Apple authorizes MMS on the iPhone, but not for US users

[AppleInsider]

Swedish iPhone owners will soon have something they can hold over the heads of most other users of the touchscreen handset: an Apple-sanctioned way of sending and receiving picture and video messages.

According to a report published by Macworld Sweden, Apple has given the go-ahead to its regional wireless partner Telia to develop its own MMS application for the iPhone.

MMS (or Multimedia Messaging Service) functionality has stood out among a short list of glaring omissions from the otherwise cutting-edge handset. The cellular standard, which can be found on a wide variety of mobile phones, offers a simple means of sending multi-media messages that include images, audio, video and rich text.

Out of the box, iPhones only support SMS (or Short Message Service), which limits transmissions to short text-based message. This had lead some users to hack their iPhones in order to gain MMS capabilities, or attempt to emulate multimedia messaging through the use of special email address and the handset's built-in Mail application.

It's reported that Telia will be ready to push their MMS application into users' hands within the next couple of months. So far there's no word that Apple has approved similar applications for iPhone users in other regions.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[charlituna]

5 will get you 10 that the holdup here in the US ain't Apple but rather ATT. MMS would use more bandwidth, especially since folks will jump on it over SMS and possibly even email at times. and we know the bandwidth issues ATT is having lately.

[Virgil-TB2]

The article Title says "not for US users" but the article itself ends with:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

... So far there's no word that Apple has approved similar applications for iPhone users in other regions. ...

Which is it?
It can't be both.

Or is this just click bait?
I thought you guys were better than that.

[w00master]

Originally Posted by charlituna

5 will get you 10 that the holdup here in the US ain't Apple but rather ATT. MMS would use more bandwidth, especially since folks will jump on it over SMS and possibly even email at times. and we know the bandwidth issues ATT is having lately.

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Nearly every AT&T Wireless phone has MMS and has a plan that accounts for MMS. Why wouldn't AT&T want MMS on the iPhone? This makes ZERO sense. Honestly, look at the evidence here. The REAL hold-up is APPLE not AT&T.

I hate AT&T just like the next guy, but seriously place blame where blame is deserved.

w00master

[imike12706]

OMG, please come to the US already. Its only something we've been BEGGING for since june '07. ATT please forgo your usual bastard ways and DO NOT charge extra for MMS. It should have been there included from the begining!!

[GT500Shlby]

Why can't the US have MMS? Is it Apple's or AT&T's fault?

What the heck is the big deal with MMS, why won't they let us use it?

This is getting annoying. Every other AT&T phone has MMS.

[Enigmafan420]

I am sort of in awe out of what a big deal is being made over this.

Especially since AT$T would likely RAPE you for this "benefit" (see their 20 cent per a-la-carte SMS fee), this seems to be not a big deal.

I have never understood the fascination with "texting" on a phone. A phone call is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, unless the message is "bring milk home".

And I am not THAT OLD-I just believe the whole market was created by cellular companies to pad their already huge rates of return.

[w00master]

Originally Posted by GT500Shlby

Why can't the US have MMS? Is it Apple's or AT&T's fault?

What the heck is the big deal with MMS, why won't they let us use it?

This is getting annoying. Every other AT&T phone has MMS.

It's Apple. MMS is a revenue stream for AT&T, and nearly EVERY phone on AT&T's lineup has MMS.

w00master

[Adjei]

Originally Posted by w00master

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Nearly every AT&T Wireless phone has MMS and has a plan that accounts for MMS. Why wouldn't AT&T want MMS on the iPhone? This makes ZERO sense. Honestly, look at the evidence here. The REAL hold-up is APPLE not AT&T.

I hate AT&T just like the next guy, but seriously place blame where blame is deserved.

w00master

So why would they give the go ahead for Sweden but not for the US, or Apple has a grudge against US iphone users?

