or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Why are people so angry about the update?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are people so angry about the update? - Page 2

post #41 of 99
Ever hear of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? The bitchers and whiners, while they represent a minority, are a very vocal minority... prolly due to their Type-A, early-adopter personalities.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #42 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Ever hear of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? The bitchers and whiners, while they represent a minority, are a very vocal minority... prolly due to their Type-A, early-adopter personalities.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease if the guy that has the grease hears it.

Who here has grease?
post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Since you based your argument on the fact you consider the consumer helpless

I never said "helpless". Only having weak control and a very blunt instrument for effecting changes, yes, but not "helpless". Half-reading what I wrote includes overlaying what I wrote with your own convenient oversimplifications.

Quote:
That effectively discounted the entirety of your argument since it's underpinnings had been shown to be unfounded. Based on that, I don't HAVE to respond to the rest, QED.

You glossed over my point with a sloppy mischaracterization and oversimplification, you hardly addressed it.

Quote:
The consumer has TONS of other manufactures that produce items that compete with Apple and it's iPhone product to chose from. There is no monopoly.

No one offers anything as good as the web browser in an iPhone, and we have yet to see if anyone can provide a touch interface as good -- which might be hard given Apple patents on that. I don't consider giving up the good points of the iPhone, simply because of a EULA and deliberate technology crippling, and especially because the manufacturer is deliberately fighting back against the consumer taking more control over his or her own device, "TONS" of choice.

Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.

Quote:
The consumer can take their iPhone and open it, change it, eat it, bury it, etc. The consumer has total control over what he or she does with the device. What the consumer doesn't have is control over the intellectual property (the code that makes the iPhone more than a collection of electronic parts and turns it into the premium device that it is) that he or she agrees at the onset of the activation of the device belongs to Apple and ONLY Apple.

I don't go along with the current trend in IP law to grant such over-arching control over how software and hardware is used. If I'm not trying to steal the IP and re-sell it, merely modifying it for my own use and benefit, I don't give a damn about how the IP owner wants to restrict my use.

Quote:
Don't agree, but if you do, then honor your agreement.

You've completely ignored what I've said about the DRM example. Care to address where we'd be right now in regards to DRM if everyone in the world was such a Dudley Do-Right about the one-sided, no-bargaining-power-other-than-buy-it-or-don't world of corporate-written EULAs?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #44 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I never said "helpless". Only having weak control and a very blunt instrument for effecting changes, yes, but not "helpless". Half-reading what I wrote includes overlaying what I wrote with your own convenient oversimplifications.

OK. That doesn't support your claim and it doesn't weaken mine, but whatever. You can bitch all day about what words are used, it's your dime. You're still wrong. The consumer has total control. Period. ... unless you can provide evidence where a consumer was forced to purchase a phone, that is. Good luck with that.
Quote:
You glossed over my point with a sloppy mischaracterization and oversimplification, you hardly addressed it.

OK. I glossed. You don't like my characterization. Fine. You've still failed to provide any evidence for your assertions.
Quote:
No one offers anything as good as the web browser in an iPhone, and we have yet to see if anyone can provide a touch interface as good -- which might be hard given Apple patents on that. I don't consider giving up the good points of the iPhone, simply because of a EULA and deliberate technology crippling, and especially because the manufacturer is deliberately fighting back against the consumer taking more control over his or her own device, "TONS" of choice.

The quality of a product doesn't a monopolist make. You DO realize how lame that argument is, right? "Apple makes the best, therefore the consumer is forced to fight against the EULA!" - it lacks something... Oh yeah, logic!
Quote:
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.

I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.
Quote:
I don't go along with the current trend in IP law to grant such over-arching control over how software and hardware is used. If I'm not trying to steal the IP and re-sell it, merely modifying it for my own use and benefit, I don't give a damn about how the IP owner wants to restrict my use.

Good for you! It doesn't mean anything, but hey, if saying that made you feel better, it's all good, right? The law of the land may or may not need to change, but all we have to work with are the cards on the table.
Quote:
You've completely ignored what I've said about the DRM example. Care to address where we'd be right now in regards to DRM if everyone in the world was such a Dudley Do-Right about the one-sided, no-bargaining-power-other-than-buy-it-or-don't world of corporate-written EULAs?

I've ignored the castle in the sky 'cause it's based on ... nothing. It's opinion and as such, I can't argue with you. I have opinions too. Everyone does.

Then there are facts, and I've presented those. You've not. Not only have you not, you can't substantiate your position with facts, whereas I have.

The consumer has all the power where phones, media players, and mobile internet access devices are concerned. Buy a Nokia, a Motorola, whatever. Not only that, but those are probably cheaper. Or, don't buy one. It's not a requirement. Oh, by the way - I didn't buy a Nokia. I didn't like their offering, but I don't go blaming them for it by posting crap on an internet forum... except to offer that fact as an example.

That's my proof. Argue against that, and show your work.
post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Quote:
Corporate power allows the range of product offerings to be like a cafeteria that only serves shit sandwiches, where it's illegal to take the shit out of the sandwich, and your only choices are about the amount of shit and kind of shit you eat, or not to eat at all.

I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.

Easy for you to say. You don't live on campus.
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #46 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

The consumer has total control.

You make flat, grand assertions like that about how markets work, and I'm the one who has to provide proof? It's "total consumer control" until proven otherwise?

Quote:
You've still failed to provide any evidence for your assertions.

What? Do you demand documentation of a official consumer survey to prove obvious truths like the fact that consumers aren't always thrilled with the range of options presented to them? This is "mere speculation" to you until otherwise proven?

There's a difference between a customer bitching that he can't buy a car for $20 that gets 300 mpg -- where the technology simply isn't there and the economics make no sense -- and the situation where a small number of electronics manufactures and carriers can use the power over the market that they have to artificially limit choices and cripple technology, driven by a desire to force a desired business model, regardless of available technology and consumer desires.

Especially when it comes to the carriers, who are supposedly being granted licenses to PUBLIC airwaves for PUBLIC service, the public can (or could, if our politicians better represent the average consumer) and should demand what's best for the public interest in EXCHANGE for the RIGHT to use those airwaves, rather than letting the carriers dictate so much of the terms.

I'm not sure how much of the current iPhone limitations Apple would impose on its own, and how much is due to having to strike a deal with a carrier like AT&T, but you're living on another planet if you think a corporation like AT&T functions in an idealized Adam Smith market place of perfect competition, and doesn't have extra power over the consumer through sweetheart legislation.

Quote:
Oh yeah, logic!I pick "not to eat", but if you feel compelled to start munching, I'd say it's a reflection on you, not the corporation. After all - I'm not going to frequent that establishment and you don't have to either.

Are you saying you'd simply live without a cellphone of any kind whatsoever in symbolic defiance of the choices of cell phones and cell phone contracts available if none of them perfectly suited you?

And even if you are such an oh-so-noble by-the-book creature, that you'd deprive yourself of a cellphone rather than buy one close to what you want and try to circumvent any annoying restrictions, do you imagine there are anywhere near enough consumers who behave that way to have significant market impact?

What I'm saying is that people breaking these restrictive rules provide a very useful market pressure that simple buy/don't buy decision making won't provide all by itself, and I'm very happy that they're out there and that I don't live in a world full of dutiful, obedient, let's-give-more-power-to-the-powerful consumerbots out of some corporate wet dream.

Quote:
...but I don't go blaming them for it by posting crap on an internet forum... except to offer that fact as an example.

I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm pointing out the useful addition to consumer power provided by having consumers who don't play strictly by the lopsided rules where one side rights all of the rules, writes the contracts, even writes the laws Congress passes, and the only input the consumer gets is to sign or not sign.

Just try bringing a lawyer with you the next time you try to buy cell phone service and see if you can re-negotiate a new contract for yourself. You'll see exactly how balanced the bargaining power is here.

Quote:
...and show your work.

