claim that only a
> > > > small percentage of iPhone users ever travel outside their home country.
>
> > > My wife uses that technique when she wants to use the data service
> > > from her laptop, to work around the lack of tethering to the iPhone.
> > > She carries an older Motorola 3G phone in her laptop bag, and swaps
> > > the SIM from the iPhone into the Motorola for use with the laptop.
>
> > > Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> > > with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> > > seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> > > with the carriers.
>
> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
> > carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
> > it.
>
> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
> tether with?
>
> > We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
> > was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
> > agreements with carriers.
>
> > 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
> > Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
> > people use it.
>
> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
> other phones that allow tethering?
There were also other 3G phones on AT&T network before the iPhone but
none of them had the impact on AT&T's network that the iPhone had.
Apple said they have client support for tethering in the iPhone and a
third party app was already written and released that could do
tethering. Besides, It's quite obvious that Apple has a different
deal with the carriers than any other carrier, Why would Apple want to
block tethering?
> Looked at from one angle, Apple is partially at fault. The most
> straightforward way to get tethering support for the iPhone is for
> Apple to implement it as an official feature, and for carriers to
> official support it. Apple apparently didn't start that process
> until recently.
>
> But looking at things from that angle means ignoring all the ways in
> which the carriers have completely screwed up the cellular industry, to
> their benefit.
Which doesn't address the question of why virtually all other phones
support tethering and leave it to the MO (mobile operator) to sort out
how to restrict it or charge for it. Most carrier-branded phones will
allow tethering.
> Wireless data services should work like wired data service. You pay for
> a connection. There's a nearly universal standard. You bring your own
> device, rather than the carrier being involved in what device you use.
What makes you think that world is better for the consumer? While
wireless has a certain cost to provide, one could argue that that pricing
is set more by competition than by costs. I think if subsidies were
prohibited by law, we'd still have $40 entry-level voice plans, $60 data
card plans, but $100 entry-level phones rather than free.
While not heavily promoted for obvious reasons, most US carriers offer no
contract bring-your-own-device voice plans- and I'm talking about
monthly, not prepaid.
> And it's none of the carrier's business what services you use your
> bandwidth for or what type of device you connect.
While I agree to a point, the problem is that carriers have learned we as
consumers don't want to have to count KBs and MBs, so rather than offer
tiers of data based on MB usage for varying prices, they've sold tiers
based on phone "class"- dumbphones, which typically average under 50 or
100MB pay a lower rate than smartphones or iphones that use much more on
average. An (admitted lousy) analogy would be charging skinny people $10
to eat at a buffet restaurant and fat people $20, rather than charge
everyone $15.
Is that an ideal system? Of course not, but it takes the fear of
overages away from the dumbphone and smartphone user, while making
pricing accessible to dumbphone users, who are more comfortable paying
$15 for an "unlimited" plan than $10 for a 100MB plan they'd use less
than half of.
> If we lived in that world, the iPhone (and everything else) would be
> sold unsubsidized.
Yes, for $100-200 more that they sell for now. Look at the UK- you can go
either way- unsubsidized or subsidized, and most opt for subsidies,
figuring if they're going to buy service anyway, why not take a subsidy?
> You'd pick your provider, sign up, and punch a few
> settings into the device so it could connect to their network. If some
> third-party wrote a tethering app and submitted it to the App Store, it
> would be approved and would remain available, because it won't be a
> violation of anyone's terms of use.
I'm doing that now, with my HTC phone and wife's iPhone on T-
Mobile USA. Month-to-month service, no subsidies, and $6 "dumbphone"
unlimited data plans (with tethering) because T-Mo only checks if you're
using THEIR smartphones for rateplan classification. My HTC and iPhone
don't show up on their "radar."
> It's not Apple's fault we don't live in that world. Apple would
> probably prefer that world. It's entirely the fault of the carriers.
That's, if I want to be kind, disingenuous, if I want to be less kind,
utter bullshit. Apple threw their muscle around prior to the iPhone
launch trying to get the best of both worlds: a high unsubsidized selling
price, forced 2-year contracts, and a cut of monthly fees in return for
exclusivity with one operator per market. If Apple REALLY "prefered that
world" they'd have sold through multiple carriers subsidized, like Nokia,
Samsung, et al, AND offered it unlocked and unsubsidized at Apple stores
like Nokia does in Europe. Instead, Apple got in bed with the MOs,
because they like silk sheets as much as anyone else (if I may beat a bad
analogy into the ground!)