[Adjei]

Originally Posted by w00master

It's Apple. MMS is a revenue stream for AT&T, and nearly EVERY phone on AT&T's lineup has MMS.

w00master

Is that a joke or something, so why is it being allowed in Sweden, isn't SMS also a "revenue stream" but yet it's allowed?

[w00master]

Originally Posted by Adjei

So why would they give the go ahead for Sweden but not for the US, or Apple has a grudge against US iphone users?

I have no idea, but honestly placing blame on AT&T is the last reason on this. It's more money for AT&T so why wouldn't they want this? Therefore, it HAS to be Apple.

[w00master]

Originally Posted by Adjei

Is that a joke or something, so why is it being allowed in Sweden, isn't SMS also a "revenue stream" but yet it's allowed?

This isn't a joke, it's the truth. Go ahead, check out AT&T's phone lineup. Nearly ALL of them have MMS.

[auxio]

Originally Posted by Enigmafan420

I have never understood the fascination with "texting" on a phone. A phone call is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, unless the message is "bring milk home".

I agree. However, texting long distance is much cheaper than calling (at least, here in Canada).

People will argue that you can just email instead of text, but until most people have push email on their phone, texting will still be a more immediate way to get ahold of someone (aside from calling of course).

As for MMS -- while it would be nice to be able to instantly send pictures instead of having to use email, unless the price is right, I'm not interested. The convenience isn't worth that much to me.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Enigmafan420

I have never understood the fascination with "texting" on a phone. A phone call is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, unless the message is "bring milk home".

It depends, SMS can be much more efficient than a phone call, the way an email is more efficient that calling someone to relay info. Some examples would be to send visual copy of an address instead of having to remember it if you are on a phone call or find a writing tool. Another would be while in a room where making a call is possible so typing in a simple text message is prudent. I could give you examples where a quick message back and forth to relay info is faster than the how long it takes for a phone to ring. Even on my iPhone I can type out a text message or email while doing other tasks. A phone call requires more focus.

Originally Posted by w00master

I have no idea, but honestly placing blame on AT&T is the last reason on this. It's more money for AT&T so why wouldn't they want this? Therefore, it HAS to be Apple.

There is certainly logic in your post.

[foobar]

I bet this is not "real" MMS, just an MMS-over-Ethernet transport. As a carrier they can do that. Just intercept the MMS to the number, and send it over a push service. They wouldn't even need permission by Apple for that. And it would be worthless for anybody who's not a customer of theirs.

[moracity]

I don't understand the obsession with MMS, especially when the iphone is designed for internet and email. The point of the iphone is that you don't have to rely on sms/mms that archaic cell phones require. MMS is just a hack-job. Between email, social apps, and blogging apps, MMS is just obsolete.

[w00master]

Originally Posted by moracity

I don't understand the obsession with MMS, especially when the iphone is designed for internet and email. The point of the iphone is that you don't have to rely on sms/mms that archaic cell phones require. MMS is just a hack-job. Between email, social apps, and blogging apps, MMS is just obsolete.

The problem is that MOST phones do not have email. Also, I'm tired of telling some of my friends and family who happen to have a phone with email to remember not to MMS me, but email me instead.

How many times do they remember this?

ZERO.


w00master

[NeilM]

Originally Posted by Enigmafan420

I have never understood the fascination with "texting" on a phone. A phone call is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, unless the message is "bring milk home".

Because texting is quick, easy, efficient, cheap, works like push email even if your phone doesn't have email at all, and unlike a phone call doesn't require real-time engagement by the recipient. I can text someone rather than calling even when they're in a business meeting. Furthermore it's often possible to send a text successfully even when voice bandwidth is overwhelmed.

And I am not THAT OLD-I just believe the whole market was created by cellular companies to pad their already huge rates of return.

Well of course texting was created by cellular companies to pad their rates of return. They're businesses, and that's what businesses are supposed to do. If you're working in a business that's trying to minimize its rate of return, then I hope you have some other long-term plan for putting food on the table.

Oh and by the way: I am that old.