You've been working on that pedantic putz act of yours, haven't you?

This is an argument like arguing who's going to make the best next President -- there's can be no ultimate proof because not only is their no fixed criteria for "best", but you can't run experiments with multiple people being the next President in cleanly isolated parallel universes and then compare results at the end.

If you don't know how to handle complex arguments about messy, complicated real-world situations, and expect everything to boil down to simple statements of rules and "proofs", that's not my problem.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #47 of 99
At least in the universe I live in, there's nobody forcing me to pick a phone. I can even prove it, if you like. I can offer links to multiple providers for phones, multiple providers for media players - heck, there's even whole stores that sell consumer electronics from bajillions of manufactures and it doesn't even include the iPhone!. There are phones, mp3 players, etc. Here's the link:

www.bestbuy.com

Now, I've shown proof that consumers have choices. It's not messy or complicated, heck, even a 12 year old can understand. Then again, I don't need to make it complicated to make my point...

Your move.
post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Now, I've shown proof that consumers have choices. It's not messy or complicated, heck, even a 12 year old can understand. Then again, I don't need to make it complicated to make my point...

You can't really be this dense about this -- I'll give you credit for not being that dumb -- so all I can think of is that you think this annoying pretense of not getting what I'm saying is some sort of effective rhetorical tool.

How about you "prove" to me where I've said that the consumer doesn't have choices? Hint: you have to be able to handle shades of gray, more than simple binary yes/no thinking, to respond to deal with this discussion.

It's not my obligation to prove stupidly oversimplified versions of what I've said to you.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #49 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

You can't really be this dense about this -- I'll give you credit for not being that dumb -- so all I can think of is that you think this annoying pretense of not getting what I'm saying is some sort of effective rhetorical tool.

How about you "prove" to me where I've said that the consumer doesn't have choices? Hint: you have to be able to handle shades of gray, more than simple binary yes/no thinking, to respond to deal with this discussion.

It's not my obligation to prove stupidly oversimplified versions of what I've said to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

When you have a product like the iPod, and even more so the iPhone, which can only be effectively produced and marketed by a small number of large companies, those companies don't have to be very responsive to consumer desires. Monopolistic (or effectively so) powers, plus lopsided intellectual property and telecommunications laws, mean that a whole industry can easily band together and not give people what they want, but rather "just enough" to keep them buying under less-than-wonderful terms, because the only other options are to do without a given product entirely, with no one else to turn to to buy a better version.

Do I need to explain what the big words mean?

More proof that consumers are in control: The iPhone price drop. Over 30% mere weeks after the product was introduced (by a newcomer in the phone business, no less!). Yeah, I bet you hate it when those monopolies drop their prices... er...

It's all too complicated. You won't understand.
post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Do I need to explain what the big words mean?

More proof that consumers are in control: The iPhone price drop. Over 30% mere weeks after the product was introduced. Yeah, I bet you hate it when those monopolies drop their prices... er...

It's all too complicated. You won't understand.

Poor choices is not no choices.
Some control is not total control.
Some responsiveness to some consumer demand is not always adequate responsiveness to all reasonable consumer demands.

Do I have to explain what "suffering from excessively binary thinking" means?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #51 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Poor choices is not no choices.
Some control is not total control.
Some responsiveness to some consumer demand is not always adequate responsiveness to all reasonable consumer demands.

Do I have to explain what "suffering from excessively binary thinking" means?

Nope, I think you've shown me all you can how one can suffer from excessive thinking, binary or otherwise.

You've tried to complicate things in your own mind so black is white and people are having their arms twisted in their purchase of phones in the highly competitive cellular phone business. I think you need to let your brain rest now.
post #52 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

You've tried to complicate things in your own mind so black is white and people are having their arms twisted in their purchase of phones in the highly competitive cellular phone business. I think you need to let your brain rest now.

You simply can't handle dealing with my real argument, can you? It seems every response you make is based on a binary simplification or excessive overstatement of what I've said. You can't argue against what I'm saying, for example, unless you superimpose "arm twisting" on top of my words.

It doesn't take "arm twisting" to get people to pay $2 or more for a 30-second ringtone. That kind of pricing, however, doesn't happen on a level playing field either. Carrier-locked phones, camera phones where you have to pay to e-mail yourself the pictures you take, phones where you can't load any games other than the ones your carrier will sell you, etc., wouldn't exist, or wouldn't survive on the market very long, if the cell phone and cell phone service markets were on a level playing field.

There may be other options for phones and service, but they're nearly all bad trade-offs, all because of artificially imposed -- not technically necessary or even technically sensible -- restrictions designed not for the benefit of consumers, but for the benefit of propping up beloved business models.

I don't think my tax dollars should be spent enforcing strongly big-corporation biased IP laws. I don't think MY airwaves should be sold off to companies that are going to take advantage of limited RF spectrum, and their hold on a chunk of it, to give me a less favorable deal than a truly free market would provide.

By the way, if your brain can handle facts that don't fit into your cartoonish oversimplification of the world, I own an iPhone, I paid the full $600 for it, and I didn't bitch and moan that other people got $200 off later. I judged owning the phone to be worth $600 when I bought it, and I have no trouble dealing with that.

I'm not currently having any problems with my iPhone either. I'm not a "disgruntled customer" with an iBrick, and my sympathy for those performing risky hacks is limited.

I'm glad, however, that others are out their taking those risks and hacking their phones, because that's a very useful force in the marketplace, one that helps out where binary buy/don't-buy choices fail to provide sufficient pro-consumer market pressure. And if Apple deliberately went out their way to cause bricking, rather than merely not spending additional effort to avoid the problem, I'd consider that damn sleazy, and I would hope they take a big PR hit for that. I can't really say either way, however, because no one seems to know what the definitive answer is about this.

It looks like Apple did go out of they're way to break non-iTunes store ring tones via iToner, and I think that is scummy of them. Does my ire about that rise high enough to make me never, ever buy an iPhone again? Probably not. Even if it did, my own personal iPhone boycott would be very, very unlikely to amount to sufficient market pressure to make any difference.

If I trusted the hacks, I'd much, much rather buy an iPhone and hack it to my liking rather than treat the EULA as a sacred blood oath, to be strictly followed or not entered into at all, because of all of the available choices on the market, a custom-hacked iPhone is potentially the best choice of all.

If I can create my own best choice for a cell phone or other product, rather than wait for a market that protects itself with favorable laws and monopolistic powers from having to be fully responsive to consumer desires, why not? What, in your opinion, is so damned noble about either choosing to live without a cell phone, or only strictly following EULAs for whatever you buy?

You seem to have a vindictive streak that delights in the idea of deliberate bricking to "punish" anyone who doesn't fall in line like sheep and either settle for exactly what their given, or not buy a product at all.

A note of irony for those feeling all high-and-mighty about being good, EULA-abiding doobies, eager to see all of those who aren't such goody two-shoes suffer: Apple got its start based largely based on money Steve Jobs made selling "blue boxes" -- devices for hacking the phone system and steal service from the phone companies.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #53 of 99
Quote:
Much of the outcry stems from sudden changes in Apple policies and the now dangerously uncertain corporate/consumer relationship. Apple is alienating much of their fan base by intentionally blocking advancements. (How about a world without podcasts, anyone?) They are expanding their power from owning all things Apple, to controlling all things Apple and users don't want to give up that power. Looking back, the signs are obvious (e.g. "Made for iPod" marketing ploy). Unfortunately, our power over the products we buy is dwindling away one by one. I personally do not like the road we are headed down and see no resolution to this problem without humiliation and serious backlash against Apple. I like this company and am a Apple fan, but they are making wrong choices hand over fist since working with AT&T. The only certainty from this alliance is that it will either hurt Apple or its costomers.