Neither national GSM carrier in the US restricts what device you can
place on their network, so unlocked, unsubsidized iPhones as a sales
strategy would've worked fairly well, considering the hordes that lined
up at Apple stores in 2007 to pay $600 for one. But that wouldn't have
netted Apple the estimated $200 per customer AT&T kickback over the life
of the 2-year contact.
Not convinced? If Apple prefered "your world," why is the iPhone the
ONLY AT&T phone that AT&T refuses to unlock (all others can be unlocked
after 90 days of service) and was (until the announcement last week) the
only AT&T phone unavailable without a 2-year contract? If I brought my
wife's unlocked, used, iPhone 2G to AT&T last week, they'd have demanded
a 2-year contract to activate it!
<ira.j.schechtman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35826104-0242-4347-810a-dcbc8f57c0c3@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
iPhone FAQ
This FAQ addresses the frequently asked questions regarding the Apple
iPhone. If you have any suggestions or corrections for the iPhone FAQ,
please send them to ira.j.schechtman@gmail.com (replace DOT with a
period).
Don't you know that the Samsung (Sprint) Instinct is the I-phone killer.
> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
> > carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that supported
> > it.
>
> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
> tether with?
>
> > We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
> > was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
> > agreements with carriers.
> >
> > 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
> > Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually letting
> > people use it.
>
> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
> other phones that allow tethering?
it's mainly because iphone users are more tech savvy than most cell
users, so until att finishes their buildout and catches up with current
data demands of iphone users, tethering needs to be kept on hold.
David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:49c6de71$0$87065$815e3792@news.qwest.net:
> ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
>> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't
>> > for carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that
>> > supported it.
>>
>> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
>> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
>> tether with?
>>
>> > We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
>> > was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
>> > agreements with carriers.
>> >
>> > 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see
>> > what Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of
>> > actually letting people use it.
>>
>> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
>> other phones that allow tethering?
>
> it's mainly because iphone users are more tech savvy than most cell
> users, so until att finishes their buildout and catches up with
> current data demands of iphone users, tethering needs to be kept on
> hold.
>
> be patient young grasshopper
>
Wait a minute- not more than 12 hours ago you were telling about how ATT
has the best 3g network and now you are panning it? Which is it, moron?
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Todd Allcock posted:
> Which doesn't address the question of why virtually all other phones
> support tethering and leave it to the MO (mobile operator) to sort out
> how to restrict it or charge for it. Most carrier-branded phones will
> allow tethering.
The answer is painfully simple.
iPhone doesn't have the battery capacity to tether via Bluetooth for very
long, and Apple doesn't want to open up the protocol to tether via cable.
Typical Apple behavior. Better not to allow something, and get the
fanboys to claim that the something isn't important, than to allow it and
be humiliated by how poorly it does.
This is also why they don't allow background tasks on iPhone.
-- 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.
In article <9UAxl.32136$5t4.15322@newsfe24.iad>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 22 Mar 2009 18:08:05 -0400 ZnU wrote:
[snip]
> > It's not Apple's fault we don't live in that world. Apple would
> > probably prefer that world. It's entirely the fault of the carriers.
>
>
> That's, if I want to be kind, disingenuous, if I want to be less
> kind, utter bullshit. Apple threw their muscle around prior to the
> iPhone launch trying to get the best of both worlds: a high
> unsubsidized selling price, forced 2-year contracts, and a cut of
> monthly fees in return for exclusivity with one operator per market.
> If Apple REALLY "prefered that world" they'd have sold through
> multiple carriers subsidized, like Nokia, Samsung, et al, AND offered
> it unlocked and unsubsidized at Apple stores like Nokia does in
> Europe. Instead, Apple got in bed with the MOs, because they like
> silk sheets as much as anyone else (if I may beat a bad analogy into
> the ground!)
>
> Neither national GSM carrier in the US restricts what device you can
> place on their network, so unlocked, unsubsidized iPhones as a sales
> strategy would've worked fairly well, considering the hordes that lined
> up at Apple stores in 2007 to pay $600 for one. But that wouldn't have
> netted Apple the estimated $200 per customer AT&T kickback over the life
> of the 2-year contact.