[jfanning]

Originally Posted by moracity

I don't understand the obsession with MMS, especially when the iphone is designed for internet and email. The point of the iphone is that you don't have to rely on sms/mms that archaic cell phones require. MMS is just a hack-job. Between email, social apps, and blogging apps, MMS is just obsolete.

Maybe to interact with the 99% of phone owners that don't have an iPhone?

[Stormchild]

Based on this feature alone, it's hard to imagine how the iPhone has managed to gain any traction at all in Japan, where people have been using MMS almost exclusively for at least 5 years now. Nobody uses SMS in Japan. Even if you're only sending text, SMS has a 160 character limit (which you would probably have to divide in half since Japanese characters are double-byte), whereas MMS lets you send pages and pages of text (if there is a limit, I've never reached it).

Honestly, why does SMS even exist? The implementation is so terrible in every possible way.

[Enigmafan420]

Originally Posted by NeilM

Because texting is quick, easy, efficient, cheap, works like push email even if your phone doesn't have email at all, and unlike a phone call doesn't require real-time engagement by the recipient. I can text someone rather than calling even when they're in a business meeting. Furthermore it's often possible to send a text successfully even when voice bandwidth is overwhelmed.

Not so sure I agree that it is cheap-it is cheap for AT$T, costs them much less bandwidth than a phone call-so why do they charge 20 cents a-la-carte for it?

Several years ago-I was a T-Mobile customer. I had the T-Zones data plan (for $5 month), for unlimited data and unlimited text messages.

That same plan at T-Mobile now costs $6 month with NO text messages.

AT$T charges me $30 for unlimited data (granted I use more on the 3G than I did on my RAZR with Opera Mini installed) , and $20 more if I want unlimited text. This is a joke, it is a rip-off, and it should be investigated for price collusion, as ALL US carriers are doing it.

[auxio]

Originally Posted by NeilM

Because texting is quick, easy, efficient,

I can speak much quicker than I can type (and I'm a pretty fast typist), especially when I can only use my thumbs for typing (god forbid the number pad typing). Speaking is also much easier to do when you're walking somewhere -- especially with the iPhone headphones. Texting is only more efficient than voice for short messages.

cheap, works like push email even if your phone doesn't have email at all,

Agreed.

and unlike a phone call doesn't require real-time engagement by the recipient

Neither does a voicemail message. And with visual voicemail, it's almost as easy to check as a text message.

Furthermore it's often possible to send a text successfully even when voice capacity is overwhelmed.

Agreed. I'm still a reluctant user of text messaging. If a conversation is going to take more than one or two messages back and forth, it's just plain more efficient to call.

Oh and by the way: I am that old.

So am I.

[iVlad]

Apple is very smart. They gonna let Telis test it, then see how it will work and then make their own App for MMS. Its on the list of future features, but it will come little later.

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by w00master

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Nearly every AT&T Wireless phone has MMS and has a plan that accounts for MMS. Why wouldn't AT&T want MMS on the iPhone? This makes ZERO sense. Honestly, look at the evidence here. The REAL hold-up is APPLE not AT&T.

I hate AT&T just like the next guy, but seriously place blame where blame is deserved.

w00master

Then why was tethering pulled from the app store? Many of AT&T's current phones support tethering, why was the iPhone singled-out?
Maybe this image will help:

[kick Axe]

Video takes up a lot of battery power. I think Apple was figuring out how to manage that so that the battery life for video is longer than other smart phones are at handling it.

[8CoreWhore]

http://www.swirlyspace.com/

[edorf]

Coming for Norway to, as told by Netcom.no yesterday. We have been used to use MMS since last century, iPhone has been a giant step back for a lot Scandinavian users. But who cares as long as you have a greate phone

[teckstud]

No MMS- no iPhone.
Luv my Touch though.