I think this is very short sighted of you. It seems like you are blaming apples decisions on AT&T. AT&T was pretty much the only network operator in the United States that could service a nationwide GSM phone. They were the only company willing to push their own proprietary mobile web service to the side (and it's potentional revenue rewards). AT&T makes nothing (or possibly very little) each time you buy a ringtone.. they make nothing when you buy a song. The iPhone is a new system, it is also a new operating system. Apple is trying to make the phone stable and that is where I believe their primary concern should be. 3rd party developers will have to wait until there is a stable product. I went through this in the early days of Windows Mobile. I was lucky enough to have a device which was supported through several OS updates, however each time I upgraded it broke any 3rd party apps which I had installed. The iPhone is no different. The API is a moving target and it is easier for them to disallow 3rd party apps then it would be to deal with the complaints everytime they broke something which causes a few thousand people to have to purchase an update to continue using the 3rd party app.

Not to mention with the multi-market releases there is defiently more effort being placed on getting the products to market in a timely fashion then there is on making the camera record video so a drunk frat boy can take a picture of his girlfriend stripping at the bar and email it to his friends.

I bought a phone, and as long as it continues to make phone calls.. I will enjoy it. Apple has always had a bad track record bringing new products to market. They are the kings of hype but they can't aways control the spin after launch.. hmm.. I'm mixing too many analogies here.. but I think you get the point.
post #54 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

You simply can't handle dealing with my real argument, can you?
...
What, in your opinion, is so damned noble about either choosing to live without a cell phone, or only strictly following EULAs for whatever you buy?

You seem to have a vindictive streak that delights in the idea of deliberate bricking to "punish" anyone who doesn't fall in line like sheep and either settle for exactly what their given, or not buy a product at all.

A note of irony for those feeling all high-and-mighty about being good, EULA-abiding doobies, eager to see all of those who aren't such goody two-shoes suffer: Apple got its start based largely based on money Steve Jobs made selling "blue boxes" -- devices for hacking the phone system and steal service from the phone companies.

First, you have no real arguments. You ramble and make accusations. Thats not presenting an argument.


Next, the "nobility" thing is a figment of your imagination. I made no claim to noble behavior, nor did I impugn the behavior of those that don't follow the EULA.

My position is - once someone breaks the agreement they made with Apple, they shouldn't bitch 'cause Apple considers their agreement with them broken. Don't screw them over and they won't screw you over.

I personally see it as an integrity thing, not an aspect of nobility. You confusing my position isn't surprising though, considering your ramblings. I live up to the commitments I make. I don't make them lightly. It's neither noble nor is not living up to ones agreements ignoble - it's unethical.

You asked where you posted that the consumer doesn't have choices. I did. Your argument hinges on that and I provided evidence that proves the consumer does, indeed, have choices. You have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Oh, you provided a lot of opinion.. a lot of hot air too, but no evidence. Sucks to be you.

You see, I'm not vindictive. I'm just pointing out that your argument lacks any logical premise because it's inaccurate. That fact isn't my fault.
post #55 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

First, you have no real arguments. You ramble and make accusations. Thats not presenting an argument.

No, you just have a very stilted, cramped view of what an "argument" entails -- anything beyond cut and dried, yes/no, black/white statements of rules and encyclopedic facts seems to be beyond your ability to cope.

Pretty much all interesting arguments about real world issues involve opinion, conjecture, etc. You'd have to engage at a much more subtle, nuanced level than you willing or capable of doing to participate in that kind of discussion. All you can do, apparently, is bleat "You have no facts! You haven't proven anything!"

Quote:
Next, the "nobility" thing is a figment of your imagination. I personally see it as an integrity thing, not an aspect of nobility. You confusing my position isn't surprising though, considering your ramblings.

Yes, I suppose it is all rambling to a simple, dull mind. I'd get a more engaging conversation by talking to one of my cats. And you apparently don't even know that the concepts of nobility and integrity are loose synonyms, with integrity being the common concept here -- not that I actually think you're a great example of either from the dishonest way you conduct an argument, although I imagine you style yourself to be quite virtuous.

Quote:
You asked where you posted that the consumer doesn't have choices. I did.

No, you did not. You said that I said consumers had NO choices. You then quoted a passage where I cited factors that lead to LIMITATIONS of choices, reasons why the available choices are not always such great choices. Nowhere in the quoted passage -- apart from you own apparently congenital inability to grasp the slightest nuance -- did I ever say there were NO choices, and your counterargument depends greatly on that overblown straw man version of what I've said.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #56 of 99
I find it interesting that you consider that as a rebuttal. it speaks volumes about you, almost as much as your insistence for entitlement.

You assert monopolistic powers exist and are at work and that there is no one else for the consumer to turn to. Now you're taking exception because I took your assertions to mean consumers had no choices? (see post #49)

If you don't know what the big words mean, you shouldn't use them. Either that, or retract the whole "monopoly" thing, take your pick.
post #57 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I find it interesting that you consider that as a rebuttal. it speaks volumes about you, almost as much as your insistence for entitlement.

I find it interesting that you continue to evade the slightest bit of discussion that would take you beyond your limited comfort zone for dealing with a nuanced adult conversation.

Or that you can't even deal with your problem of distinguishing LIMITED vs. NONE.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I find it interesting that you continue to evade the slightest bit of discussion that would take you beyond your limited comfort zone for dealing with a nuanced adult conversation.

Or that you can't even deal with your problem of distinguishing LIMITED vs. NONE.

I told you before - I don't disagree with opinions. Everyone's got their right to them. It's when someone makes false assertions that I feel need to be corrected (because in this case its so outlandish) that I feel the need to correct them. As for "adult", you got a ways to go before. I'd classify your diatribe as adult. Come back in 30 years.
post #59 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I told you before - I don't disagree with opinions. Everyone's got their right to them.

Most interesting adult conversations about about real-world issues involve discussing opinions and their relative merits. Everyone having a "right" to an opinion has nothing to do with discussing or not discussing the relative merits of those opinion that people rightfully have.

Quote:
It's when someone makes false assertions that I feel need to be corrected (because in this case its so outlandish) that I feel the need to correct them.

You've failed to point out a single false assertion that didn't derive from your own exaggeration or oversimplification of things I said. You're a champ at beating up on your own straw men though -- I'll grant you that.

Quote:
As for "adult", you got a ways to go before. I'd classify your diatribe as adult. Come back in 30 years.

By your own admission ("I don't disagree with opinions") you've ruled yourself out from participation in most of what exists of interesting adult conversation. I guess what that leaves for you is imperiously pronouncing judgment (and providing "correction") on whatever you can oversimplify into fitting into your limited discussion range.

It seems your definition of "diatribe" is any discussion that wanders beyond that stultifying narrow range. (But that's just further diatribe, because I can't look it up in a book or published report to "prove" it to you.)
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #60 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Most interesting adult conversations about about real-world issues involve discussing opinions and their relative merits. Everyone having a "right" to an opinion has nothing to do with discussing or not discussing the relative merits of those opinion that people rightfully have.

There's nothing to discuss. You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination. Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster. You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next. All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate. More, I don't think you're capable of an adult conversation. It's probably 'cause you're too young.
Quote:
It seems your definition of "diatribe" is any discussion that wanders beyond that stultifying narrow range. (But that's just further diatribe, because I can't look it up in a book or published report to "prove" it to you.)

My definition of the word is the same as the one in the dictionary.


Bottom line:

I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.

I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.

I've said it before, I'm saying it again, and all you've done is dance the fools dance trying to avoid substantiating your assertion. You want to delve into "opinion" 'cause you ain't got no facts, Jack. You're talk and no walk. Back your shit up now if you want to continue this, or come back with more of your crap if you want it to end. It's up to you. I don't care one way or the other, but the dance you're dancing is getting old and I'm growing tired of watching you make a fool of yourself.