>
> Not convinced? If Apple prefered "your world," why is the iPhone the
> ONLY AT&T phone that AT&T refuses to unlock (all others can be unlocked
> after 90 days of service) and was (until the announcement last week) the
> only AT&T phone unavailable without a 2-year contract? If I brought my
> wife's unlocked, used, iPhone 2G to AT&T last week, they'd have demanded
> a 2-year contract to activate it!
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! Handset vendors have to bargain for subsidies
because service providers engage in consumer-hostile bundling practices,
effectively charging consumers for a $200-300 subsidy every two years
whether or not they receive one. And they have to bargain for this other
stuff because instead of just providing generic bandwidth, carriers want
to be in the business of providing specific high-level services like
messaging, voice minutes, ringtones, etc. because there's more money in
that. (Carriers bill out text messages at a rate equivalent to tens or
hundreds of dollars per megabyte of data... why would they want to sell
generic bandwidth instead?)
Imagine if when Roku and Netflix launched their set-top device, they had
to offer exclusivity to Verizon, because Verizon was in a position to
prevent their service from working (the network was so inflexible they
had to rely on Verizon's willing cooperation), to overcharge their users
for a connection which let them use the device, and to make their device
cost $300 more than the competition's device if the competition choose
to deal with Verizon and they didn't.
This is the dystopian nightmare that advocates of 'net neutrality
desperately want to prevent, but it's already standard operating
procedure for US wireless networks.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
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.
> Handset vendors have to bargain for subsidies
> because service providers engage in consumer-hostile bundling practices,
> effectively charging consumers for a $200-300 subsidy every two years
> whether or not they receive one.
the contract is - well, was, until the iphone's first plans- the
tradeoff for the subsidy. you don't get a subsidized monthly price.
> And they have to bargain for this other
> stuff because instead of just providing generic bandwidth, carriers want
> to be in the business of providing specific high-level services like
> messaging, voice minutes, ringtones, etc. because there's more money in
> that.
of course they want to be in the business of providing high margin
services- but they're not the only ones.
In article
<be624973-b157-4f59-8944-a0a994793ca8@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ed <news@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.
> > Handset vendors have to bargain for subsidies because service
> > providers engage in consumer-hostile bundling practices,
> > effectively charging consumers for a $200-300 subsidy every two
> > years whether or not they receive one.
>
> the contract is - well, was, until the iphone's first plans- the
> tradeoff for the subsidy. you don't get a subsidized monthly price.
Except the providers now even offer phone subsidies with month to month
plans (at least AT&T does); you can't get around paying for one that
way. Look, these companies know what they're doing. It's not just some
*accident* that they've structured their pricing to give them
substantial leverage over the handset market.
> > And they have to bargain for this other
> > stuff because instead of just providing generic bandwidth, carriers
> > want to be in the business of providing specific high-level
> > services like messaging, voice minutes, ringtones, etc. because
> > there's more money in that.
>
> of course they want to be in the business of providing high margin
> services- but they're not the only ones.
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 one to
the other, so they can charge high prices. In contrast, if they simply
provided generic data, there would be a much more competitive market to
provide high-level services, because the barriers to entry (and to
switching) would be much lower.
This is a classic case of a situation where allowing the "free market"
to act naturally actually reduces market competition at a level more
meaningful to consumers.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
> > > It's not Apple's fault we don't live in that world. Apple would
> > > probably prefer that world. It's entirely the fault of the carriers.
> >
> >
> > That's, if I want to be kind, disingenuous, if I want to be less
> > kind, utter bullshit. Apple threw their muscle around prior to the
> > iPhone launch trying to get the best of both worlds: a high
> > unsubsidized selling price, forced 2-year contracts, and a cut of
> > monthly fees in return for exclusivity with one operator per market.
> > If Apple REALLY "prefered that world" they'd have sold through
> > multiple carriers subsidized, like Nokia, Samsung, et al, AND offered
> > it unlocked and unsubsidized at Apple stores like Nokia does in
> > Europe. Instead, Apple got in bed with the MOs, because they like
> > silk sheets as much as anyone else (if I may beat a bad analogy into
> > the ground!)
