AT&T agrees to first constantly connected third-party iPhone app

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gibson10ma View Post


    Is it just me, or did AT&T just get done telling the FCC that it had no role in approving iPhone applications?



    From what I understand, this is an agreement between AT&T and Loopt to forward location information from its user (if they opt-in) to Loopt directly. While the app will use this information, it's not actively involved in actually pulling data while the app isn't running. So this service isn't related to the iPhone application.
  • Reply 22 of 45
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wings View Post


    Problem: Background apps = short battery life.



    Solution: Make the iPhone a silly 5mm thicker, equip it with a battery with 2-3 times the capacity.



    I'd trade a tenth of an inch for 15 hrs of 3G web browsing between charges (vs 5). Wouldn't you?



    I know, I know. Ain't gonna happen, but still.



    i totally agree. it always seems to odd to me that people complain about a phone being 'too heavy'. unfortunately i think that somebody at apple seems a little too obsessed with keeping the iphone as thin as possible...
  • Reply 23 of 45
    poochpooch Posts: 768member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Arguably, this should not be an extra charge associated with it. It is data after all being passed. The fact it's a background process makes me wonder why AT&T is even included in the approval process. If a user ends up using "too much" bandwidth, I'm sure the telcos have a plan "B" for it.



    stalkers unite!



    agreed about the data plan and charges. i already have an unlimited data plan (which is really only 5GB). why is it every time i want to send a few more bytes of data does at&t charge me more?



    at&t even disallows app store downloads where the app is greater than 10MB. do it over wifi or via itunes, they say. and they say they're doing that to protect me from exceeding the 5GB (er, unlimited) amount of data. i'm on the 850 voice plan and i make a lot of 30-40 minute calls. why don't they terminate those calls at, say, 15 minutes to prevent me from going over my 850 minutes?



    hey, at&t, how about some justification for charging me even more for a data plan that i'm forced to purchase, am screwed on, and for which i'm already am not allowed to properly use?



    i don't need protection from myself, at&t. i need protection from you.
  • Reply 24 of 45
    Nothing runs on the iPhone. No 3rd party nor 1st party service. This is AT&T telling Loopt where you are based on their cell phone tower information.
  • Reply 25 of 45
    r00fusr00fus Posts: 245member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walshbj View Post


    ... That said, blocking someone from providing a free service so you can offer a paid service is not a sound business model.

    ...



    I disagree, it's HIGHLY profitable and sound... as long as you don't run into the law.



    I'm not sure whether it's just unethical or illegal, but I don't like the practice of AT&T being a gatekeeper on this kind of activity.



    Let's hope that carrier independence finally puts AT&T in their place and frees Apple to gain marketshare while trimming margins based on exclusivity.
  • Reply 26 of 45
    Wonder if backgrounder on a jb phone would work?
  • Reply 27 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by latafairam View Post


    Will the FBI and the police also be notified of my whereabouts?



    Hahaha. They already know. You don't need to be subscribed to a cell phone company for that feature. But yeah since you are so important to the FBI I suppose your question is legitimate. If you were really worried about the FBI knowing where you are. Which they already do or are able to find out in a split second. After all, you leave so many trails behind. Even Hansel and Gretel are nothing compared to you. But if you are really serious about disappearing from this globe you could knock all you teeth out and lay them on you couch. Light your house on fire. Forensics will conclude that you are dead and note that in their systems accordingly. In the meanwhile you should get yourself an identity of an other person. That is, of course, if you are really serious about this FBI stuff. If not, don't bother about worrying about this loopt stuff.
  • Reply 28 of 45
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    We get to pay $4/iPhone-month for something we should be able to get already. What an amazing deal!
  • Reply 29 of 45
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    I am not sure I really agree with the article headline. AT&T hasn't so much agree to allow the the app but is simply profiting off of it. If Apple allowed background processes as a norm, apps like this would be common (if approved). What exactly did AT&T agree to? It not like this app would send more than a tiny amount of data to update the user coordinates.



    Though I believe it should be up to the user, it is up to Apple, not AT&T to agree to allow such a trivial app to run, back or foreground. AT&T just found a way to revert back to the days of carrier approved and provided apps, at an outrageous price. I wonder how much of a cut apple is getting.
  • Reply 30 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "Because Apple's iPhone doesn't yet support background processing for third-party apps, Loopt ordinarily only knows where you are when you're actively pinging its servers," the report states. "That's not as useful. (And a limitation Loopt doesn't have to deal with on other platforms.) But that's changing via this new deal.



    If, as we all know it is, this is a problem specific to the iPhone and other platforms can track a users location in the background, then isn't ATT just taking advantage of iPhone users by charging them extra to use a service that users of other platforms get for free? Seems a little unfair to me. \
  • Reply 31 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Synotic View Post


    From what I understand, this is an agreement between AT&T and Loopt to forward location information from its user (if they opt-in) to Loopt directly. While the app will use this information, it's not actively involved in actually pulling data while the app isn't running. So this service isn't related to the iPhone application.



