Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL
Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL
I hadn't thought about that since I heard it wouldn't be happening.
Thanks for that. The nightmares will probably start again… Horrific dystopian future with only two telecoms "competing"…
So you have no proof of telecom involvement, then. So why bring it up? It seems more like a problem between Apple and Google than anything else.
If Google Voice had been blocked from use on Android devices or Windows Phone 7 devices, you'd have a talking point. As it stands, there's no evidence that says the telecoms had anything to do with that, and there's not much evidence of anything else happening, either.
If I remember correctly (*snort*), Google Voice's approval in the App Store was simply taking an inordinate amount of time. One could say it was someone at Apple lashing out against Google for their theft and betrayal, but if there's no evidence of that, you can't say it and expect it to be taken seriously. Wasn't it also rejected (for improper API use) the first time they submitted? If so, you have to have other considerations than 'petty bickering'.
I have no proof of telecom involvement, but I do have proof that the FTC does regulate and have influence over the types of circumstances I was mentioning, otherwise how would you explain their writing to AT&T and AT&T responding? If the FTC's jurisdiction didn't apply in these type of cases, they would have told Google that AT&T has nothing to do with these complaints and the FTC would not have bothered writing AT&T and investigating the complaint of anticompetitive behavior. In other words, the FTC would not have investigated the issues beyond the complaints filed against Apple.
Now you are correct, regarding that specific case that all the other considerations and alternative possible explanations make as much, if not more, sense as does the possibility that Apple was being anti-competitive. But my point wasn't to demonstrate Apple misbehaved. My point wasn't to show that poor Google got a tough deal. My point was that the FTC does play a role in these types of situations, and that is all I needed to make my point that, contrary to what you suggested, the telecoms cannot do whatever they please.
No it doesnt. Google voice calls use cellular minutes.
Not once does this fscking a**hole EVER talk about:
"How can we benefit our customers?"
"How can we improve the lives of our customers?"
"How can we make things better & easier & faster for our customers?"
No, the only thing this jerk every talks about is:
"How can we make more profits and screw over our customers, every step of the way?"
I would absolutely love to beat the sh** out of this guy.
He only mentioned GV.
I've had my iPhone 4 for about over a year. I've never reset my usage statistics, so in all the time that I've owned it, I've Received 3.6 GB of data and Sent 673 MB. I'm under the $30/month "unlimited" grandfathered plan.
So really, I'm getting completely screwed on the deal. However the problem is that my only other option is to drop to the ludicrous 200MB/$15 plan which would burn even a normally low usage person like myself (as an aside, I'm really amazed at how some people can use so much mobile data. I feel like I'm using my data all the time, I constantly browse the web, read email, download apps, whatever. It must be insane amounts of HD video streaming or something)
So like if I compare the two plans currently available for new users, it's the $15 for 200 MB or $25 for 2 GB, so 1/10th the usage only costs 40% less. The only world that makes sense in is the one that says "we don't really expect anyone to buy the lower priced plan, we just offer it to pay lip service"
The other complaint I have about this is tethering. Again if folks are on an actually unlimited plan, I can see how it makes sense to charge extra for tethering, because they're going to use more data. But if a user is on a capped plan already, then tethering should be free. If I get to use 2 GB/month for my $25, then it shouldn't matter how I choose to use it. In a similar vein, if I have an iPhone and an iPad and I'm paying for a capped plan, I should be able to share the plan between the two devices.
In my dream world, the way the plans would work is that I'd pay some kind of basic access fee like $25 for 2 GB, then there would be a reasonable overage fee (like $10.00/1 GB for example) and then I'd be able to use that capacity in whatever way I like, pair as many devices as I want, use tethering, whatever. That way us normally low usage people who have exceptional months sometimes would be accommodated and that the high usage people would pay their fair share.
Of course before we get that there will be world peace, free universal health care, free college education for anyone that wants it, low taxes, an average life span of 250 years, Star Trek style replicators & transporters and flying cars.
Charging extra for SMS/MMS is BS. It is ALL DATA, so why pay for it? I do not use it, and you can use Google Voice as a free alternative to SMS charges too for non Apple people.
AT&T is also screwing the end users by not offering ANY tethering option on iPads, not to mention trying to charge extra for iPhone customers who have unlimited data -- yes, tethering should be part of unlimited! Tired of the word/marketing games companies play.
AT&T is NOT known for their infrastructure, just compare the lack of FFTH vs. Verizon FIOS -- AT&T is dragging their feet as long as possible to milk profits, where as Verizon is a technology leader. Granted, it's not cellular, but just shows the thinking of the AT&T dinosaur...