You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions. In fact, I don't see how an adult conversation can take place if a challenged assertion isn't supported by some kind of structured logic or evidence. You might want to consider that. If you want to engage with me in adult conversation and debate, bring your facts with you along with the proof to back them up. Otherwise, have a nice day, kid.
post #61 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

There's nothing to discuss.

Perhaps if I kept this down to "Oh, you're such a good cat!" you'd be able to handle the discussion.

Quote:
You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination.

What a thoroughly exaggerated, unsubtle take on what I said.

Quote:
Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster.

What am I supposed to be "proving"? What I actually said, or what you think I said?

Quote:
You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next.

The two accusations go together. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out the connection. If you can't even connect those two things (sort of like the way the nobility/integrity connection that escaped you earlier) you're pretty much hopeless.

Quote:
All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate.

Because nothing seems to be able to shake you free of rigid, binary thinking, you haven't a clue what the "core of [my] argument" is to be able to comment on it.

Quote:
I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.

This is not about number of products, or availability of service, it's about restrictive terms of service and deliberate "misfeatures". Do you wish to deny the existence of restrictive terms of service? Do you wish to deny the existence of deliberately feature-crippled phones? Do you wish to assert that those phenomena are expressions of TOTAL consumer choice?

Quote:
I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.

You've provided no such evidence whatsoever. You state a few facts, and draw an absurdly exaggerated conclusion from them. Pointing to a range of production a price reductions does not prove TOTAL consumer control. Partial control? Yes. Total? No. There's some real competition out there, no doubt about that, but the big carriers (especially in the US) have much more power than the consumer to set the terms of that competition than consumers do.

Being able to buy ringtones for the iPhone only from the iTunes Store is, I take it, a consumer-driven feature? The masses cried out, "Oh, please! Limit my ringtone choices and make me pay for the same music twice!"? This is where the "shit sandwich" analogy comes in. No consumer wants that limitation, but that's the shit the consumer has to take in order to get the rest of what is good about an iPhone. You can avoid that particular lump of shit by choosing a different phone or different carrier or different service plan, but those options will all have their own shit too, often artificially imposed.

Just compare the European and Asian cell phone markets to the American market. The iPhone is an incredibly rare exception for a "hot new phone" hitting the US market first. I've heard many people from outside the US comment in dismay about how poor the selection of phones and features is in the US.

What do you imagine the biggest reason is for that difference? American consumers simply want less out of a cell phone? Via their "total control" over the marketplace they've asserted a clear desire for older technology with lesser capabilities? Or could it be that laws in most other countries force carriers elsewhere to be more competitive with each other? Perhaps that it's harder elsewhere for a phone company to force a cell phone manufacture to cripple a phone to the phone company's advantage?

Quote:
You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions.

I have no problem supporting my assertions. But I have no obligation to support your barely recognizable take on what my assertions are.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #62 of 99
I take that as a "Nope, I'm going to continue to dance a jig and show my motley" since it lacks any supporting logic or evidence.

Have a fun life, kid.
post #63 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I take that as a "Nope, I'm going to continue to dance a jig and show my motley" since it lacks any supporting logic or evidence.

Have a fun life, kid.

Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #64 of 99
I still want 3rd party apps on my iPhone.

And, I want Apple Inc to allow them.

I am a consumer.

There is a solution provided.

Apple doesn't provide that solution.

Choice made.
post #65 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?

The only thing I care about is why people are angry with Apple. You can agree or disagree about whether it was a smart move. What you can't complain about is that Apple told you what would happened. They even popped up the warning just before the download could be initiated. Those who did it anyway should be quiet, embarrassed, or upset with themselves. Apple tried to warn everyone. Those who did not listen got exactly what Apple promised. Why is this not a part of the discussion?
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #66 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

The only thing I care about is why people are angry with Apple.

I'm not angry at Apple myself. Maybe a little disappointed. I might be a little angry too if I knew that some of the "bricking" was deliberate, if Apple actually went out of their way to cause problems. That's unknown at this point, however. Even providing a warning ahead of time isn't a good reason to be deliberately punitive in such an expensive way -- and certainly it's not a good PR move.

To the extent Apple simply might not have had the time to establish and publish a stable API for the iPhone, I'm sympathetic to their position. To the extent they're trying to deliberately lock out third parties, I'm not sympathetic. Where this is all going is yet to be seen, but I find it rather ironic that for now Windows Mobile is a more open platform than Apple's iPhone.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #67 of 99
There are three issues here, that are upsetting:

A) the collusion of device makers with content/service providers, i.e. market manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the good old days Apple was a hardware manufacturer that also made an OS for its machines, but in essence tried to get the most functionality to its customers. Apple's and its customer's goals were nearly identical. Apple provides value, people pay for it, Apple makes a profit, people have utility. Basic free market economics as libertarians make us believe are applicable to all scenarios, which is why there should be no government market regulatory action. If that's all there were, they would be right.

Now, welcome to the new world of "strategic partnerships". A strategic partnership is a way for two or more companies to work together in a way as to put their competition at a disadvantage and to suck more money out of consumer's pockets without providing more value.
The first of these examples started with the iTunes music store. While it's main purpose has been to drive iPod sales, the influence the content providers gained over Apple in the process resulted in several aspects of the audio and video capabilities of Mac OS X being crippled "to fight copyright infringement". The "strategic partnership" resulted in Apple turning from device manufacturer that has the user in mind to a policing force for the record industry. Funnily enough, content producers now need to hack the Mac in order to do certain things that would be natural. As a result, you need to install things like SoundFlower and Audio HiJack Pro to get some of the most basic things done, and you introduce additional latency in your audio workflow (I know, I work with this stuff).

With the iPhone it gets even worse: the iPhone isn't locked to "ensure quality" as Apple claims, and even if it were, it's not Apple's business to ensure quality of third party apps, after all, they still work with Adobe, which in close to ten years of Mac OS X still has not managed to release a version of their Creative Suite that runs on a case-sensitive file system, despite Apple telling developers over and over not to rely on HFS+ being case-insensitive (e.g. HFSX is case-sensitive). No, the iPhone is locked, such that Apple can not only make a hefty profit on selling hardware, but also force third parties into "strategic partnerships" e.g. when it comes to selling game software. The result will be that Apple earns money on software it didn't write, and that you the consumer will end up paying more for that software (because the software authors will not give up their share), and have less choice (because Apple can be selective in whom they deal with). The pretense will likely shift from "ensuring quality" to "preventing piracy" as time goes on.

What's next? Trusted Computing, subscription computing and licensing models as hardware matures and frequent hardware updates by consumers can't be counted on anymore. The point is, to suck money out of your pockets on a periodic basis, regardless if you want it or not, by artificially structuring services and devices in such a way that you have to rely on a subscription contract to have a working device. Therefore the iPod Touch does not have full audio capabilities, and that's why there's no VoIP client software in the iPhone, even though it would be trivial to do so. (God forbid, someone make free calls over the internet!)
(For more on trusted computing and why it's the beginning of the end, read here: Trusted Computing FAQ)

So back to the iPhone: the way it gets to be "locked" has directly to do with Apple trying to get money at every corner for doing nothing, instead of being satisfied with making money on the sale of a device and by selling occasional software updates, AppleCare contracts, and music on iTMS. They want to make sure NOTHING happens on the iPhone unless they make money, and they use trusted computing type techniques to enforce that policy, strongly diminishing competition and increasing the total cost of ownership for users.

B) gadgets are less and less hardware, and more and more software, i.e. general purpose computers in different form factors
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In old times, you made an electronic device, and that was it. It was hard wired.

Today, everything is software. Even radios become software controlled. Maybe the next generation of the iPhone has a software controlled radio, and can be upgraded to new wireless standards simply by a software update.

The iPhone itself, is simply a scaled down Mac that in terms of computing power and storage capacity likely outruns a clamshell iBook from a few years ago. It's simply shrunk to a size that fits your pocket and it has built-in cellular networking peripherals. It is a Mac, it runs Mac OS X.