> >
> > Neither national GSM carrier in the US restricts what device you can
> > place on their network, so unlocked, unsubsidized iPhones as a sales
> > strategy would've worked fairly well, considering the hordes that
lined
> > up at Apple stores in 2007 to pay $600 for one. But that wouldn't
have
> > netted Apple the estimated $200 per customer AT&T kickback over the
life
> > of the 2-year contact.
> >
> > Not convinced? If Apple prefered "your world," why is the iPhone the
> > ONLY AT&T phone that AT&T refuses to unlock (all others can be
unlocked
> > after 90 days of service) and was (until the announcement last week)
the
> > only AT&T phone unavailable without a 2-year contract? If I brought
my
> > wife's unlocked, used, iPhone 2G to AT&T last week, they'd have
demanded
> > a 2-year contract to activate it!
>
> 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.
And if they sold it unlocked, they could've handled Visual Voicemail
themselves on their own servers, let the marketplace handle data pricing
(both AT&T and T-Mobile sold data for unlocked unbranded phones for less
than $20) and had completely unfettered control of the device with no
negotiation.
They could've been a force for change in what you consider a "corrupt
system" rather than simply exploit it for maximum profit. They didn't
try to fix the system, they just tried to steer the advantage from
operator to manufacturer. (And, to their credit, made more headway in
that goal than Nokia has in 5 years of trying!)
> 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.
Which also would've been possible without AT&T exclusivity. They simply
picked the carrier who offered the biggest kickback (and there's nothing
wrong with that- it's a free market, and Apple's a for-profit
organization.)
> Here's the key issue: none of these is something a handset vendor
should
> have to bargain for! Handset vendors have to bargain for subsidies
> because service providers engage in consumer-hostile bundling
practices,
> effectively charging consumers for a $200-300 subsidy every two years
> whether or not they receive one. And they have to bargain for this
other
> stuff because instead of just providing generic bandwidth, carriers
want
> to be in the business of providing specific high-level services like
> messaging, voice minutes, ringtones, etc. because there's more money in
> that. (Carriers bill out text messages at a rate equivalent to tens or
> hundreds of dollars per megabyte of data... why would they want to sell
> generic bandwidth instead?)
True, but wireless bandwidth is a limited resource. There isn't enough
for all of us to use it like we use broadband cable or DSL, so it's sold
differently to reflect that.
> Imagine if when Roku and Netflix launched their set-top device, they
had
> to offer exclusivity to Verizon, because Verizon was in a position to
> prevent their service from working (the network was so inflexible they
> had to rely on Verizon's willing cooperation), to overcharge their
users
> for a connection which let them use the device, and to make their
device
> cost $300 more than the competition's device if the competition choose
> to deal with Verizon and they didn't.
>
> This is the dystopian nightmare that advocates of 'net neutrality
> desperately want to prevent, but it's already standard operating
> procedure for US wireless networks.
What function of the iPhone wouldn't work without AT&T's blessing? My
wife's is unlocked and on T-Mobile, and other than "OEM" Visual Voicemail
(I set it up for YouMail.com's VV to duplicate the functionality) it does
everything an AT&T iPhone 2G does, for $14 less/month, (and an estimated
$8/month less for Apple, who, apparently, considers me a criminal for
unlocking/jailbreaking it for use on T-Mobile.)
If anything, Apple has gone above and beyond the call to protect the
interests of cellular operators- no VoIP over cellular, 10MB app download
limits; these aren't in the _consumer's_ interest. The Fring app on my
WinMo phone works fine over EDGE, and I didn't need anyone's permission
to run it. If carriers want to block large downloads, fine (T-Mo used to
cap downloads on WAP plans at 1M, they can handle it at the network
level, like T-Mo used to. Why did Apple need to hardcode the limit in
the phone's firmware?
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2009-03-20, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> with the carriers.
More likely it's AT&T that's terrified what would happen to their 3G
network if a lot of iPhone owners started tethering. They need to figure
a way to charge for tethering so iPhone owners don't use it too much,
yet not charge so much that it drives customers away to other carriers.
> > Since tethering works fine with the four carriers' SIMs she's used
> > with her iPhone (just not with the SIM in the iPhone) it doesn't
> > seem like the iPhone's problem with tethering is a problem
> > with the carriers.