Apple can't do any of that stuff on the cell nets if the carriers don't allow them. and given that they are dropping a load cause folks might stop using SMS which is basically pure profit for them, you can bet ATT will say no to anything that cuts off the need for big voice plans etc.
what I don't get is why they don't just use their powers to cut off those unlimited plans. Sure it means that folks might jump ship over it but really how many will. especially if you do it at the point of next upgrade and not in mid stream where they can cry foul and leave and ATT can't charge them an ETF since they changed the rules of the game
if it's going over their service they sure as heck can. US laws allow them that right.
so then Apple would have to restrict the service to wifi only.
Yet AT&T has had record growth because of the iPhone ever since it debuted. AT&T acts like this is a crime that they cant monopolize on messaging? Screw AT&T they charged me three times on one month for data when I tried to go back the the data plan that worked for me they said it was no longer available for me as it was on my old contract. Screw them. I dropped them like a hot rock. I jailbroke, unlocked my iPhone and used another network. AT&T will suffer not right away but eventually they will.
Can any one remember Qwest? People started using Vonage and Magic Jack with Qwest DSL and Qwest started losing their shirt. You either adapt and innovate to become better and retain customers or you sink with the rest and get bought out. My thought is AT&T thinks it's better to complain instead of innovating and making things work for you. Don't blame your customers for your stupidity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, it's going to get far, FAR worse before it gets better. Companies that offer phone, TV, and Internet are going to see people drop their phone and TV for the latter. Which will cause them to look at where they're going. Turns out, customers aren't actually going; they're just consolidating. VoIP and streaming video will slowly supplant traditional services.
And will these companies adapt? NO. They'll not only cap the bandwidth and LOWER the speeds of their Internet services, they'll jack the prices up even further.
If you'd asked me ten years ago how fast Internet would be today at the price I was paying then, I'd've said at least ten times faster. I was obviously wrong, and I'd be considered a foolish, naïve optimist now with that sort of belief that change will actually happen.
EVERY aspect of technology, EVERY facet of this entire industry is moving forward at an incredible pace.
Except transmission speed. We pay thirty dollars a month for three gigabytes wireless. We pay $40 a month for 1 megabyte per second wired. Because we're complacent idiots that choose to pay it and they're complacent idiots that refuse to build out/speed up their services.
Fiber needs to be the next Interstate Highway project. Build fiber factories here. End unemployment, employ people, train them, they go out and they lay the fiber that will make the US a first-world Internet nation again.
And THEN we can actually start the next wave of innovation in technology. THEN, when there is NO excuse for not having unlimited bandwidth and incredible speeds, we'll start to see the new revolution: connected devices.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I'm a shill for whom? I don't like the telecoms, so it can't be them, I've not linked to or even mentioned the name of a VoIP or Internet video company. Perhaps I'm a shill for a government party? Which one doesn't want people to have jobs, and I guess I'm not a shill for that one. Maybe I'm just a shill for an optimistic future. I can assure you, however, that when it comes to the future of tech, I'm quite pessimistic.
Why does AT&T (or any wireless carrier) charge for texts if they're already charging for data? Texts are data. And wireless carriers are scumbags. I don't mind paying for services, but I do mind being ripped off. I should have never given up my $5 for limited texts plan. Google Voice is the way to go.
I wish I could by an iPhone for full price and get nothing but a data plan. No phone plan at all.
What the hell are you talking about? What's Apples customer satisfaction rate compared to AT&T's? This guy clearly has no vision & he's whining. Of course there is competition. There will always be competition. Technology will move forward & change is constant. Tell us what you're going to do about it. Did you hear one thing in that bitch boy speech that instills confidence in his leadership skills? The company is run by bean counters. They invested in Steve Jobs? What the hell is he talking about? This article has nothing to do with Apple.
AT&T shouldn't complain that the market gets fed up with the greedy texting charges for BOTH the receiver and the sender (not so in most countries). It is a revenue they shouldn't have had in the first place (although I can appreciate the convenience of being able to send text messages: still cheap compared to longer phone calls, and the receiving party can read the message and respond to it at his/her own leisure).
To remain somewhat competitive with IP messaging, I suggest that AT&T abolishes the SMS charge at the receiving end and lowers the rate at the sending end.
Mr. Stephenson shouldn't be lamenting the past and in fact should be looking into the future. Blaming a device for a market shift is akin to throwing one's toys on the ground. Yes, Apple was the first to bring that market shift and it did so in rapid terms but shame on you Mr. Stephenson for not recognizing it and coming to grips with the future of a wireless carrier. Gather your toys, sit down with your CTO and understand what that future looks like and figure out what it will take to move towards that future business model. Don't be like your legacy parent and cling to the old business model because all you're doing is leaving the door open for another carrier who 'gets it' to come in and steal your customers.