If you buy a Mac, and Apple said you can only run Apple apps on it, and you can't write software yourself, and you can't run anyone else's software on it, unless they make a deal and pay us 25% of gross sales of all they sell, wouldn't you be upset? Well, that's exactly what's happening with the iPhone.

Worse, it's supposed to be a killer phone. Yet all the Nokia and Sony-Ericsson Symbian S60 based phones have 3rd party software on them. All the PalmOS products have third party software on them, yet the pocketMac, nee iPhone, the most potent of all these devices, it is supposed to be crippled to fatten Apple's bottom line and limit what users can do?

Example: I have 1.0.2 software iPhone, with a terminal emulator on it. I will not give that up. I can log in from anywhere into our servers, restart services, start backups, reboot the machines, etc. in a pinch, and that is worth to me a lot more than that stupid wireless iTMS.

Preventing a general purpose computer to be used as what it is, is a way of forcing additional product sales, and it takes its toll on the environment and enforces the wasteful nature of our economy. Instead of squeezing the most utility out of a given resource, we are limited in what we can do, and forced to buy additional products (waste more resources) to get the job done.

Apple is NOT GREEN.

C) International travel, and consumer choice of carriers
-------------------------------------------
Every AT&T phone you get, you can get a "courtesy unlock" for if you have been with AT&T for a while and plan to travel internationally. This allows you to use cheap local prepaid SIM cards overseas, rather than pay outrageous international roaming fees. The contract between Apple and AT&T, and the sole control over the software by Apple, prevents even such courtesy unlocks. This means you have to buy a second phone for travel, and leave behind your contacts, calendars, etc. or you pay outrageous fees while traveling.

Further, part of keeping service providers in check, is the ability to switch when having received unsatisfactory service. This applies even in the case of early termination fees, because these fees do not apply if the service provider fails to provide proper service and that's the reason for contract cancellation.

But if AT&T doesn't provide proper service, you're now the proud owner of a fully paid (not AT&T subsidized) $400 door stop. You can't bring your phone to another carrier, as you can do with any other phone that you buy on the open market and isn't carrier subsidized.

Summary:
--------
This has nothing to do with warranties, license terms, quality, etc. It has everything to do with Apple trying to control and squeeze the consumer beyond ethical boundaries, being more concerned with its own greed than with the inefficiency and waste that results. We should all be paying drones, and not people in control. Does anyone still remember the 1984 Apple ad? Yes, now the Apple users are the people in grey, marching, and watching to Steve Jobs preaching on the screen. Maybe a Penguin comes running in and hurls an Open MoKo Neo 1973 phone at the screen to blow up things and liberate the poor iPhone sods, myself included.
post #68 of 99
Damn! That is one hell of a first post!
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
horrid misuse of cool technology
SSBA.COM
Reply
post #69 of 99
The update to 1.1.1 was so poorly concocted that even unmodified iPhones like mine were dealt serious blows:

1) My iPhone crashed during the update and was in a near bricked state until I was able get it to restore from my 'puter, which then suffered a freaking kernel panic, forcing it to abandon the iPhone's restore and a reboot itself

2) Even when the iPhone returned to life, it reverted back & lost a month's worth of information which is not retrievable. Apple doesn't bother to run a sync before updating that malicious software

3) For a while, my phone had amnesia, because it did not know that it had been activated already. That's when the second restore was at least able to get the old data back into the thing

Whether or not Apple meant for this software update to be malicious, this update should never have been unleashed on its loyal customers
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #70 of 99
Hmm, I definitely think people angry about the update breaking third party app installers and unlockers are whining. It's simply naive. And in Leo LaPorte's case, comical.

Users who hacked their phones did not do so innocently, knew that the hacks voided their warranties, and knew that an update could break their hacks. They were all playing with fire, and I'm simply not impressed that they are crying about being burned by the update.

A lot of people are wishfully thinking that the iPhone is something more than it is. Many many people want it to be the most useful handheld computer to date. It simply is not. As has been said before, the iPhone is an iPod (always has been closed), a cell phone (some are open, some are not), and an Internet Communicator (some are open, some are not). Apple, in the future, may eventually turn it into a computing platform, but for now, it's an extremely targeted product.

If you don't like the current functionality of the iPhone, simply don't buy it or return it (if possible), or sell it.
post #71 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

Worse, it's supposed to be a killer phone. Yet all the Nokia and Sony-Ericsson Symbian S60 based phones have 3rd party software on them. All the PalmOS products have third party software on them, yet the pocketMac, nee iPhone, the most potent of all these devices, it is supposed to be crippled to fatten Apple's bottom line and limit what users can do?

My landline phone has no 3rd party apps for it, and I find it much more useful and reliable for use in my home than my cell phone. We tried the no landline thing, and cell phones simply aren't as reliable or as clear yet. Anyways, I digress.

Apple's marketing for the phone aspects of the iPhone is ease-of-use in making phone calls. 3rd party software is about expansion or extending the functionality of a computing system. Note the 2 sentences don't have much relation. Not only that, with Apple you have to think different because under Jobs, they are nothing but market triangulation with their products. I didn't communicate the paragraph well, but with Apple, market focus is more important than generality.

Palm OS Treos/Centros have 3rd party software due to Palm's attempt at creating a general purpose handheld computing system. In many ways, it been a mixed blessing for them. Their PDAs have been dying the slow death to the fact that, as of this date, the most useful functionality of general purpose handhelds are still constrained to calendaring and contacts storage. It's obvious phones are able to do that know, and the Treo (and Centro) are what's keeping Palm alive, with another useful set of functionality, email and web browsing, supporting its sales. Their PDA products, well, they are dying. MS based PDAs too. A lesson should learned there.

Cell phones like Nokia's various phones are Nokia's attempt at general purpose computing. They choose to do this as a market strategy in expanding their market and sales. This is the right choice (the Microsoft way), but requires a bit of luck with OEMs and carriers in order to get Microsoft like penetration.

Apple, on the other hand, focuses down to the nitty gritty and makes agonizing choices to leave functionality out of its products. They do this as market strategy. It's got to be agonizing for their product designers, both mentally and physically because including everything (or a large subset) involves less upfront planning work. Getting down to the baseline functionality of Apple's products has got to be hard. (It does pay off in the end because schedules are eventually easier to keep).

Hence, the iPhone has only the functionality used by 90% of its target market: mobile media playing (iPod), mobile phone calling, calendaring, contacts, and email/web functionality. 3rd party app functionality is left off the table. Games are left of the table. GPS is left off the table. Lots of others, and many are left off the table simply due to schedule.

In the future, I'm not even sure Apple will make the iPhone a general purpose computing platform (due to the Web fulfilling 99% of one's usage). They would almost have to if they want to participate in world-wide computer sales though, assuming 3rd party apps drive the market.

Quote:
C) International travel, and consumer choice of carriers
-------------------------------------------
Every AT&T phone you get, you can get a "courtesy unlock" for if you have been with AT&T for a while and plan to travel internationally. This allows you to use cheap local prepaid SIM cards overseas, rather than pay outrageous international roaming fees. The contract between Apple and AT&T, and the sole control over the software by Apple, prevents even such courtesy unlocks.

If this proves to be a problem, ie, it reduces sales of the iPhone, then Apple will have to add the feature, or live with reduced sales.

Quote:
This means you have to buy a second phone for travel, and leave behind your contacts, calendars, etc. or you pay outrageous fees while traveling.

Well, you could always buy a second phone and bring along the iPhone with you so that contacts, calendars, etc. stay with you.

Quote:
Summary:
--------
This has nothing to do with warranties, license terms, quality, etc. It has everything to do with Apple trying to control and squeeze the consumer beyond ethical boundaries, being more concerned with its own greed than with the inefficiency and waste that results. We should all be paying drones, and not people in control. Does anyone still remember the 1984 Apple ad? Yes, now the Apple users are the people in grey, marching, and watching to Steve Jobs preaching on the screen. Maybe a Penguin comes running in and hurls an Open MoKo Neo 1973 phone at the screen to blow up things and liberate the poor iPhone sods, myself included.