[mjtomlin]

The iPhone is perfectly capable of MMS texting, just as it is perfectly capable of tethering. The fact of the matter is, AT&T doesn't have a plan that allows either of these on the iPhone. (Although, AT&T is supposed to release a tethering plan soon, if it hasn't already.) That was probably a decision both Apple and AT&T made to try and make sure the options that were available worked without issue. The iPhone was and still is in its infancy (well an 800lb. infant gorilla anyway). It will continue to mature and hopefully features and options will be added.

This issue has come up before and more than likely it relates to bandwidth issues and network congestion. With mobile Safari being able to render normal web pages, they were afraid of users wreaking havoc on the cell network, which if you all remember actually happened after all those shiny new iPhone 3Gs were sold in such a short amount of time. Add on top of that MMS texting and bandwidth hogging phone tethering and you're left with a fried network.

I believe once AT&T gets the network up to speed to support all this data coming from all the iPhone users (and other 3G users) in the US, they will begin to offer more of the same options as other phones. Of course the monthly rates will go up and more people will whine about it, but at least the options will be there.

For those of you quick to blame Apple, if this 3rd party developer and mobile provider in Sweden can offer up MMS without needing Apple's assistance (only blessing), why hasn't AT&T in the US?

[Foo2]

1. It is Apple standing in the way of MMS, because that pushes the market towards less cellular-centric technologies like e-mail and web where Apple can provide a more uniform experience across its entire product line.
2. It is AT&T standing in the way of tethering, because they have committed to buying a boat load of cellular modems and they need to clear out that stock.

[paxman]

Originally Posted by Enigmafan420

I am sort of in awe out of what a big deal is being made over this.

Especially since AT$T would likely RAPE you for this "benefit" (see their 20 cent per a-la-carte SMS fee), this seems to be not a big deal.

I have never understood the fascination with "texting" on a phone. A phone call is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, unless the message is "bring milk home".

And I am not THAT OLD-I just believe the whole market was created by cellular companies to pad their already huge rates of return.

I'd say you don't get it because you've never used it. Sure, you can send emails but MMS and SMS started way before cells could pick up email. And even today most people have email and a cell but the two are not linked. Email on a phone entails email addresses, synching with Macs/PC etc. MOST people get a headache even thinking about that. So SMS is like email for mobiles, or more like a mix between email and chat. MMS is that, but with MM. And all you need is what you already have on your cell, phone numbers. And I'd argue that a phone call is not more efficient. Sometimes it is but often not. I often fire off an email just because I DON'T want to say hello, don't want to hear objections, don't need a discussion, don't want to lower the volume of my music, or plain just don't want to move my jaw. So, in order to evaluate SMS or MMS you first have to 'get it', get it?

[Enigmafan420]

Originally Posted by paxman

I'd say you don't get it because you've never used it. Sure, you can send emails but MMS and SMS started way before cells could pick up email. And even today most people have email and a cell but the two are not linked. Email on a phone entails email addresses, synching with Macs/PC etc. MOST people get a headache even thinking about that. So SMS is like email for mobiles, or more like a mix between email and chat. MMS is that, but with MM. And all you need is what you already have on your cell, phone numbers. And I'd argue that a phone call is not more efficient. Sometimes it is but often not. I often fire off an email just because I DON'T want to say hello, don't want to hear objections, don't need a discussion, don't want to lower the volume of my music, or plain just don't want to move my jaw. So, in order to evaluate SMS or MMS you first have to 'get it', get it?

Umm I actually have used it-see my post RE: T-Mobile above.

I just no longer feel the need to pay for a "feature" that costs the TELCOs nothing to implement.

[netling]

Let me explain the importance of MMS, why it's not dead, whom uses it and why the iphone doesn't support it...

MMS unlike SMS can send more characters, we all know that, but it can also send image (photos), audio, text and all of it can be combined for a "multi-media" experience. Effectively, creative people can create a presentation like "application" (VERY loose used) that can be sent very easily from a phone. Remember Hyber-Stack (which was just updated for the first time in over ten years!), where a student, teacher, common person could create a cool presentation that allowed for more then simply 1,2,3... this is MMS. A way that common people can create a presentation of information with knowing any programming. The importance of MMS is that while having all of the aspects (text,audio,video,photos,links) of flash, shockwave, etc it doesn't require any programming... simply click + and select media type, add to the existing page (slide) or to a new page. So easy even a cave man can do it!!!

