AT&T chief confirms 3G iPhone on the way - Page 3

ATT isn't in any trouble, Jobs has already given this information a number of times. AT the UK launch he said the iPhone would have 3G by late '08

Buddy, there's a big, big difference between "dozens" and "hundreds".

Unfortunately, many sites use flash and java. My favorite is nfl.com and sportsillustrated.com

Or you can send to any/all of these by simply emailing xxx-xxx-xxxx@teleflip.com! (Try it out).

Ok.

I'm in the UK. I have a 3G phone: a Nokia N73 on a T-Mobile Flext 18 month contract which I recently upgraded to. For £32 per month I get £34 'Flext allowance' which I can use on texts, MMS or voice/video calls and unlimited Internet access on either on the phone itself or on my Macbook, using the phone as a modem via Bluetooth. A reasonable deal I think.

3G coverage is generally good and I've found I can use my laptop on the move pretty much as I do at home: Web browsing, e-mail, downloading, video streaming, whatever. Indeed, I was sat on the train to Leeds the other week, flying through the countryside at 125mph, with a perfectly stable connection - happily browsing a friends photo album of their recent holiday pictures while downloading a new Paralells beta.

I wish I'd upgraded sooner. And until I can do the above with an iPhone, forking out the extortionate price Apple/O2 are asking for it won't even be considered.

I have just submitted a hint to MacOSXHints.com with both Teleflip and the various carrier email-to-sms addresses.
I've also included this AppleScript code I found on the web for parsing mobile numbers in Address Book for use on Macs and iPhones.


Source: http://whenderson.blogspot.com/2007/...addresses.html

Similar story to Phlip - I've a Nokia N80, had it for coming on 18 months, my region is almost totally 3G covered (as opposed to about 5% EDGE coverage ). I'm paying 25/month for 120MB web access + 250txt + 250min. So I use 3G all the time for web browsing, stock trades and instant messaging.

My opinion certainly hasn't changed on it, I haven't paid any extra for 3G, I don't get any separate 3G bill and I've never heard of this practice, it's always charged here at either a flat rate or a per-Mb rate regardless of current network signal type.

Battery life is "OK". My N80 will go 2.5 days without a charge BUT if I'm online (e.g. running an IM application, so low data usage but constantly connected to the 3G network) it'll only last a few hours. Annoyed me at first but soon got used to throwing the phone onto the charger at every opportunity.

One observation I do have about 3G and my N80 is that the N80 doesn't appear to be fast enough to handle / render the web pages... It still takes maybe 30 seconds to display the BBC News home page on my N80, both over 3G and I get similar speeds over my own Wi-Fi to my 8Mb broadband. So having a faster connection won't necessarily mean you can browse faster.\

Thanks! The effort is appreciated!... although its not as elegant as Apple simply adding (and it should be simple) the feature to text multiple parties at once, and add a forward text capability to SMS. SMS is quicker.. sending and receiving, but you have presented an alternative for users of the iPhone.

Quick question.. a mate has indicated that he couldn't browse on EDGE and still receive a call while in the act of browsing? Is this just an issue for UK users i.e. the O2 network?

In Europe the problem is generally that if you get 3G you can get HSDPA speeds. 3G coverage is excellent. If you can't get 3G then it usually drops back to normal GPRS speeds, not EDGE since we skipped EDGE mostly. Only for the iPhone have O2 started retro fitting EDGE to their old 2G services. So you have a choice of 3.84Mbps or 9.6Kbps. Hmmm.



No, no one phone has everything but the iPhone is missing some very basic features that phones have had for 3-4 years at least and that people expect, regardless of the hardware. You could argue that those features should be consigned to the scrap bin of history but in the real world 99% of the population are still using phones that use those features so actually letting iPhone users communicate with them might be good idea still.



To me it seems like Apple have concentrated on shipping a subset of features in a highly polished form and bug free rather than all the features on the checklist but with bugs. That's sensible software development if you want to ship on time. Subsequently though they've not been too forthcoming with the extra features if they were indeed struck off the list for release day.



All the Symbian based phones I've had or used in the last 4 years! IIRC WinMo does disk mode too.

And then you've had 3rd party replacements too like the excellent SMan.



Nice of you to use french at the end there. This of course doesn't work in Europe, including France, where the sender has to pay the charge for SMS/MMS, not the recipient so those services would be committing commercial suicide here allowing email to SMS gateways for free.

No, it's a 'feature' of the iPhone and particular tower configurations. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. Happens in the USA with AT&T too.

The other report said that Canada is expected to get the iPhone on Jan 18, '08 with Rogers Wireless. I seriously doubt a 3G iPhone will be out by then, and I seriously doubt it would be introduced in Canada first, or even simultaneously, as one in the U.S.