Heh. Yes the proper response to not liking a product is to not buy and to buy something else.

Your political thinking however, to be kind, is still immature.
post #72 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post

The update to 1.1.1 was so poorly concocted that even unmodified iPhones like mine were dealt serious blows:

1) My iPhone crashed during the update and was in a near bricked state until I was able get it to restore from my 'puter, which then suffered a freaking kernel panic, forcing it to abandon the iPhone's restore and a reboot itself

2) Even when the iPhone returned to life, it reverted back & lost a month's worth of information which is not retrievable. Apple doesn't bother to run a sync before updating that malicious software

3) For a while, my phone had amnesia, because it did not know that it had been activated already. That's when the second restore was at least able to get the old data back into the thing

Whether or not Apple meant for this software update to be malicious, this update should never have been unleashed on its loyal customers

I had no problems updating my iPhone. It sounds as if your experience was quite different.

Apple should - and would - stand behind you in this matter. Had you not been able to recover your system they would have repaired the problem under warranty.
post #73 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The only people miffed by all of this are those who don't bother to adhere to a contract that they themselves signed, so as far as I'm concerned, brick 'em all and next time don't waste the time and energy and money warning the idiots. Apple can live with news reports about people stupid enough to break a contract and then make a fuss about it when things don't work out too well.

Hmm we are making a lot of assumptions here aren't we. First; you are assuming that every purchaser of an iPhone has signed and agreed to the so called contract. Second; you are assuming that Apple so called contract is legal. Third; you are assuming that every body in this world is yellow bellied coward with no backbone to stand up for his rights.
Quote:
These "people" are miffed about what has happened to them, but the majority are the ones who never did anything to their phones and who suffer because Apple has to waste resources dealing with selfish, immature and boisterous jerks rather than creating good products.

Actually it now appears that Apple has wasted a huge amount of time on software development that did absolutely nothing for the iPhone. Further that development has delayed any significant software enhancements that may or may not be coming for the iPhone. Enhancements that are needed by the way because many consider the iPhone to be a half done product.

Clearly the problem is that Apple has assumed that its consumer base consist of the class of people referenced above that have no backbone. They feel free to walk all over those customers because they have neither the physical strength nor the inner strength to stand up for themselves. I Guess for Apple that is a good thing, the can jerk people around and draw a continuous revenue stream from them.

Some of us are not like Apples wonderful customer base. We expect fair play and responsible behavior from companies. We expect products that we pay for and own to be usable to the extent that they where when we purchased them no matter what sort of upgrade the company may push upon the masses. Lastly we recognize smart phones for what they are, computers with a cell phone as a peripheral. They are not some magical device that requires special consideration when purchasing and operating.

The only good thing that this update has done in my mind is to separate the men from those that are less than human. Defend Apple and its behavior if you wish but don't expect people to look upon you as a human being worthy of respect.

Dave

Quote:

Everybody loses.
post #74 of 99
Just got a read of this thread and though I don't want ot pick sides I have to point out a few issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

There's nothing to discuss. You claimed a monopoly exists keeping the consumer down where the iPhone is concerned when no such monopoly exists except as a figment of your imagination. Any proof to the contrary (in the form of a link to a site that provides competitive products of all stripes) was met with ... whatever you met it with, but whatever it was, it wasn't discussing the relative merits of the evidence, it was crap and bluster. You tell me I'm black and white one moment, you accuse me of strawmen, the next. All as a cover to avoid the only point I've made - the core of your argument is inaccurate and that makes the entirety of it illogical and inaccurate. More, I don't think you're capable of an adult conversation. It's probably 'cause you're too young.My definition of the word is the same as the one in the dictionary.


Bottom line:

I believe you have no evidence to support your assertion that a monopoly (or a near monopoly, whichever assertion you want to support... you made both) exists in the cellular phone market and has anything to do with the introduction and sale of the iPhone.


If you are talking about GSM phones in the USofA we have very close to a monopoly. In that we have one strong player and one weaker player. The arrangement between AT&T and Apple smacks of an attempt to strengthen their near monopoly position.
Quote:
I've provided evidence that supports my assertion that the consumer is totally and thoroughly in control, in the form of a link to competitive products and the fact that a 30% reduction in the price of the device occurred weeks after product introduction.

If the consumer had control he would be able to buy the cell phone of his choice and connect it to the carrier of his choice. This isn't even an iPhone issue but show dramatically ho little control the consumer really has.
Quote:

I've said it before, I'm saying it again, and all you've done is dance the fools dance trying to avoid substantiating your assertion. You want to delve into "opinion" 'cause you ain't got no facts, Jack. You're talk and no walk. Back your shit up now if you want to continue this, or come back with more of your crap if you want it to end. It's up to you. I don't care one way or the other, but the dance you're dancing is getting old and I'm growing tired of watching you make a fool of yourself.

Quote:

It is bit over board to say somebodies points are invalid because you won't accept what is being presented to you. Even if you take the iPhone totally out of the picture it is hard to portray the cell phone markets as being open or consumer friendly. Currently it is the worst example I can think of as far as a free and open market place in the USA.
Quote:

You know, adult conversations usually includes people supporting their assertions. In fact, I don't see how an adult conversation can take place if a challenged assertion isn't supported by some kind of structured logic or evidence.

Good for you, maybe this means we will see some of that from you! Life is a two way road and becoming aware of that would be very helpful in your understanding what is happening in this market place.
Quote:

You might want to consider that. If you want to engage with me in adult conversation and debate, bring your facts with you along with the proof to back them up. Otherwise, have a nice day, kid.

Well from this very old guy it is very apparent that you like to dish it out but can't accept in return. Sounds like a little kid to me.
post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Anyone on the sidelines to this bickering care to comment on who has made a better case, and who has better reading comprehension about what the other has written?

I'm not about to take one side over the other, but I do see things slanted more in your direction.

Here is my take on some of these issues.

1.
AT&T does have a monopoly on the iPhone it is impossible to say otherwise.

2.
AT&T has a near monopoly on GSM services. The exclusive contract with Apple can only be seen as monopolistic practices to extend that monopoly and extinguish the little competition they do have.

3.
The issues with AT&T are just an example of the anti consumer ethos that is a significant part of the cell phone industry. Having carrier lock cell phones is an act of, I dare say, criminal control over the consumer and the rights he has.

Imagine if you went down to the hardware store to buy a extension cord, to plug into a standard outlet, but couldn't use it because the manufacture locked it out to work only with his outlets. This is the state we are in with respect to the cell phone industry. What should be standard services and systems are locked out so that competition and consumer freedom are effectively erroded and denied. It is no surprise that the operators of these companies are starting to getting a lot of notice in congress and with consumer rights organizations. They engage in activities that are blatant disregard for the consumer.

4.
The current situation with the cell phone industry might be improved by new market pressures. But then we see active resistance from the industry to new concepts. One of the most obvious and current is the cell phones industry trying very hard to upset Google's attempt to offer up a new service. Employing the government to attempt to destroy potential competition is a example of a monopoly in my book, even if it is a monopoly made up of several carriers.

5.
Some one really has to stretch their imagination to think that the consumer has free and open access to cell services. I can't think of any industry where competition is so thin and not be under some sort of government control.

6.
The big problem with the iPhone is that there really is very little in the way of competition. I hope to see that change in the next few months.

7.
To the average Joe an EULA that says that XYZ company owns the hardware and software after he paid hard earned cash for it doesn't mean much. to him the purchase of the iPhne isn't much different than the purchase of a hammer. You don't expect a hammer manufacture to come around months later and remove functionality that you previously paid for. This is the biggest whole that Apple has dug for itself with the last iPhone update. An EULA, if it is even enforceable, doesn't men much to people that work for a living and expect things they buy to work like they did when they purchased them.

