or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone data use measured, carriers want Apple to pay for network upgrades
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone data use measured, carriers want Apple to pay for network upgrades - Page 3

post #81 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

Google should pay because the Android OS allows tethering easily. The cell phone carriers can not disable it.

no. you should pay for your bandwidth usage.
ford doesn't pay oil company because of how much gas you use do they? you pay.
post #82 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewhaji View Post

This is ridiculous. Wireless providers are getting FAR too greedy.

The way I look at it, they have always been greedy. In the early 2000's I think they even colluded with handset manufacturers to discourage competition and discourage advancements on their devices and networks. They were happy with the way things were and didn't want you to actually.. you know.. USE the network they set up because then people would being to realize what a sorry state their networks actually are in.

I hope some day people get fed up with call quality issues. I began using skype occasionally here at home and I can't believe the quality. It's truly remarkable, and for the bandwidth it makes you question just how horrible the phone companies really are.
post #83 of 136
From the article: Google Inc., Apple Inc., and Facebook Inc. need to pitch in to help pay for the billions of dollars of network investments needed for their bandwidth-hogging services, European phone operators say.

I'm nor really sure about where this ruthless huffing about carriers and phone subsidy models is all about when it's clear the article is about getting content providers, not device manufacturers, to chip in.

Both roads lead to apple, sure, but you're all arguing the wrong thing
post #84 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ny3ranger View Post

Thats kind of like thanking the rapist for using a condom. Unfortunately they have so much lobbying power that they will keep making laws that benefit them.

That's total BS. Silicon Valley companies are many times the size of carriers. Google and Apple has become the favorite targets for FTC investigators. And Apple has become the enemy of net neutrality --- from the law professor who coined the term.
post #85 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.

If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!



umm... no

Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.

Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.

No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)
Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200
This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.

Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:

200MB Plan: $360@$15/month for data

2GB Plan: $600@$25/month

This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.

It's no secret that carriers make nary a pittance on the handsets. This has always been true. That's why they give out all those BOGO deals and rebates. Carriers make money off of plans.
post #86 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstmars View Post

Is it possible for Apple to look into partnering with Harbinger and Clearwire to create a mobile network of their own .

Sure. But why would they want to? The Jobserino wants to change the world, not serve up data bits.
post #87 of 136

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:08pm
post #88 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."

So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.

Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.

That's the impression of a single Danish research outfit, at least. Not really clear what they're basing it on.

However, just common-sense wise, it appears to be predicated on the kind of hard-to-swallow notion that the world's major telcom operators are incapable of making rational decisions regarding profit and loss and are eagerly taking on a money losing extortion scheme, because.....

Hard to say. The Reality Distortion Field is more powerful than we imagined? Telcoms are hipsters and posers? Honestly, the idea reads like the usual dismissal of Apple's success with consumers (they just buy what they're told, they overpay because they're blinded by style, all the cool kids are doing it) writ large.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #89 of 136
Hold the phone....

Im no celluar engineer, so I probably needs some ed-u-ma-cation...

in the end, doesn't the cell tower tie into the internet backbone? Or does ATT and Verizon etc have seperate 'cell/data' lines criss-crossing the US?

I thought the whole purpose of going digital was to utilize this internet backbone?
The data limit issues is with the cell tower and how it handles it? So its not that someone uses 90G per month per si, its that they are tying up the cell tower and its tie in to the internet backbone down the road. This is the 'complaint', correct?

Anywhoo... its a BS complaint. Users pay for the data (cell tower allocation/time) used.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #90 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."

So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.

Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.

Actually, no, you still are wrong. The carrier decides the subsidy it wants on the phone. Only the accounting changes:

If you buy the phone at the carrier's shop, the phone is sold at a loss (the carrier paid $600, sold it at $200). If it is sold at a franchise shop, the situation is similar. The carrier has an agreement with Apple that if Apple sells a service contract along with the phone, then the carrier will pay the same subsidy to Apple - in all cases recovering the cost and more on the service plan.
post #91 of 136
So if people who drive Honda use our highways more than any other make, the Federal Government should make Honda pay for road repairs?

F'ing idiots.
post #92 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

What are you talking about? The US is 4 years AHEAD of Europe in FTTH deployment.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028

You should get down on your knees and thank god that we are not Europe --- which their regulator just said it's perfectly ok if their carrier to block voip traffic.