IMHO, that is.

I agree. June at the earliest... and probably September/October.

Hmmm... is that "agreeing" or partially agreeing? he said to himself.

Anyway, no sooner than June is my guess.

The thing is that it totally depends on what phone you are using, what network you are on, where you are, etc.

Some people see a huge increase going from 2G to 3G and some people see a slight difference.

It has to do with the hardware, software, network, location, etc. etc. etc.

3G IS faster, in concept, but like anything else, it boils down to execution, which is a huge variable.

What he said.

Robert X. Cringely chimes in...

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson this week said what I have been saying since last July -- that Apple and AT&T would soon introduce an iPhone that works with AT&T's faster 3G wireless data network. I said it because I had heard last summer that AT&T was already testing 3G iPhones in Florida, but the better question is why Stephenson said it and why now? For AT&T, his announcement looks, frankly, stupid.

Here's a guy who is head of the largest telephone company in America and its largest mobile phone company. He has a five-year iPhone exclusive giving AT&T the number one selling U.S. smart phone and a huge generator of primo subscribers mainly poached from other carriers. Christmas is a month away and 1-2 million Americans have been planning to give -- or hoping to get -- an iPhone. So what does the guy do? He lets it slip that next year Apple will release a faster iPhone that will make the existing model obsolete. The only impact this can have on current iPhone sales is to stop them in their tracks, unless Apple offers a free 3G upgrade, which believe me they never intended to offer and may not.

So what's up? Was it a simple slip? Or is the guy so out of touch with reality that he doesn't realize that with a few words he has probably deferred -- maybe forever -- at least a million new customers worth to Wall Street at least $1 billion in market cap for his company?

I don't think Stephenson's statement was by accident and I don't think he is out of touch with reality. I think, instead, he was sending a $1 billion message to Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

It is no coincidence that Stephenson made his remarks in Silicon Valley, rather than in San Antonio or New York. He came to the turf of his "partner" and delivered a message that will hurt Apple as much as AT&T, a message that says AT&T doesn't really need Apple despite the iPhone's success.

It's one thing to have a private disagreement between companies but quite another to take it public in a way that costs real money.

What I believe is troubling the relationship between AT&T and Apple is the upcoming auction for 700-MHz wireless spectrum and AT&T's discovery that -- as I have predicted for weeks -- Apple will be joining Google in bidding. AT&T thought its five-year "exclusive" iPhone agreement with Apple would have precluded such a bid, but that just shows how poorly Randall Stephenson understood Steve Jobs. Steve always hurts his friends to see how much they really love him, so AT&T probably should have expected this kind of corporate body blow.

To his credit, Stephenson took the dispute to the streets this way, showing he isn't intimidated by Jobs. It was a bold and rare response for big business and was definitely unexpected by Cupertino, which won't underestimate AT&T again.

I'm not privy to any inside details here, but there are two ways I can see Jobs rationalizing his auction position and they aren't necessarily exclusive. He could claim to intend the 700-MHz auction participation as a pure investment, just a good use for the $30+ billion Apple has squirreled away.

Nah.

Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network for which it has no voice ambitions. Maybe all MacBooks will soon get 700-MHz access cards.

This excuse rings truer, but of course it would still be a scam on Steve's part.

It would not surprise me at all if this were the case and when the 700-MHz network is finally up and running Jobs claims astonishment that the most popular data application is Voice over IP, a direct competitor to AT&T Wireless. This may be part of the reason why Apple has been so slow approving third-party iPhone applications. Wouldn't your first application be a VoIP client?

Of course to this point Apple hasn't even said it will participate in the 700-MHz auction. Apple has said nothing at all on the subject. I said it and still believe it to be true. And I'd say Randall Stephenson's remarks this week pretty much confirm I was correct.

Now AT&T is going to have to decide whether it is worth $10+ billion to fight Apple, Google, and probable third and fourth partners by bidding, itself, for the spectrum, which it wouldn't otherwise have done.

A similar decision will have to be made by Verizon Wireless, which this week applied ITS reality distortion field to trying to make us believe the second-largest U.S. mobile operator actually intends to open its wireless network to non-Verizon devices and services.

Yeah, right.

Verizon's move is straight from the playbook of the old AT&T back in the 1970s, when that company was trying to keep third-party telephone handsets from being connected to its network. If you are old enough you may remember AT&T expressed great fear back then that telephones not from its Western Electric subsidiary (now Alcatel-Lucent) would somehow "damage" the telephone network. It was the same excuse used to keep old guys like me from wearing jeans in high school.