8.
It is hard to believe that the last updates bricking of the iPhones is anything less than Apple trying to shit on people that have tired to exercise their rights as consumers. There is no ambiguity at all with respect to the right to unlock a cell phone for use on a different carrier.

That is my point of view. A little wordy too.

Dave
post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Just got a read of this thread and though I don't want ot pick sides I have to point out a few issues.


If you are talking about GSM phones in the USofA we have very close to a monopoly. In that we have one strong player and one weaker player. The arrangement between AT&T and Apple smacks of an attempt to strengthen their near monopoly position.

Why the artificial distinction between technologies? Cellular phone technology isn't limited to GSM.
Quote:
If the consumer had control he would be able to buy the cell phone of his choice and connect it to the carrier of his choice. This isn't even an iPhone issue but show dramatically ho little control the consumer really has.

You have the choice of carriers and each carrier provides phones that will connect to their network. Your argument would seek to remove differentiation, and by definition, differentiation provides choice - otherwise everything would be the same. Kind of a circular argument you have there, isn't it? You want choice so you want everything to be the same? Not very well thought out, I'd say.
Quote:
It is bit over board to say somebodies points are invalid because you won't accept what is being presented to you. Even if you take the iPhone totally out of the picture it is hard to portray the cell phone markets as being open or consumer friendly. Currently it is the worst example I can think of as far as a free and open market place in the USA.

The points are invalid because I have already communicated that his opinion was valid and I wouldn't choose to debate based on opinion. There are facts available and I prefer to stick to those. Those available facts include a) Apple has been a cellular phone company for mere months. b) Market forces have already shaped the product cost. He asserted that there was monopolistic behavior and these facts preclude that, again, by definition.

While the merits of the service providers can be a conversation in and of themselves, it's irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

AN example I offered in another thread was:

You can only legally buy a Tom Clancy novel from a publisher who agrees to work with Tom Clancy. That does not limit your choices in what you read.
post #77 of 99
Thread Starter 
Sorry, still don't get it. Some of you are upset because they did not fulfill your fantasy of a PDA produced by Apple. You believe that just because they used an embedded version of OS X, that makes it a computer that you should have open access to. By that logic, you should also be able to open it and put in more ram and a GPS. It seems like most of the bricks belong to people with unreasonable expectations.

How many locked, US mobile phones can be used on more than one carrier without breaking a two year contract and paying a hefty fine? Let's face the truth about the third party app controversy. What people are looking for is a VOIP solution that will allow them to make free calls and not pay Apple or At&t. Games? Apple will be selling their own games just like every other vender. Ring tones? Apple is selling their own ring tones just like every other company. Apple is not doing anything differently than any other cell phone provider. Right now, third party apps, especially the ones people most want, are neither in Apple or At&t's best interest. Now you are complaining that they broke your phone. I don't care if they did do it on purpose. They can release any sort of update they want as long as it does not contravene the original contract.

I actually find that the iPhone is better than any other smart phone right out of the box. I don't care if they never update the thing. I'm already ahead of the curve.

Please tell me this. Did you not know that Apple said this update would brick your hacked iPhone, or did you just want to do it so that you can have an issue against Apple? When you paid for iToner, did you really think that Apple would just turn their back on a multi-billion dollar industry and let you put free ring tones on your phone. What were you people thinking. Better yet, what were you people smoking?
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Why the artificial distinction between technologies? Cellular phone technology isn't limited to GSM.

No it is not but what does that have to do with anything. If someone has a need for a GSM phone in the USA their options are extremely limited.
Quote:
You have the choice of carriers and each carrier provides phones that will connect to their network. Your argument would seek to remove differentiation, and by definition, differentiation provides choice - otherwise everything would be the same. Kind of a circular argument you have there, isn't it?

Not at all. It is extremely difficult to see how you could make the statement "differentiation provides choice" because it does exactly the opposite. AT&T's arrangement with Apple greatly limits my choice in carriers it certainly doesn't enhance my choices. Further the lock down of Apples iPhone and the lack of choice in carriers makes for very expensive traveling with the iPhone.
Quote:

You want choice so you want everything to be the same? Not very well thought out, I'd say.The points are invalid because I have already communicated that his opinion was valid and I wouldn't choose to debate based on opinion.

We seem hell bent on twisting the logic here aren't we? The whole idea behind choice is to eliminate the condition where the provider is always the same. It is all about choice not the limitation of choice.
Quote:

There are facts available and I prefer to stick to those. Those available facts include a) Apple has been a cellular phone company for mere months. b) Market forces have already shaped the product cost. He asserted that there was monopolistic behavior and these facts preclude that, again, by definition.

There is only one fact there, that being Apples length of time in the business. Market forces did not have anything to do with the price cuts however. The prices where cut, in a monopolistic manner, to drive sales. There are no market pressures on the iPhone, it is too new, has to little competition and there is no choice in the retail sector. The fact is that everything about the marketing of the iPhone smacks of a monopoly.
Quote:

While the merits of the service providers can be a conversation in and of themselves, it's irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Oh that is so sweet! If it wasn't for the providers no body would be worried about unlocking the iPhone.
Quote:

AN example I offered in another thread was:

You can only legally buy a Tom Clancy novel from a publisher who agrees to work with Tom Clancy. That does not limit your choices in what you read.

Exactly! If that same publisher decided to limit distribution in a way that supported only one retailer there would be issues. Look to Intel to see what is and isn't acceptable behavior. The Feds weren't to shy about breaking their preferential relationship with Dell.

Dave
post #79 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Sorry, still don't get it. Some of you are upset because they did not fulfill your fantasy of a PDA produced by Apple. You believe that just because they used an embedded version of OS X, that makes it a computer that you should have open access to.

Well you are close there. Personally I don't even own an iPhone because it was too expensive initially and I wanted to see where Apple was going with the software suite. It was pretty obvious right from the beginning that the software was not finished. The other issue with that is that Apple was holding up the fact that the iPhones come with OS/X as a indication of future software freedom. Huge marketing mistake if you ask me, as the potential for future apps was coming from Apple itself.

In any event the whole point is that the sort of cost that an iPhone entails one should be able to leverage that device in the way one would a laptop or similarly priced device. If you go out an buy a $50000 sports car you don't want to be limited in the tires you can run on it. Why accept the limitation on the iPhone, especially when it does have OS/X running at its heart? The only good thing about this whole situation with Apple is that there will soon be devices on the market that effectively compete with iPhones hardware, when that time comes I suspect that Apple will have a hard time with the iPhone as an expensive single function device.
[quote]
By that logic, you should also be able to open it and put in more ram and a GPS.
[quote]
Well now that you mention it yeah!!! It certianly would be nice to have an iPhone with a replaceable battery. Doubling the RAM available wouldn't hurt either. GPS is nice and for many people could effectively eliminate one more device to Carry around.

The thing with GPS though is that that feature wouldn't even be an issue if the iPhone was sufficiently open. BluTooth GPS modules already exists and are know to work well. With Apples hammer lock on the iPhone though you won't be able to exploit that sort of technology either. This is what frustrates one with the iPhone, there is a lot of capability in the device that is being deliberately being with held from the owner.

In any event I'm not saying that one needs to open the device as much as the device needs to be Open.
Quote:
It seems like most of the bricks belong to people with unreasonable expectations.

Considering the numerous reports of bricks being made of virgin iPhones I doubt that a lot of people would like to see the statement above. In any event what is unreasonable about wanting access to something you paid for?
Quote:

How many locked, US mobile phones can be used on more than one carrier without breaking a two year contract and paying a hefty fine? Let's face the truth about the third party app controversy. What people are looking for is a VOIP solution that will allow them to make free calls and not pay Apple or At&t.

