American Big Business: Yeah but it means a lot of money to us.
Government: But it's still illegal.
American Big Business: Yeah but it means a lot of money to us. Laws don't apply to us, or celebrities! It's all about the profits damnit!
Government: Not so fast!!! Paris Hilton get back in jail, and Big Business don't even think about trying to import those illegal phones.
American Big Business: Yeah but it means a lot of money to us. Just wait until we tell Dubya, you guys are in trouble. We're above the law, but to show you we have no hard feelings you can have Paris Hilton.
President George W Bush: There is a war on terror going on, we have to have those phones to track terrorists. I hereby veto this ban. (Big words added by author to help prop up Bush's vocabulary)
Yup, Bush will take it hard in an intimate place whenever big business says so. Sadly, so would most other US politicians, and all the ones with a chance of being elected
True, but there are degrees of big business whoredom.
Your average politician is a streetwalker, but Bush is the streetwalker who does the nasty things the other girls refuse to do. And likes it.
You get the feeling that Wal-Mart or Exxon or whomever could propose that all US citizens should have RFID chips implanted in their bottoms for 'easy customer tracking' and that children's playgrounds be designated as toxic waste dump areas, and Bush would go, "Sounds good to me. Now pull my skirt up."
2.5G still sucks, EDGE still sucks, GSM still sucks. Blocking Qualcomm won't make AT&T's abysmal QoS any better.
As a current AT&T/ Cingulat user, and past Sprint and T-mobile user, I have found that AT&T' service to be courteous and helpful, their plans competitive, coverage in Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada, SFO, LA, OC California to be as good as, or better, than the others I have used. Web access has been reasonable, though somewhat slow- but it was never fast on any system I have used.
GSM has served my phone purposes well. I do use the device to make phone calls- perhaps that is my problem.
I have used it in multiple countries with very little trouble... making phone calls, though.
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if AT&T were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are? Extrapolating from your single adjective-- your fellow citizens must, therefore, be in the same category. Perhaps, in your stunning insight you might expand on "sucks" and tell us how, we and your nemeses, fall under that lacerating description? I would love to know and how it applies to 50 odd million users. Do tell---
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if AT&T were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are?
I agree, saying something sucks doesn't really add much to the discussion.
Far as why ATT is in a 'dominant position', well, they really aren't. They have about 25-30% of the US market, and are one of the 'Big Three' carriers- Verizon and Sprint are nearly as large as they are. ATT/Cingular got to be so big largely writing a check... namely, back when they were Cingular, ponying up $41 billion to buy the old ATT Wireless and its 21 million or so customers. That's what put them up to #1 in customer count. However, they are in danger of losing that distinction, as Verizon consistently net adds more customers than they do, and is right on their heels in # of customers already.
The problem with ATT/Cingular so much isn't size, but quality. Their network is mediocre overall (if you're in an area where its good, bully for you, but ATT/Cing does so-so to poor in nationwide surveys) and their customer service overall is not well-rated or well-respected. They've got excellent distribution (i.e. a lot of places sell ATT/Cingular phones and service), but their churn rate (i.e. the number of customers who leave them) is rather high compared to their best competition (Verizon).
So, a lot of people sign up for ATT/Cing service, but a lot of people leave them too- over a million a month. They're trying to fix that, but it's slow going. On the plus side, at least their churn rate isn't as bad as Sprint-Nextel's, which has been horrific lately, largely due to merger issues.
AT&T's network will be "different" when the iPhone is launched.
I haven't any experience with AT&T (not cell phones, anyway) but I know that I haven't been impressed with Verizon's customer service the few times I've had to use it, and their practice of locking out all the native features of a phone to attempt to suck your blood with their for-pay services is deplorable.
Again, I don't know from personal experience, but from things I've heard I think the cell phone industry, in general, is not really very "good" from a consumer experience and that's what Apple has fortunately managed to address with many of the terms they wrangled out of AT&T. For example, taking over customer support for the device, controlling features and software, etc. Given the stories about how AT&T is beefing up their service in prepping for the iPhone, they problem have some agreements on that issue as well in the 5-year deal.
I don't know about AT&T being different after the launch, but I think Apple is doing their best to make sure that the iPhone experience is radically different.
Apple have the luck of the Irish sometimes. Here they are about to launch their first ever cellphone and, as if on cue, their competitors get banned from importing.