"Every additional megabyte you use in this network, I have to invest capital."
I read this and thought, "Wait, aren't megabytes what you are selling?"
The reason people do not like this guy is because customers think they are buying megabytes and Stephenson thinks he is selling contracts for cell phone service. So when the customer encounters an inadequate ATT network infrastructure, they get angry because they aren't getting the megabytes they paid for. But ATT thinks its business selling contracts and is trying to maximize profit by keeping infrastructure investment as low as possible. Stephenson does not see the poor quality of service as the huge issue customers do.
In the long run, companies which do not correctly perceive what business they are in will fail.
The difference is that Apple is making products that people are free to choose and willing to pay a premium for while cellular carriers are providing a service that people are forced to pay for in order to use those devices and those service providers believe that if they are not making a similar premium then they are losing money.
Imagine buying a premium automobile and paying extra because you want the additional features/reliability/ease of use/etc only to discover that when you go to the gas station you get charged more per gallon than the economy car next to you - or the toll road owners complaining that they are unable to charge you more each time you use the toll road just because you use it more often than some other car. Or the toll road offering an unlimited pass and then complaining that usage of the roadway has increased to a point where they need to repair the roadway more often.
Or perhaps this is in part a problem of consumers' perception - since I am choosing to buy a premium product (the iPhone) I accept having to pay a premium - but since I don't consider the cellular service a premium service (esp when there was no option) then I don;t think I should have to pay a premium for that service.
Cool I didn't know you could do that. Great to know regarding the backgrounding to enable audio only in FaceTime.
Both of you fail to appreciate that in order for telecoms to exist, they have to make use of the public airwaves. That spectrum is allotted to them under certain specific conditions. So no they cannot do anything they want even if they are a private company. They are regulated by the FTC and FCC.
Well, the FTC is governed by the Sherman Act, the FTC Act, and the Clayton Act. The FCC is primarily governed by the Communications Act.
Imagine for a second that Apple, Nokia, and Google's various Android phones all enabled tethering from their side by default on the handsets. Do you really think the telecoms can ban all these handsets from their network? No they couldn't. All they could do is stipulate in the contract that you are not allowed to make use of those features. If the user violates that contract they might get into trouble with their telecom, but the telecom can't say squat to the handset makers themselves. Of course, the reason why the feature isn't built in to the handset is because if it was the telecoms know full well that they wouldn't have a chance of enforcing that clause of their contract in a court. So rather than have to deal with that mess, they negotiate with the handset makers to have them keep certain features out.
To use an example similar to what you were using to another poster. Imagine that Shell, a private company, decided it didn't want to sell its fuel to new Japanese cars, as of 2012. Do you think it could do so? Every time an American car rolls up, it says no problem! Anytime an older Japanese car or German car pulls up, no problem. It sells the fuel. But when the 2012 Toyotas show up, it says, sorry, we are a private company and we do not sell our fuel to that model of car. Not going to happen. Imagine if the fuel company said, "sorry we don't sell fuel to hybrid cars because it messes with our revenue stream". Do you think that would fly?
I, and I'm sure a lot of other people, would not have switched to AT&T without the iPhone. Also, consumers might not be buying smart phones nearly to the degree they do now. Smart phones were not getting traction with the public except for business users, and those were often messaging phones, such as Blackberry. Even Android phones were going to copy the Blackberry devices until the iPhone was released.
The cost of service to use a device, over its lifetime, is several times more expensive than the device. And the quality of said service is very low. At least Apple's quality is usually pretty high.
Also, Apple generally disallows apps that bypass a carrier's limits. A few slip through, but I think that's a mistake rather than policy. The same pattern generally happens with apps that slip through that subvert Apple's designs.
SMS/MMS as many people brought up is highway robbery, it's just data at the end of it. When I move back to the US I will NOT have a texting plan for $20. With all the app's, What'sApp, KakaoTalk, and TextPlus who needs a texting plan? I wonder if you can block texting all together? And ya .20cents to receive and send?! MOST countries receiving is free as it should be. Someone texted my father by mistake who does not have a texting plan, back and forth cost him $1. Granted it's only a $1 it's the principle of it.
I wish AT&T would offer more Wifi places. Here in Korea the carrier I'm with Olleh has it in most public places, buses and the subway. This will be my first month with my iPhone here since it's been unlocked by AT&T (yippie) I'm interested to see how much data I will use since wifi from my carrier is readily available practically everywhere.
Please clarify. I see nothing in the post you replied to that justifies that kind of an insult.
Also, calling (or implying) another poster dumb is often infraction worthy, and it is not an appropriate reply. I don't agree that Tallest's post is report worthy.