>
> More likely it's AT&T that's terrified what would happen to their 3G
> network if a lot of iPhone owners started tethering. They need to figure
> a way to charge for tethering so iPhone owners don't use it too much,
> yet not charge so much that it drives customers away to other carriers.
In article <QHHxl.3883$3g7.1693@newsfe15.iad>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 23 Mar 2009 00:57:33 -0400 ZnU 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.
>
> And if they sold it unlocked, they could've handled Visual Voicemail
> themselves on their own servers, let the marketplace handle data
> pricing (both AT&T and T-Mobile sold data for unlocked unbranded
> phones for less than $20) and had completely unfettered control of
> the device with no negotiation.
Except no subsidy. They were willing to try that at first, but they
clearly decided it probably wasn't sustainable. And they were probably
right; as the market for devices in the iPhone's class continues to
become more competitive, you can't afford to have your phone cost
consumers over twice as much as your competition's phones. And that's
precisely what the carriers have the power to impose on handset makers
if they don't play along.
> They could've been a force for change in what you consider a "corrupt
> system" rather than simply exploit it for maximum profit. They
> didn't try to fix the system, they just tried to steer the advantage
> from operator to manufacturer. (And, to their credit, made more
> headway in that goal than Nokia has in 5 years of trying!)
Well, let's think this through a little. There was a brief period of
time during which Apple was selling the iPhone unsubsidized and also
collecting a substantial share of carrier revenue. But Apple collecting
a share of carrier revenue didn't directly lead to the consumer paying
more; AT&T didn't charge iPhone customers extra for service. What did
cost customers more was the lack of a subsidy. Apple was able to sell
the phone without such a subsidy not because they were exploiting a
corrupt system, but because they had introduced a product that was
sufficiently impressive that a pool of early adopters were actually
willing to pay an unsubsidized price for it. IOW, this wasn't
exploitation of a corrupt system, it was a reward for innovation.
[snip]
> > Here's the key issue: none of these is something a handset vendor
> > should have to bargain for! Handset vendors have to bargain for
> > subsidies because service providers engage in consumer-hostile
> > bundling practices, effectively charging consumers for a $200-300
> > subsidy every two years whether or not they receive one. And they
> > have to bargain for this other stuff because instead of just
> > providing generic bandwidth, carriers want to be in the business of
> > providing specific high-level services like messaging, voice
> > minutes, ringtones, etc. because there's more money in that.
> > (Carriers bill out text messages at a rate equivalent to tens or
> > hundreds of dollars per megabyte of data... why would they want to
> > sell generic bandwidth instead?)
>
>
> True, but wireless bandwidth is a limited resource. There isn't
> enough for all of us to use it like we use broadband cable or DSL, so
> it's sold differently to reflect that.
Which is a justification for it to cost more per megabyte. Not a
justification for service providers to use their control of networks to
charge outrageous prices for high-level services because nobody is
allowed to compete.
> > Imagine if when Roku and Netflix launched their set-top device,
> > they had to offer exclusivity to Verizon, because Verizon was in a
> > position to prevent their service from working (the network was so
> > inflexible they had to rely on Verizon's willing cooperation), to
> > overcharge their users for a connection which let them use the
> > device, and to make their device cost $300 more than the
> > competition's device if the competition choose to deal with Verizon
> > and they didn't.
> >
> > This is the dystopian nightmare that advocates of 'net neutrality
> > desperately want to prevent, but it's already standard operating
> > procedure for US wireless networks.
>
>
> What function of the iPhone wouldn't work without AT&T's blessing? My
> wife's is unlocked and on T-Mobile, and other than "OEM" Visual Voicemail
> (I set it up for YouMail.com's VV to duplicate the functionality) it does
> everything an AT&T iPhone 2G does, for $14 less/month, (and an estimated
> $8/month less for Apple, who, apparently, considers me a criminal for
> unlocking/jailbreaking it for use on T-Mobile.)
They clearly wanted visual voicemail to be a carrier supported feature
(various good reasons for that), and I suspect they were already
anticipating things like the push notification feature they've announced.
> If anything, Apple has gone above and beyond the call to protect the
> interests of cellular operators- no VoIP over cellular, 10MB app download
> limits; these aren't in the _consumer's_ interest. The Fring app on my
> WinMo phone works fine over EDGE, and I didn't need anyone's permission
> to run it. If carriers want to block large downloads, fine (T-Mo used to
> cap downloads on WAP plans at 1M, they can handle it at the network
> level, like T-Mo used to. Why did Apple need to hardcode the limit in
> the phone's firmware?