Why is MMS still around? The amount of international support for it is huge! Thus even mobiles here in the US have started supporting it as a common feature, something almost expected. And being that it is so easy to use, many people like it and it doesn't require a second form of contact details, it only requires the same number you use to call your friends.

Who is using this crap!? Well let see, next time you are at a factory, construction site, or any of the millions upon millions of blue collar workers in the US and the rest of the world, ask them the following questions:

Ask for an email address? A. Yes, I have one... www.aol.com! "No, your email address!" I told you www.aol.com... wait, my wife change it, yeah now I remember. It's www.hotmail.com.

Now, ask if they now how to take a picture from their mobile. A. They look at you as if you are mocking them as a retard... OF COURSE I DO, WHO DOESN'T!

Ask them if they know how to send a (special wording here) "text". A. Read response above, if asked in sequence don't be surprised if they become hostel, they think you are making fun of them.

Ask them if they know how to send a (special wording here) "picture text"! A. 80% will reply. YES, I told you I know how to send text... adding a picture is the same!

You see, sending an email is, well complicated to the millions of non-tech's out there. Many don't have email, don't want email and when they put a number in their phone that it how you contact their friends... So sending an image to their friend is simply sending a "picture text" versus having to get their friends mobile (cell phone) AND email address...

Now with that, there aren't the same amount of people with mobiles that handle email correctly... to be honest, there aren't that many mobiles on the market that handle email correctly, period. MMS, an international standard is on more mobiles then email, facts are the facts. An example: I can be at a concert with friends, go backstage take a couple of photo's MMS it to all of them and they will get it right then, not when they get home back on email, assuming I have their updated email address. MMS is for the people that want to simply stay in touch with an know single point of contact, their mobile number.

Now that is not to that everyone doesn't have email... that is a larger standard, we all know that, but there are many whom would prefer MMS over email because their mobile is what they have on them at all times, it's there, it's simply, and it works.

Why doesn't the iPhone have MMS!? That is truly the mystery here... ATT doesn't want people to have easy access to sending photo, music, etc as it can not control what is sent. Apple knows email and SMS is an easy standard to program for. It is a known FACT that you CAN get MMS on a jail broken iPhone with SwirlyMMS (www.swirlyspace.com) and it is a known FACT that ATT has made it really hard on ATT users to configure their iPhone... where as, tmobile and others have made using SwirlyMMS a breeze, thus putting more of the blame on ATT then Apple. Now why wouldn't Apple want MMS on their iphone? Personally, it called Techno Bubble... they didn't realize the importance of MMS in the market place. They may have thought that MMS is like WAP, but it isn't.. Will we see MMS for the iphone? Hopefully but until them SwirlyMMS is the best and only solution.

Looking forward to all of the replies...

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by w00master

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Nearly every AT&T Wireless phone has MMS and has a plan that accounts for MMS. Why wouldn't AT&T want MMS on the iPhone? This makes ZERO sense. Honestly, look at the evidence here. The REAL hold-up is APPLE not AT&T.

I hate AT&T just like the next guy, but seriously place blame where blame is deserved.


It's Apple. MMS is a revenue stream for AT&T, and nearly EVERY phone on AT&T's lineup has MMS.


This isn't a joke, it's the truth. Go ahead, check out AT&T's phone lineup. Nearly ALL of them have MMS.

So as I stated in my last post... If this 3rd party developer and mobile provider in Sweden can offer up MMS without needing Apple's assistance (only blessing), why hasn't AT&T in the US?

Another point... Isn't phone tethering another lucrative option? Why doesn't AT&T offer that? Is Apple standing in the way of that as well? It's AT&Ts end user agreement that forbids tethering.