We will, no doubt, see similar behavior from Verizon as it slowly releases network interface specifications then embarks on a certification program that will surprisingly reject as incompatible a lot of perfectly fine mobile phones. But this is months or even years away. The company's intent right now is to show the appearance of motion.

The appearance of motion: it's sad, wouldn't you say, when this is what American business has come to.

(SOURCE)

Mr. Cringeley's thoughts are no better or worse than the collection of thoughts on this web site or many others. Some facts. Some conjecture. Some personal hopes. Some generalizations.

He is right in some of his thoughts. He MAY be right in some other of his thoughts. And he MAY be wrong in some of his thoughts.

Just like... well... a lot of the facts, thoughts, conjecture, generalizations, etc. that we see in your normal everyday public forum!

IMHO...

(I always like to add that in case I'm wrong about something, so I can say it was only my "opinion", humble as it may be... )

I agree. This is one of my favorite sites because the posters here tend to cover all aspects of facual knowledge, speculative creativity and general wisdom.

Cringely has been off the past tear or two. This is the frist article in a long time seems like the old Cringely and not some rambling thoughts of a senile old man.

sorry now, where did u get an iphone in ireland for 270 euro?? and was it sim free?? please reply asap!!

Ouch!! What a nice business partner to have, "Hey, hold off on your purchase people, you don't want to buy an iPhone at this time".

Meanwhile Apple losses millions in sales. Nice! Really nice.

Apple may have a case against at&t to end the business relation. at&t has caused irreparable harm to Apple's business!

Jobs already said this at the UK launch on September 18.

If you were waiting for a 3G iPhone, unfortunately you're going to have to keep on waiting--Jobs says we'll see it "later next year."

At the UK, implying... at UK not USA.

I know of one person in my group of friends who was about to get an iPhone and changed his mind after hearing in the news that a "faster iPhone will be available early next year."

......

ireland, where did u get the iPhone for 270 euro? and was it sim free? reply asap!!
cheers

That'll be alongside all off Apples other UK only products then?

Have Apple ever given another territory a product that wasn't already available in the US?

Suppose I were to purchase an iPhone now, and then when the new one is released, buy the AT&T theft and damage insurance for a month (it's like $5/month)... one of my friends accidentally breaks my iPhone, and then I get a new iPhone...

We are talking about a cell phone. AT&T, the carrier for the iPhone in the USA is just now implementing a 3G network. The iPhone's carrier in Europe already has a 3G network in place, hence the need to let customers in that area know that a 3G model is coming.

The 3G iPhone will be for everyone not only the UK. ATT has had 3G in the major US cities for awhile now. It isn't available in all ATT coverage area.

Ah, there you go applying logic when actual evidence suggests the opposite.

Your handset is only capable of EDGE. There's only two networks in the UK with EDGE currently - Orange (because they're always ahead of the pack on tech so still have a creaky old EDGE network as fallback) and T-mobile (partly). Who do you pick - the one with no EDGE network until a couple of weeks before the iPhone, that has trouble outside the M25.

You're entering a territory with an extensive, mature 3G network. Do you release a 3G phone? No, you release a 6 month old phone, 2 years too late.

You're looking for a network with strong data capabilities and tariffs such as T-mobile. Do you pick them - no, you pick the network with the most expensive data tariff.

Do you pick the network that doesn't mind shafting it's customers just so it can make a pact with the devil? Yes, they'll do.

Bonus for picking the only one whose website doesn't work well in Safari.

I'm thinking Apple picked the one that would do business with Apple for the maximum profit for Apple, but then I would be using logic again.

That would appear to not be the case though if the lack lustre sales are anything to go by.

I have to agree with this. O2 was a very strange choice for Apple and very limiting for consumers. It was Apple's choice.

My assumption is that O2 was the only carrier willing to share revenues at such a high level with Apple, and that was the key driver for Apple.

I'm not even in what I'd consider a major city (although many big insurers call this town home) and I have 3G coverage through ATT.

Could it mostly be that consumers are waiting for the 3G iPhone since they know one is coming?

Screw 3G, I'm waiting for something that's actually useful, a built in isight.

I had an iPhone and returned it because EDGE was awful

I got a Blackberry Pearl from Verizon and returned it because it would not connect to secure sites

(HTTPS sites) without having an enterprise server---

BUT the speed on the EVDO network was great--as was Verizon's customer service---

I am soooo unhappy that Apple didn't go with Verizon--

I think that 3G with ATT may end up being a disappointment.

The "musts" for me are 3G and at least 16GB, preferably 32. I'd also like a video camera and picture pix messaging. Really though, the only thing holding me up is the 3G. I refuse to spend $400+ Verizon's termination fee to have the EDGE network. Get on the stick, jobs. My $400 is yours as soon as you release the product.