And twelve years behind Japan, where I could get 100M/s fiber service to the home in 1998 for US$20 a month. Of course, in Japan I had 128k/s connectivity, unlimited, via my mobile phone in 1997, or simultaneous voice and 64k/s data. And the phone had 8 hours talk time, 30 days standby time, an FM radio, and built in voice mail.

Do not believe anything a US carrier says about the US having the most advanced cellular services - we do not and have not since the early 1990s.
post #93 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

The way I look at it, they have always been greedy. In the early 2000's I think they even colluded with handset manufacturers to discourage competition and discourage advancements on their devices and networks. They were happy with the way things were and didn't want you to actually.. you know.. USE the network they set up because then people would being to realize what a sorry state their networks actually are in.

I hope some day people get fed up with call quality issues. I began using skype occasionally here at home and I can't believe the quality. It's truly remarkable, and for the bandwidth it makes you question just how horrible the phone companies really are.

Actually, you are making the assumption that you are the manufacturers' customer. You are not. Phone manufacturers, until Apple came along, have only one set of customers, the carriers. You do not buy a phone from HTC or Nokia. You buy the phone from Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile. A manufacturer receives from the carrier a list of specifications about the phone they want, or presents a new concept to the carrier, who then proceeds to detail exactly what they want the phone to do. If the manufacturer does not do what the carrier demands, the carrier does not buy the phone. End of story for the manufacturer.
post #94 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by dehildum View Post

And twelve years behind Japan, where I could get 100M/s fiber service to the home in 1998 for US$20 a month. Of course, in Japan I had 128k/s connectivity, unlimited, via my mobile phone in 1997, or simultaneous voice and 64k/s data. And the phone had 8 hours talk time, 30 days standby time, an FM radio, and built in voice mail.

Do not believe anything a US carrier says about the US having the most advanced cellular services - we do not and have not since the early 1990s.

So what? NTT is government owned --- pork barrel projects and bridges to nowhere. A super fast internet that does NOTHING to the Japanese economy --- which just had 2 lost decades.

Somehow when the 3G iphone came out and wired.com did a speed survey --- the US had the third fastest speed in the whole world. Not bad for a country which was described to be years behind Europe and Asia. The US has higher 3G penetration rate than Europe now and has higher SMS usage than Europe.
post #95 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

I could be misinformed on this, but from all I've read about how these things worked, I was sure Apple tells the carriers what the price should be so that the iphone remains competitive.

There is one small grammatical error in your post, the word 'carriers' should use the singular. In the US, where there is no competition at all between carriers regarding the iPhone, Apple tells AT&T what it should charge for the iPhone (otherwise Apple would not be able to include a price in their presentations) and AT&T and Apple haggle behind the scenes what AT&T pays Apple per iPhone.

In most other countries, Apple sells the iPhone to the carriers at a fixed price and then the carriers decide on how much to subsidise the device, which they often do various extents depending on which plan you subscribe to and how much the customer has contributed to carriers bottom line in the past.
post #96 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

There is one small grammatical error in your post, the word 'carriers' should use the singular. In the US, where there is no competition at all between carriers regarding the iPhone, Apple tells AT&T what it should charge for the iPhone (otherwise Apple would not be able to include a price in their presentations) and AT&T and Apple haggle behind the scenes what AT&T pays Apple per iPhone.

In most other countries, Apple sells the iPhone to the carriers at a fixed price and then the carriers decide on how much to subsidise the device, which they often do various extents depending on which plan you subscribe to and how much the customer has contributed to carriers bottom line in the past.

I am pretty sure that Apple would be perfectly happy if AT&T just sells the iphone at zero dollar like many overseas iphone carriers.
post #97 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Your first two sentences was all your comment needed to consist of. The rest is you just trying to be a dick and make this a personal argument.

If all they tell them is that each phone costs $500, then yes, I'm wrong, and a correction is all that's needed.

Well, first off I am the one that decides on the content of my posts.

2. The only insult that it contained was the suggestion that you are an apologist for the carriers because of a personal connection. I couldn't imagine any other reason. This clearly hit a nerve. Do you deny you have a personal connection with a wireless carrier? You are a sales droid in a phone shop perhaps?
post #98 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ny3ranger View Post

I am just wondering would anyone else like to see Apple become a telecom.