    I think you may have been one of the few who actually read the whole thing. This is more of a service running to connect you to Loopt even when you are not using the App, hence the charge for the service. AT&T or Loopt or whoever is enabling a 3rd party service to complement the App. Without doing this...it would not work...because iPhones do not allow programs to run in the background...so all this stuff about App aprovals really have nothing to do with this particular news.
  • Reply 32 of 45
    I like my iPhone a lot, but don't get Apples take on not allowing apps to run in the background. All they need to do is make it clear running background apps will drain the battery, so people can't complain, but give users that option. If I decide to run bckgnd apps and my (anyones) battery dies faster, then I have myself to blame, but I am in control of my phone. A lot of users use the phone while connected to a computer or charger and when not conncted it's just a risk we take. But empower us to make up our own minds and use something we paid for as we want. If you run your cars a/c all day in summer and run low on gas, you don't complain about the car, it's understood that it's a consequence of running the a/c all day - drains gas faster. Treat us like adults Apple, and allow bkgnd apps if we want. To me, it makes 'em look bad.
  • Reply 33 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by r00fus View Post


    I'm not sure whether it's just unethical or illegal, but I don't like the practice of AT&T being a gatekeeper on this kind of activity.



    They're not being a gatekeeper. AT&T and Loopt entered into a unique data sharing agreement that forwards AT&T's location information to Loopt. This requires infrastructure and resources on AT&T's part. Whether its value is worth it or not is up to you.



    The article is perfectly clear but the title is misleading. What's happened here is similar to if Google entered an agreement to let users relay their voice messages to Google, which could then be accessed via an iPhone app, or anything else. There are no background processes or privileged apps here.
  • Reply 34 of 45
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    You got to hand it to AT&T, they know how to make money even if it's on the back of iPhone users.
  • Reply 35 of 45
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mesomorphicman View Post


    I like my iPhone a lot, but don't get Apples take on not allowing apps to run in the background. All they need to do is make it clear running background apps will drain the battery, so people can't complain, but give users that option. If I decide to run bckgnd apps and my (anyones) battery dies faster, then I have myself to blame, but I am in control of my phone. A lot of users use the phone while connected to a computer or charger and when not conncted it's just a risk we take. But empower us to make up our own minds and use something we paid for as we want. If you run your cars a/c all day in summer and run low on gas, you don't complain about the car, it's understood that it's a consequence of running the a/c all day - drains gas faster. Treat us like adults Apple, and allow bkgnd apps if we want. To me, it makes 'em look bad.



    While logical and true, the fact is that that's why Windows computers have a bad reputation and Macs have a good one. Give the users control of the details, and while the educated consumer might blame themselves for any problems, the uneducated masses will never understand why their iPhone sucks.



    If Apple was struggling with phones, then you could say sure, they're idiots for not doing it. But as it is, the market is telling Apple it is doing EVERYTHING right, so why would Apple second guess itself?
  • Reply 36 of 45
    People will pay extra money just to have more prying eyes on them. Might as well have a sign that says, "Slavery - SIgn Up Here."
  • Reply 37 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by latafairam View Post


    Will the FBI and the police also be notified of my whereabouts?



    Maybe...
  • Reply 38 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by latafairam View Post


    Will the FBI and the police also be notified of my whereabouts?



    We know where you are, who you are with and what you are doing to that stuffed chicken. You should be ashamed of yourself. Come out with you hands up and we might go easy on you..
  • Reply 39 of 45
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,005member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alansky View Post


    And this capability is for who exactly? Serial stalkers?



    Well, to answer a flip question seriously, I could use it with my wife. Often I have been held up at work and I wonder--is she close enough to pick up the kids? If I knew her location I could avoid calling her if she was still at work or already home. Or if I remembered something left off the grocery list, I could tell if she was already on her way home or still in the store.

    I can think of dozens of little situations like this. Most could be solved with a phone call but sometimes it is not convenient (like when she is still at work) but also, who isn't tired of the "are you almost home?" check in phone calls...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by latafairam View Post


    Will the FBI and the police also be notified of my whereabouts?



    If you think they need this service to track your location, then I hope you are not going to try to make a living off of breaking the law...
  • Reply 40 of 45
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,005member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walshbj View Post


    That said, blocking someone from providing a free service so you can offer a paid service is not a sound business model.



    I agree with most of your post, but this doesn't make sense. AT&T is not in any way "blocking" this functionality. It is Apple's decision not to let third party apps run in the background. That is all Apple I am sure. AT&T is agreeing to do something extra to connect to and inform the Loopt apps on their own (assuming a person opts in, of course). I'm not sure why AT&T is the bad guy here. They are being asked to do something extra, they are going to charge for it. That is generally how a business works...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by r00fus View Post




    I'm not sure whether it's just unethical or illegal, but I don't like the practice of AT&T being a gatekeeper on this kind of activity.




    All cell phones (at least those sold in the USA) have location tracking built in. All the wireless providers, then, are gatekeepers of this information. Nothing is changing here in this situation except that AT&T is offering to provide extra information to you and your friends' phones assuming everyone has opted in





    Honestly, this hysterical anti-AT&T bias that clouds everything iPhone is getting a little annoying.
Sign In or Register to comment.