So the argument of revenue stream doesn't hold up, because AT&T could stand to make a lot more money off of iPhone tethering plans.

[BlackSummerNight]

I'm not sure who it is, Apple or ATT. MMS is not a huge revenue market for ATT. With pretty much all TXT packages with other phones, MMS is included. So if you have the 100 txt plan, MMS would be included already.

[BlackSummerNight]

Now the tethering plans is where they really rape people.

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

So as I stated in my last post... If this 3rd party developer and mobile provider in Sweden can offer up MMS without needing Apple's assistance (only blessing), why hasn't AT&T in the US?

Another point... Isn't phone tethering another lucrative option? Why doesn't AT&T offer that? Is Apple standing in the way of that as well? It's AT&Ts end user agreement that forbids tethering.

So the argument of revenue stream doesn't hold up, because AT&T could stand to make a lot more money off of iPhone tethering plans.

[wealthychef]

Originally Posted by Enigmafan420

I am sort of in awe out of what a big deal is being made over this.
(snip)
I have never understood the fascination with "texting" on a phone. A phone call is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, unless the message is "bring milk home".

You are apparently assuming that people communicate in order to be efficient, quite a limiting world view. :-) Texting is more private and so feels more intimate than a phone call. You can text silently from a classroom or other situation where a phone call would be inappropriate. And you can hold a silent, real-time conversation, which you can't do with email. Does that help broaden your horizons a little? :-)

[cameronj]

Originally Posted by paxman

I'd say you don't get it because you've never used it. Sure, you can send emails but MMS and SMS started way before cells could pick up email. And even today most people have email and a cell but the two are not linked. Email on a phone entails email addresses, synching with Macs/PC etc. MOST people get a headache even thinking about that. So SMS is like email for mobiles, or more like a mix between email and chat. MMS is that, but with MM. And all you need is what you already have on your cell, phone numbers. And I'd argue that a phone call is not more efficient. Sometimes it is but often not. I often fire off an email just because I DON'T want to say hello, don't want to hear objections, don't need a discussion, don't want to lower the volume of my music, or plain just don't want to move my jaw. So, in order to evaluate SMS or MMS you first have to 'get it', get it?

How about booty texting? Much more efficient than booty calling, especially if you're working on a list of a couple options and don't want to commit until you see who is in

[Enigmafan420]

Originally Posted by wealthychef

You are apparently assuming that people communicate in order to be efficient, quite a limiting world view. :-) Texting is more private and so feels more intimate than a phone call. You can text silently from a classroom or other situation where a phone call would be inappropriate. And you can hold a silent, real-time conversation, which you can't do with email. Does that help broaden your horizons a little? :-)

Nope-you are never going to convince me-I am a College Grad-there is a reason phone calls (and text messages) are not appropriate in class-NOTHING is that important.

I am not sure I would use it much even if it was FREE-to me it is no less rude when someone in a restaurant or movie theatre is typing away on their cell phones than it is to carry on a full blown conversation.

[paxman]

Originally Posted by Enigmafan420

Umm I actually have used it-see my post RE: T-Mobile above.

I just no longer feel the need to pay for a "feature" that costs the TELCOs nothing to implement.

Sure, I agree. Hard to avoid though. I pay for the privilege of having voicemail - included in an option package. But I can only receive 3 messages. To be able to hold more I need to upgrade my extras package. When I asked what exactly they needed 10 extra dollars for, the sales guy gave me a load of vapor and finally came up with 'storage'. I told him I get several gb's from google for zero so why should I pay $10 per month to store max 10 paltry voice messages. He shrugged (what else could he do?) and I didn't pay. Two years and many frustrations with 'your mailbox is full', later - I am still pissed. My plan is up in Jan so guess what will be under the tree for me? Yup, a lovely new phone, a new plan and a whole new bunch of services that'll make me go to sleep at night grinding my teeth.