Never happen. The capital requirements and infrastructure costs are too high and the margins are too low.

The fact is that it's almost impossible to keep up with bandwidth growth. Right now, Apple can implicitly blame the carriers when service is poor. If Apple owned the telecom, Apple would have to take the blame. Why would they put themselves in that position?

Apple has never been a discount provider. They'd probably raise prices.

Furthermore, such a vertical integration probably wouldn't pass muster with various governmental agencies in the U.S. and the EU. It would be considered too strong a monopoly, even though strictly, it wouldn't be a monopoly.
post #99 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junebug172 View Post

So if people who drive Honda use our highways more than any other make, the Federal Government should make Honda pay for road repairs?

F'ing idiots.

Honda is not equivelent... try a Mack Truck. If the vehicle weights a gizzion tons and smashes the road as it is driven and is slower, takes up space etc etc Should that one user pay more than the typical gas tax?

OR

If someone is on the cell line 24/7 and is streaming data, essentially taking out on lane of the cell tower highway, should he pay a 'higher rate per gigbyte' than a guy that gets on a few times a month?

Electrical companies do similar things with peak usage charges etc

An arguement can be made, not sure its that sound, let the beatings begin.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #100 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

But it is still a thousand times better than the other countries.

Japan and South Korea --- their top wireless carriers own more than 50% of the market share.

You won't see a single industrialized country with a top carrier owning so little market share as Verizon Wireless. The top carriers in the industrialized world are mostly owning high 30's to low 40's in market share percentage. Verizon Wireless owns something like 32%.

Yeah, Right: http://www.telecomsmarketresearch.co...atistics.shtml. Just one example right there. Others available if you can't find any.

An a thousand times better? My, how much complaints we'd see on this forum if it were something like the "other countries" with their bitrates, prices and coverage. Now that would be bad wouldn't it?
post #101 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.

No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)
Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200
This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.

Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:

200MB Plan: $360@$15/month for data

2GB Plan: $600@$25/month

This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.

In Switzerland, the biggest carrier offers three (data) plans, 100 MB/month for $25, 250 MB/month for $35, and 1 GB/month for $55. These plans do not include any minutes or texts, but the call rates per minute and texts are cheaper with the more expensive plans. The handset price varies as well depending on plans and on your customer 'status' (every existing customer is sorted into five different brackets depending on how long you have been with the carrier and how much your average bill was).
post #102 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

Yeah, Right: http://www.telecomsmarketresearch.co...atistics.shtml. Just one example right there. Others available if you can't find any.

An a thousand times better? My, how much complaints we'd see on this forum if it were something like the "other countries" with their bitrates, prices and coverage. Now that would be bad wouldn't it?

T-Mobile UK and Orange merged together in the UK last year.
post #103 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

Let's break down the iPhone revenue/cost structure.

No-contract price of iPhone 4 16GB: $700 (I'm assuming this is correct)
Price that customer pays (with 2-year contract): $200
This means that AT&T gives a $500 subsidy.

Now here is what AT&T charges for just data usage over a 2-year period:

200MB Plan: $360@$15/month for data

2GB Plan: $600@$25/month

This does not include minutes, texting, and possible overages. I bet that AT&T bets that some customers will exceed the usage limit, getting hit with an overage, which equals more money in AT&T's pocket. On a per-customer basis, AT&T makes a healthy profit on iPhone users.

It's no secret that carriers make nary a pittance on the handsets. This has always been true. That's why they give out all those BOGO deals and rebates. Carriers make money off of plans.

More over, how is this any different from any other high end smartphone? They all sell for similar amounts unlocked, so we can make the exact same calculation as to the carrier's recovered costs-- indeed, since so many Android phones are sold as BOGO deals or given away outright, we'd have to assume the carriers take a bigger hit on those.

There's this mysterious notion that Apple is jacking up the carriers via some obscure subsidy demands, but I can't see where that holds any water given iPhone's pretty much par for the course pricing structure.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #104 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

More over, how is this any different from any other high end smartphone? They all sell for similar amounts unlocked, so we can make the exact same calculation as to the carrier's recovered costs-- indeed, since so many Android phones are sold as BOGO deals or given away outright, we'd have to assume the carriers take a bigger hit on those.