Because the carriers exert sufficient control over the market that
alienating them can be substantially harmful to your future business
prospects.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
"David Moyer" <davmoy@world.com> wrote in message
news:49c6de71$0$87065$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> > It's slightly more complicated than that. The iPhone doesn't have
>> > software that supports tethering out of the box. But if it weren't for
>> > carrier restrictions, there would be third-party software that
>> > supported
>> > it.
>>
>> always blaming the carriers instead of apple- how does this explain
>> the fact that you can get plenty of other phones on at&t that you can
>> tether with?
>>
>> > We know this because there briefly *was* such software, before it
>> > was pulled from the App Store, presumably as a result of Apple's
>> > agreements with carriers.
>> >
>> > 3.0 *does* apparently have built-in tethering support; we'll see what
>> > Apple manages to work out with the carriers in terms of actually
>> > letting
>> > people use it.
>>
>> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
>> other phones that allow tethering?
>
> it's mainly because iphone users are more tech savvy than most cell
> users,
Right. Sure, uh huh. Too bad iphone developers weren't tech savy.
mk
so until att finishes their buildout and catches up with current
> data demands of iphone users, tethering needs to be kept on hold.
>
> be patient young grasshopper
"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-A6AC5B.11524323032009@news.individual.net...
> In article <QHHxl.3883$3g7.1693@newsfe15.iad>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> At 23 Mar 2009 00:57:33 -0400 ZnU 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.
>>
>> And if they sold it unlocked, they could've handled Visual Voicemail
>> themselves on their own servers, let the marketplace handle data
>> pricing (both AT&T and T-Mobile sold data for unlocked unbranded
>> phones for less than $20) and had completely unfettered control of
>> the device with no negotiation.
>
> Except no subsidy. They were willing to try that at first, but they
> clearly decided it probably wasn't sustainable. And they were probably
> right; as the market for devices in the iPhone's class continues to
> become more competitive, you can't afford to have your phone cost
> consumers over twice as much as your competition's phones. And that's
> precisely what the carriers have the power to impose on handset makers
> if they don't play along.
But in most cases that doesn't REQUIRE exclusivity. The exclusivity was
primarily for Apple to receive a cut of the monthly fees. "Corrupt" market
or no, Apple made an unpreceedented deal.
>> They could've been a force for change in what you consider a "corrupt
>> system" rather than simply exploit it for maximum profit. They
>> didn't try to fix the system, they just tried to steer the advantage
>> from operator to manufacturer. (And, to their credit, made more
>> headway in that goal than Nokia has in 5 years of trying!)
>
> Well, let's think this through a little. There was a brief period of
> time during which Apple was selling the iPhone unsubsidized and also
> collecting a substantial share of carrier revenue. But Apple collecting
> a share of carrier revenue didn't directly lead to the consumer paying
> more; AT&T didn't charge iPhone customers extra for service. What did
> cost customers more was the lack of a subsidy. Apple was able to sell
> the phone without such a subsidy not because they were exploiting a
> corrupt system, but because they had introduced a product that was
> sufficiently impressive that a pool of early adopters were actually
> willing to pay an unsubsidized price for it. IOW, this wasn't
> exploitation of a corrupt system, it was a reward for innovation.
The "exploitation" was in the monthly revenue kickback- the "subsidy" was
essentially still there, it just went to Apple instead of the consumer,
ergo, Apple exploited the system- AT&T already subsidized handsets to the
tune of $100-200, so there was no "loss" to AT&T in the iPhone deal- the
loss was that Apple diverted the subsidy to themselves instead of their
customers.
> [snip]
>
>> > Here's the key issue: none of these is something a handset vendor
>> > should have to bargain for! Handset vendors have to bargain for
>> > subsidies because service providers engage in consumer-hostile
>> > bundling practices, effectively charging consumers for a $200-300
>> > subsidy every two years whether or not they receive one. And they
>> > have to bargain for this other stuff because instead of just
>> > providing generic bandwidth, carriers want to be in the business of
>> > providing specific high-level services like messaging, voice
>> > minutes, ringtones, etc. because there's more money in that.
