Apple says it takes 3 years to get a new cell tower in San Francisco - Page 4

Just another example of people bashing Apple when they don't have any idea what the facts are.

Reports are that Verizon had the chance to have the iPhone first, but declined. Apple was forced to give AT&T a 5 year exclusive to get them to carry the iPhone. They can't simply break the contract, and they had to work with an existing provider (since it obviously wouldn't have made any sense to create their own network).

Now, if you have evidence that they had options that were more favorable and chose to go witH AT&T, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, please stop whining about things where you don't have the facts.

As for tethering an iPad to an iPhone, do you have any evidence that ANY carrier was going to allow that? Or that AT&T isn't providing the best deal available?

I don't have the facts either, but Apple is an extremely successful company. If someone had offered them a better deal, they would have taken it. Why is it that everyone thinks they know better than Apple how to run their business?

In such a notoriously heathen city, it is likely almost as difficult to find church steeples as a reliable AT&T signal.

This ought to teach those limousine-liberal, central-committee NIMBY-ites a lesson about the unintended consequences of their over-zoning ever little aspect of life, as though they were God. The necessary chaos that created our most wonderful cities, the very cites they most favor, such as San Francisco, Paris and Venice, would never have been possible given the central planning, regulate everything-possible approach they favor to life.

It is sweet karma that their own petards are depriving them of their precious iphone signals.

I swear I saw some very weird looking Pineapple trees near the highways and byways of Tempe, AZ the last time I was there. Now I think I know why?

Perhaps if they made them look like a giant penis? Oh wait, they already have one of those in Sacramento!

I think are lot of people should look at this and put into perspective just how much opposition there was in the SF Bay Area the 1960's to getting the BART system built?

Now imagine the Bay Area today without it....

Uh, no. But you wouldn't want to live under high tension lines, usually found on the larger towers (100KV and above I believe), for many years unless, of course, you are a fan of cancer and other health related issues.

Belushi and Aykroyd made an offbeat movie called "Neighbors" that poked fun at the problem.

Do YOU know (aside from your trolling, which is *all* you seem to know) how many years it takes?

Tell us. We'd love to see your figures - the one's YOU have and Apple apparently couldn't get their hands on.

To be correct, the opposition stemmed from Santa Clara who didn't want to subsidize their neighboring counties to allow a complete loop.

We all get screwed due to that fiasco. The CALTrain between SF and Sunnyvale sucked hard. It beat the commute, but thanks to their myopic vision the cost of finishing the BART today is completely cost prohibitive.

When I lived in SF the expansion to SFO was starting. At $1 Billion/mile it was clear it would never be addressed again, without a completely different solution being implemented. Too much damn concrete.

For clarification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless

Going back even further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T

It came full circle. AT&T->SBC->AT&T.

End of July is the ETA for the iPhone to arrive at Rogers here in Canada. Can't wait.

I suspect the antenna will be just fine, as it is for most iPhone 4 users.

It hasn't been that long that providers have been "national" in the true sense of the word. They originally staked out separate territories, moving into each others has been a slower process. Wasn't Montana and the NW was a Verizon territory from day one?

Actually the original poster had a valid point here. After all, you can pay $20 extra and tether your laptop via your iPhone. Why not the iPad? It would be easy enough to do via bluetooth.

Even though the iPad and the iPhone are similar devices, there are some things where the iPad is much better, because of the larger screen.

Hopefully that will change at some point, although that seems to be an Apple imposed limitation otherwise who would buy the 3G version?

Since "banana hammock" is a slang term for Speedo, and since more straight guys wear Speedos than gay guys, your remark seems to have missed the target by a little.

What makes you think that's an Apple imposed limitation? AT&T sets the cell phone plans, not Apple. Why would Apple want to limit that? In fact, they'd probably sell more iPad 3G systems WITHOUT the limitation so it doesn't make any sense for Apple to be behind it.

Do you have EVIDENCE that Apple is behind it?

No I do not have any evidence - merely conjecture. Companies do that sort of thing all the time - not to mess us up, but so as to differentiate their products. Were I an Apple marketing person, I might have made the same decision.

As an Apple customer with 2 (wifi) iPads in our household, I wish it weren't so.

Actually I'm not sure I understand your point. I am merely saying that if you were able to tether the WiFi to iPhone, there would be no need for an iPhone/iPad owner to get a 3G iPad. The Wifi version would do.

It is astounding that the Bay Area has a reputation for its highly educated population given that the lotus eaters in San Francisco are constantly making statements like this. (...and others above and below.) San Francisco is not an especially "dense" city. It is only especially dense by America's standards and America is the one of the most sparsely populated industrialized countries in the world. Australia, Canada and Russia are the only the only major countries that have a lower population density than the United States. San Francisco's density roughly compares to Istanbul's or Hong Kong's, but is around half of New York's, Jakarta's or Tokyo's, approximately a third of Seoul's or Mumbai's, and less than a fifth of Dehli's or Cairo's. As for the "Last Best Place" (and similar) comments, that is merely the sign of provincialism. I wish neuvo San Franciscans knew how ignorant and arrogant it makes them sound. Certainly San Francisco is a beautiful place, but their attempts to preserve it in stasis, as a city in amber, to make it a Disneyland for progressives, has made the city stale and unexciting, while quintupling the cost of living there. Ironically, in the process, these so-called liberals have driven out every single old blue-collar San Francisco family (and job) from the city as they drove up the cost of living with their growth and rent and other regulatory controls. Now tower controls are making living here even more inconvenient. Most of these people are the same people who screwed up New York by trying to "save" it, and who then fled New York when their meddling backfired. They've been flowing into San Francisco to "save" us since the 70's, and they've pretty much screwed up San Francisco in the same way. We can only hope they will soon flee here for their next "last best place." Good riddance when they go. Hopefully we can restore The City to a functional city, where families can afford to live and work, and where people, jobs, and affordable homes take priority over politics, views and lattes. Cities are dynamic, chaotic places by nature, they have to be that way in order to function best, to serve the needs of the people who live there. These central planning types, who should have learned their lesson in 1989, are denser then Dehli. They just don't get it.

---

BTW, the top five most dense communities in California are all in the Los Angeles area. Look it up. Likewise, the most dense communities in the New York City are actually in New Jersey. Strange how what every one knows to be true just ain't so.

Why the tangent? I didn't find anything in the post you quoted to that referenced city population density.


I'm pretty sure that's a marketing slogan. Is that really such a big deal?