There's this mysterious notion that Apple is jacking up the carriers via some obscure subsidy demands, but I can't see where that holds any water given iPhone's pretty much par for the course pricing structure.

Verizon has done a zillion BOGO deals on Blackberries and on Android phones, not a single SEC profit margin warning --- their wireless margin actually went up in recent quarters.
post #105 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

So what? NTT is government owned --- pork barrel projects and bridges to nowhere. A super fast internet that does NOTHING to the Japanese economy --- which just had 2 lost decades.

And the 2 lost decades would be because of the fast internet then? Or could it have been worse without it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Somehow when the 3G iphone came out and wired.com did a speed survey --- the US had the third fastest speed in the whole world. Not bad for a country which was described to be years behind Europe and Asia. The US has higher 3G penetration rate than Europe now and has higher SMS usage than Europe.

So you picked out the only survey that said so? Ever think of why it said so when other studies say otherwise? The wired survey was conducted at a time, when other countries had hardly any iPhones in use (with maybe the UK as an exception) and then by only using iPhones. Then of those countries, how many used the Wired app to test their speeds? How many even read Wired? I looked at the raw data in that test then and most non-US countries (with maybe the UK as an exception) had a few data points, not thousands or even hundreds. Hardly a test that provides comparable results globally.
post #106 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

What are you talking about? The US is 4 years AHEAD of Europe in FTTH deployment.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172028

You should get down on your knees and thank god that we are not Europe --- which their regulator just said it's perfectly ok if their carrier to block voip traffic.

What are you talking about? Europe is way ahead in telecommunication infrastructures...BTW in Europe you don't get charged if someone call you like they do here and you can buy any device and use it on any carriers.

"Apple people have no objectivity when it comes to criticism of Apple.." Lenovo X1 Carbon is out..bye bye MBAir

Reply

"Apple people have no objectivity when it comes to criticism of Apple.." Lenovo X1 Carbon is out..bye bye MBAir

Reply
post #107 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

More and more it looks like Apple is amassing its multi-billionn dollar cash hoard just in case it has to buy one of the wireless carriers. I'm betting it's AT&T.

Would Apple sell a better selection of Android phones if they ran ATT? They only sell junk like the Backflip now.

And doesn't ATT sell the Galaxy Tab? Would Apple promote it?
post #108 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

I looked into it, and found why I was under the impression I was under:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...elecoms-iphone
"iPhone hype hides the heavy subsidies that operators have to pay to Apple, coupled with the company's replacement cycle and the revenue share it demands in some markets. This means it is not the money-spinner many assume."

So Apple demands heavy subsidies be paid by the carriers, along with a share in the revenue.

Looks like I wasn't entirely wrong, and the only insult that should be made right now should be directed at you.

A lot can change in eighteen months, especially allegations that are based on rumours.

It's quite simple really, it's called business.

Your network costs X to run and you have Y customers then X/Y = the average amount you need to charge each customer in order to break even.

It's up to networks to manage their customers so they can cover their costs, it shouldn't be left to some pie in the sky idealists to offer things that can't be delivered.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #109 of 136
well thankfully I have an unlimited iPhone data plan that I grandfathered from my old contract. I have transferred as little as a few hundred megabytes and as much as 80 gigabytes in a month. it is time for ISPs and data providers to stop lying by advertising services as unlimited. it is an outright lie used to coax customers in on a good deal. damned the fine print. the pitch is unlimited and so it should be! Comcast should have a class action lawsuit from every person that gets such service and receives a phone all from the security department threatening to cut their service for 6 months. this advertising practice should be illegal. AT&T got smart about offering unlimited. but this is a problem I see time and time again. eff these people. and apple pushing consumers to use more with their itune rentals and insisting consumers not get bluray. seems ISP providers aren't gonna let this future become reality by limiting us to just a rationed amount of data. personally I'll take bluray any day over crappy iTunes rentals. apple or the data/ISP providers need to work on a plan to see eye to eye.
post #110 of 136
I have zero sympathy for carriers and their networks.