>> > (Carriers bill out text messages at a rate equivalent to tens or
>> > hundreds of dollars per megabyte of data... why would they want to
>> > sell generic bandwidth instead?)
>>
>>
>> True, but wireless bandwidth is a limited resource. There isn't
>> enough for all of us to use it like we use broadband cable or DSL, so
>> it's sold differently to reflect that.
>
> Which is a justification for it to cost more per megabyte. Not a
> justification for service providers to use their control of networks to
> charge outrageous prices for high-level services because nobody is
> allowed to compete.
Again, name a service in which "nobody is allowed to compete." What
function can one perform with a smartphone (not necessarily the iPhone) over
WiFi with your home ISP that you can't perform over AT&T, T-Mobile et al?
Streaming (Pandora, Orb, Sling, etc.)? Smartphones can do that over
cellular. Download large files? No problem. VoIP? Well, it's prohibited
by the AT&T TOS, but it functions perfectly well. I even ran a web server
off of my HTC WinMo phone on T-Mobile as a proof of concept (on a dare), and
it ran fine.
So where is this roadblock prohibiting any internet functionality that
manufacturers have to "negotiate" around? All the restrictions I've run
into with the iPhone (no VoIP over cellular, no tethering, no downloads over
10M are placed there at the _hardware_ level, ostensibly to placate cell
providers, but again, those restrictions aren't found on other phones in its
class- VoIP/Skype work over cellular data on Symbian and WinMo, dozens of
phones including WinMo, Blackberries, and "dumbphones" like Moto RAZRs
tether just fine, and downloads are limited to the storage space on the
device. And these are devices offered and blessed by the cell carrier
itself- not unlocked unbranded grey market imports.
All these limitations you are blaming on the "corrupt system" are placed
there by Apple, presumably by whatever devil's deal Apple set up with
carriers in return for their service plan kickbacks. If there's any
"corruption" in the system it's there: a manufacturer and service provider
"colluding" to limit a consumer's hardware to the benefit of both companies.
I can't find any example of that elsewhere- certainly handsets have had
features removed at the carrier's request in the past, but in those cases,
the _carrier_ was the manufacturer's customer- not the end user. If WalMart
wants to order 10000 Dell computers without, say, analog modems, to save $4
per unit to meet a particular selling price or profit margin that's
WalMart's right. If AT&T wants to buy 10000 smartphones without WiFi
(Cingular's WinMo5-based HTC 2125, for example, was a WiFi-less version of
T-Mobile's HTC SDA) to save $x per unit, that's their right as well- the
2125s were purchased by Cingular, not the end user.
The iPhone situation was completely different- here's Apple castrating the
actual hardware in ALL versions based on whatever negotiations they hammered
out with carriers. If a Cingular customer was drooling over the 2125, but
really wanted WiFi on it, he could go out and pay $200 more for an
unbranded, unsubsidized version direct from HTC, or buy a T-Mobile unit at
full unsubsidized price. iPhone customers did not have that option. The
direct-from-Apple-Store models had all the same restrictions "pre loaded,"
as did ever iPhone used on 88 carriers worldwide, regardless of the
individual policies and terms of those 88 carriers.
Even if T-Mobile could care less if I used VoIP over cellular, or downloaded
20MB files, or tethered via bluetooth, Apple already removed that
functionality "just in case" AT&T didn't like it. THAT's new in the
industry.
>> > Imagine if when Roku and Netflix launched their set-top device,
>> > they had to offer exclusivity to Verizon, because Verizon was in a
>> > position to prevent their service from working (the network was so
>> > inflexible they had to rely on Verizon's willing cooperation), to
>> > overcharge their users for a connection which let them use the
>> > device, and to make their device cost $300 more than the
>> > competition's device if the competition choose to deal with Verizon
>> > and they didn't.
I can imagine it, but why should I? I can think of no technical blocks
preventing any services from working on cellular networks now, other than
the restrictive "Terms of Service" cell carriers have drafted to provide
them with a loophole to cancel the heaviest users on "unlimited" service
plans if the carrier chooses to. Again, what service is restricted by
carriers to make your analogy above valid? I'm still waiting for a single
example.
>> > This is the dystopian nightmare that advocates of 'net neutrality
>> > desperately want to prevent, but it's already standard operating
>> > procedure for US wireless networks.