First I have to ask what is wrong with VOIP if you have a device capable of it and are near a IP connection. I will give you a hint NOTHING.

In any event if you where to look on some of the third party software sights you would see that there was a wide variety of software packages available. Until Apples fatal mistake with the last update, those third party apps where causing me to look at the iPhone as a real possibility. Without those features one has to wait for Apple, at this time it doesn't even appear that they are going in the right direction. So if the manufacture isn't willing ot supply the right software suite then why not look at alternative vendors. In this case we aren't even talking vendors as the software was free for the most part.
Quote:

Games? Apple will be selling their own games just like every other vender. Ring tones? Apple is selling their own ring tones just like every other company. Apple is not doing anything differently than any other cell phone provider. Right now, third party apps, especially the ones people most want, are neither in Apple or At&t's best interest.

It is always in a technology vendors best interest to provide the solutions that their customers want. Otherwise those customers will go elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how Apple reacts in 2008 when more open competition comes on line.

In any event you seem to be under the impression that "the ones people most want" are the sorts of apps that Apple is even willing to supply. If Apple was willing I suspect we would have seen a better iPhone update than the last which provided almost nothing but grief.
Quote:
Now you are complaining that they broke your phone. I don't care if they did do it on purpose. They can release any sort of update they want as long as it does not contravene the original contract.

First off I don't have a iPhone. The killer here being that I just about allocated the money for one. Then this disaster hit with the update.

In any event you really should care if they did it on purpose. Lets say you are walking down the road and somebody whacks you over the head, do you really care if the act was done on purpose or not? The issue is being wronged nothing more.

In any event the update so pervasively changed the behavior of the iPhone that it is hard to see how it could not be breaking the contract by Apple.
Quote:
I actually find that the iPhone is better than any other smart phone right out of the box. I don't care if they never update the thing. I'm already ahead of the curve.

That is fine for you. I won't even argue that the iPhone is fairly darn good out of the box, because it is pretty good. Pretty good doesn't bring home the bacon though.

With the current lock out I don't really see how the iPhone even competes in the smart phone category though. Its feature set is extremely limited to be called a smart phone. The lack of a avenue for third party apps pretty much seals its fate as a dumb phone.

The reality is that my pay as you go phone, base model that it is, offers many of the features of an iPhone. Sure the UI is pretty shitty and it doesn't play music but the fact remains that it works well and provides some of the features that the iPhone does. It can't load and run user apps though and that make it a dumb phone in my book. So to0 has Apple made the iPhone into a dumb phone.
Quote:

Please tell me this. Did you not know that Apple said this update would brick your hacked iPhone, or did you just want to do it so that you can have an issue against Apple?

Again I don't have a bricked iPhone! My issue with Apple is it very anti consumer behavior with its handling of the iPhone. Second; is the issue of the removal of features and the dramatic change in behavior of the iPhones software suite after the sale. Third; and maybe this should be first, is Apples claim that they own your phone. Fourth; is the issue of false advertising.

Anyone of these should bother you.
Quote:
When you paid for iToner, did you really think that Apple would just turn their back on a multi-billion dollar industry and let you put free ring tones on your phone.

Well number one; it is my phone if I own it. Second; if you already own the music why would you pay for it again? Third; what if I wish to place my own music, recordings or recordings of a friend on the iPhone? Fourth; why pay as much for a sound fragment as you pay for the whole song?

In any event if your claim that ring tones are a multi-billion dollar industry are true, which I doubt, then there is something very wrong with American society. The whole concept of ring tones and the excessive prices paid for them just highlights how far wrong we have gone with IP and copyright rights.
Quote:
What were you people thinking. Better yet, what were you people smoking?

I have to wonder what you where thinking myself. You seem to be rather oriented to giving up your right to the corporate world with no thought about what you are loosing. All so you can try to impress with a ring tone.

Don't get me wrong but in the past I've been guilty of not examining an issue in depth and ended up supporting the wrong side. I've learned form my mistakes though. Frankly I don't want to give up anything that we are entitled to as free people. Now the iPhone is obviously not a serious attack on freedom on the surface, but one has to thing real hard about what a future would be like if all industries and companies operated in the manner that AT&T and Apple are at the moment.

Imagine a home stereo system where every component is dictated to be from the same manufacture and is only allowed to run software from that manufacture. Imagine a system so closed that you can only tune the radio to pre-approved channels. Do you want Apple (or XYZ company) to be your sole supplier of software? Software being music and media or code for your PC.

Or take your automobile where the market is so controlled that here are no after market upgrades or replacement parts. Do you really want to live in a world where your options are eliminated by corporate control instead of competitive market forces? Basically that is what Apple is doing with the iPhone, it is effectively eliminating your ability to do with the device as you would want.

The problem is if this sort of behavior is not checked it will just extend itself further and further. There is more depth to this issue than many believe. It is no surprise that the legal community and the legislative communities are taking serious looks at the behavior of cell companies and operations like ITunes.

DAve
post #80 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

No it is not but what does that have to do with anything. If someone has a need for a GSM phone in the USA their options are extremely limited.

Having the choice between GSM or CDMA, you pick GSM. You've made a choice. Yes, it limits the offering since you can't go through two doors at the same time, but that's the fact of the nature of choice - you can't have it both ways. Since choice in cellular technology offerings are the objective, and since your choice is what has limited you, that's not the fault of the service providers.
Quote:
Not at all. It is extremely difficult to see how you could make the statement "differentiation provides choice" because it does exactly the opposite. AT&T's arrangement with Apple greatly limits my choice in carriers it certainly doesn't enhance my choices. Further the lock down of Apples iPhone and the lack of choice in carriers makes for very expensive traveling with the iPhone.

Differentiation is the only construct that enables a choice to be made. One provider offers different prices, another offers different options, another offers different technology, faster networks, etc. These differentiate the service providers and allow choices to the consumer. Without differentiation there is no choice.
Quote:
We seem hell bent on twisting the logic here aren't we? The whole idea behind choice is to eliminate the condition where the provider is always the same. It is all about choice not the limitation of choice.

Choice by definition is a limiting condition. There are 2 doors, pick one and walk through and you've eliminated the opportunity provided by the second door. It's not twisted logic - it IS logic and I cant help it if you don't understand. It's simple. Flip a coin and choose what it will land on. Heads you win, tails you lose, but you can't pick both. Such is the nature of choice.
Quote:
There is only one fact there, that being Apples length of time in the business. Market forces did not have anything to do with the price cuts however. The prices where cut, in a monopolistic manner, to drive sales. There are no market pressures on the iPhone, it is too new, has to little competition and there is no choice in the retail sector. The fact is that everything about the marketing of the iPhone smacks of a monopoly.

Monopolistic behavior doesn't include cutting prices. On the contrary, it means the provider of the good or service is in control of supply to the point where another provider can't compete, A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. One does not need to drop prices to drives sales, the exclusivity the provider enjoys is the driving factor.
Quote:
Exactly! If that same publisher decided to limit distribution in a way that supported only one retailer there would be issues. Look to Intel to see what is and isn't acceptable behavior. The Feds weren't to shy about breaking their preferential relationship with Dell.

The feds moved against Intel not because they limited distribution -
Quote:
“Innovation is critical to economic progress, and patents play a crucial role in encouraging that innovation,” said William J. Baer, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Intel’s great contributions to this country’s economic growth have been encouraged and protected by patents in the design and manufacturing processes for its semiconductor products. But if Intel can use its monopoly position in the market for microprocessors to prevent other firms from enforcing their own patents, other firms will have little incentive to invent new features to challenge Intel’s dominance. As a monopolist, Intel can compete by producing better, cheaper and more attractive products. It cannot act to cement its monopoly power by preventing other firms from challenging its dominance. Intel has acted illegally. It has used its monopoly power to impede innovation and stifle competition.”
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Why are people so angry about the update?