Phones have been headed in this direction for a long time. The fact that iPhone users are using more data has nothing to do with apple, and everything to do with what people really want to be doing on their phones, but couldn't up to this point because the average phone has sucked. I know that after I got my iphone I was like "finally! somebody got it right." The only bottleneck has been networks, who seem to think it's 1988 instead of 2010. Hello? I want to do more on my phone then just call people!
post #111 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

If someone is on the cell line 24/7 and is streaming data, essentially taking out on lane of the cell tower highway, should he pay a 'higher rate per gigbyte' than a guy that gets on a few times a month?

NO. I do not pay a higher rate if I download more then the average guy using my regular computer internet access, therefore I should not pay a higher rate on a phone. The fact that it's a phone and not a computer is irrelevant. Internet is internet.

Sorry network companies. I do not care that your network sucks and can't do what I want it to do. I am going to be annoyed until I can download whatever the hell I want for one rate. If that rate needs to be higher, ok.

But I don't want to have to worry about what I download or how much I download. That's like having to check a price list every time I call someone, because it costs more to call a guy 5 states away then 1 state away. Stupid and annoying.
post #112 of 136
Oh what a surprise.

The carriers didn't know data was coming to the Internet. They didn't know about video. The were caught short of capacity and it's a complete surprise to them.

How funny!

Meanwhile Comcast, AT&T, and the others try to rent movies to us on their own networks. How incredibly hypocritical they are.

Give them a big fat ZERO for credibility.
post #113 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

I think you are wrong

Think what you will but he is not wrong.
Quote:
When an Android OS based smartphone is being used as an internet gateway for other devices, the cell phone carrier can not know it.

That is not what he wrote.
Android OS is written by google then given to the carriers for them to adapt for their own networks and devices.
The carriers could disable tethering before the OS is released to their users.
post #114 of 136
Build a super fast and reliable network and charge a la carte for usage. Say 10 cents per megabyte of data or equivalent for voice and let the users decide how and what they use it for.
Watch the users flock to your network.
Takes care of the 10% using 90% bandwidth problem nicely too.
post #115 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Think what you will but he is not wrong.

That is not what he wrote.
Android OS is written by google then given to the carriers for them to adapt for their own networks and devices.
The carriers could disable tethering before the OS is released to their users.

No, Google gave the Android OS to cell phone makers like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC. The carriers bought the phones from them. The Android OS is already preloaded. The Android OS fans are so excited about the openness because Goolgle puts no control on the Android OS. The tethering must be one of it.
post #116 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

We all know how much of a bully Apple can be when it comes to this stuff. It's their way, or the highway.

If the subsidized cost simply isn't covering the bandwidth, then Apple needs to allow carriers to sell the phone at a price that makes sense for their business!



umm... no

Your analogy would make sense if Ford told BP what the cost of gas should be, and it wasn't enough to pay for the cost of getting that gas to the people.

chronster is a troll constantly posting his moronic BS to this site...
post #117 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

No, Google gave the Android OS to cell phone makers like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC.

who in turn add their own code for specific carriers and devices. Then the code is pushed out to users.
Quote:
The Android OS fans are so excited about the openness because Goolgle puts no control on the Android OS.

it's open and the carriers and manufacturers are free to add/remove any features they want, including tethering.
post #118 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohlecow View Post

Aren't telecom's already charging customers for some form of capped usage (minutes, bytes, messages, etc.)? How do they justify wanting to be paid twice for the same service?

If their networks can't handle the service, they probably shouldn't be selling it.

Telcos are some of the greediest bast*rds in the corporate world. Now that data and the Internet and Cloud services are so important, they know they have the upper hand.
post #119 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

who in turn add their own code for specific carriers and devices. Then the code is pushed out to users.

it's open and the carriers and manufacturers are free to add/remove any features they want, including tethering.

You are avoiding the openness issue. Google Android OS makes everything available including tethering. If any cell phone maker or carrier disable the tethering then they are making their Android phone not open. Then they can not claim their phone is running Android. This is definitely a no no for marketing.
post #120 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

chronster is a troll constantly posting his moronic BS to this site...

I like chronster. I dont often agree with him and his quoting of the guardian pretty silly, but I dont think hes here to troll, like other posters.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • iPhone data use measured, carriers want Apple to pay for network upgrades
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone data use measured, carriers want Apple to pay for network upgrades