>>
>>
>> What function of the iPhone wouldn't work without AT&T's blessing? My
>> wife's is unlocked and on T-Mobile, and other than "OEM" Visual Voicemail
>> (I set it up for YouMail.com's VV to duplicate the functionality) it does
>> everything an AT&T iPhone 2G does, for $14 less/month, (and an estimated
>> $8/month less for Apple, who, apparently, considers me a criminal for
>> unlocking/jailbreaking it for use on T-Mobile.)
>
> They clearly wanted visual voicemail to be a carrier supported feature
> (various good reasons for that), and I suspect they were already
> anticipating things like the push notification feature they've announced.
I agree there are great reasons for VV to be a carrier supported feature,
but it wouldn't be "blocked" by carriers otherwise- YouMail, Callwave, and a
good many others offer VV today without any blessing from carriers. Push
notification, presumably, will be supported by Apple directly, and
"unblocked" much like EAS (Exchange Activesync): a non-carrier service that
works on any carrier becasue it's a straight HTTP connection- blocking it
would mean blocking web browsing.
>> If anything, Apple has gone above and beyond the call to protect the
>> interests of cellular operators- no VoIP over cellular, 10MB app download
>> limits; these aren't in the _consumer's_ interest. The Fring app on my
>> WinMo phone works fine over EDGE, and I didn't need anyone's permission
>> to run it. If carriers want to block large downloads, fine (T-Mo used to
>> cap downloads on WAP plans at 1M, they can handle it at the network
>> level, like T-Mo used to. Why did Apple need to hardcode the limit in
>> the phone's firmware?
>
> Because the carriers exert sufficient control over the market that
> alienating them can be substantially harmful to your future business
> prospects.
Yet you still can't explain why Apple alone seems subject to these
limitations, when AT&T sells a dozen WinMo phones and Blackberries without
such restrictions, and those phones actually run AT&T-sanctioned custom
firmware, making it far easier for AT&T (or whoever) to restrict the
devices' functionality that it would the iPhone, which runs an "untouchable"
generic firmware not customized by any carrier.
I'd agree with your premise if AT&T dictated "no device may tether" or "no
files larger than 10MB can be downloaded to any device" but they don't. I
can't see any other explanation than Apple sold its customers down the river
for 30 pieces of silver (or $200.) You've presented no plausible
explanation for Apple's singular (or Cingular?) restrictions that no other
phone in AT&T's lineup share, other than a "cellular companies are corrupt"
mantra that you seem to think makes your theory self-evident.
Sure, cell phone companies try to eke every dollar from your wallet by
selling unneeded or unwanted services for as much as the market will bear-
ringtones, wallpaper, messaging, game downloads, GPS navigation services,
cellular video- all things users can do without, or acquire on their own
from alternative sources, often for less money (but generally more effort.)
How is that really any different than iTunes? $1 for a song track I can buy
on CD with better quality and sideload onto the device. $10-20 to buy
movies I can rip from my DVD collection with Handbrake. It's the same
thing, except the source of the content is different- Apple, instead of
AT&T.
Again, what services are cellular companies _preventing_ you from using (as
opposed to trying to entice you to use their higher-priced alternatives
instead) over their networks that you could use over a traditional ISP? I
can't think of any, and you apparently haven't either. WWW? Email?
Usenet? FTP? VoIP? Streaming? They all work via AT&T data. AT&T's
offerings of their own (overpriced) music store, video service, navigation
service, etc. aren't "blocking" anyone's alternatives any more than a
conveniently located Starbucks on every corner "blocks" one from buying any
other coffee or brewing your own.
The only "corruption" Apple saw in the system was that the carrier kept a
larger share of the money than Apple was comfortable with, and they
negotiated a way to divert part of the revenue stream to them. If they
could figure out how to divert a percentage of an ISP's revenue for every
ethernet connection a Mac was plugged into, they'd undoubtably try that as
well...
> >> why do you keep blaming the carriers when the carriers have plenty of
> >> other phones that allow tethering?
> >
> > it's mainly because iphone users are more tech savvy than most cell
> > users,
>
> Right. Sure, uh huh. Too bad iphone developers weren't tech savy.
> mk
what? developers quickly had tethering apps for the iphone, but att
killed them with weeks.
iPhone FAQ 
, they can handle it at the network
Linear Mode