Yes, that is why they are involved in about 12 law suits a year.
AT&T's network will be "different" when the iPhone is launched.
In just three short weeks? Not really. All they're doing is something called 'Fine EDGE', where they're trying to bump up their EDGE network speeds a little. It'll still be quite slow. And their network reliability won't be dramatically different either.
To truly improve a network takes billions of dollars and a lot more time than a few weeks. They'll probably get there, but its going to be awhile. \
...[Verizon's] practice of locking out all the native features of a phone to attempt to suck your blood with their for-pay services is deplorable.
Word on that. I think their policy there is ultimately self-defeating.
I had one of the few (only?) Verizon phones that supported OBEX (the Nokia 6256i; in other words, I didn't have to pay the 'toll' to transfer pictures from my phone to my computer- bluetooth object exchange was not disabled on it) and Verizon treated that phone like a red-headed stepchild.
Great phone, but you almost never saw it in the Verizon corporate stores (and even when they had it, it was often mysteriously not on display), and it was discontinued after a fairly short run, even though Nokia didn't really have a replacement for it.
Coincidence? Hmmm....
Point is, Verizon is hurting their phone lineup and alienating a certain percentage of their existing and potential customers by engaging in such shenanigans. Some bean counter probably did the sums and said they'd come out ahead by doing it this way, but you have to wonder if its really worth it.
They're being cocky because their customer loyalty is #1 by a wide margin, but if the competition gets better, this will bite them in the ass.
In just three short weeks? Not really. All they're doing is something called 'Fine EDGE', where they're trying to bump up their EDGE network speeds a little. It'll still be quite slow. And their network reliability won't be dramatically different either.
To truly improve a network takes billions of dollars and a lot more time than a few weeks. They'll probably get there, but its going to be awhile. \
.
Really? Why do you think Apple spent 3 years in the development. They negotiated the AT&T deal over a year ago. They've been working together to throw the switch.
Really? Why do you think Apple spent 3 years in the development. They negotiated the AT&T deal over a year ago. They've been working together to throw the switch.
Think about the billions of dollars at stake.
I agree with you.
To add to what you've said:
We have 19 days left before this will be resolved. At that point we will know the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Just remember this:
If the network is so bad, why did Apple put their precious reputation on the line with it?
If there is a serious problem, the iPhone could fail. I would think that Apple has tested this plenty. I just don't see them thinking,"What the hell. if it works, it works".
Just think about this. In a few years, Apple could be selling 50 million phones a year, if it is sucessful. That's big bucks. Bugger bucks than Apple has ever seen.
If the average price of an iPhone will be $350 at that time, yearly sales would be $17.5 billion a year, of which Apple would be getting more than half, perhaps two thirds. That's a LOT of money.
If Apple becomes a sucessful phone manufacturer, they could sell 100 million phones annually. That would be about 10% of the market today, but less in the future, as phone sales are still on the rise. So, it's doable. Think of the money then, even if the average price drops to $250.
And then Apple would be getting sales from their own software, plus a possible royalty from third party software, plus a percentage if it is sold over iTunes.
That could come out to another billion or three a year, almost all profit.
Do you think Apple would risk all of that if they thought the network was so crappy?
Comments
Either way I'll be going to the Apple store on the 29th.
Al
Actually, you weren't first. I beat both you and AI by a day:
I humbly bow to your early-birdedness...
D
I humbly bow to your early-birdedness...
What can I say? I'm a mensch.
.
Government: What you are doing is illegal.
American Big Business: Yeah but it means a lot of money to us.
Government: But it's still illegal.
American Big Business: Yeah but it means a lot of money to us. Laws don't apply to us, or celebrities! It's all about the profits damnit!
Government: Not so fast!!! Paris Hilton get back in jail, and Big Business don't even think about trying to import those illegal phones.
American Big Business: Yeah but it means a lot of money to us. Just wait until we tell Dubya, you guys are in trouble. We're above the law, but to show you we have no hard feelings you can have Paris Hilton.
President George W Bush: There is a war on terror going on, we have to have those phones to track terrorists. I hereby veto this ban. (Big words added by author to help prop up Bush's vocabulary)
lol
i'll just sit here and wait for the following headlines: "bears eat all treos" and "blackberries make baby jesus cry"
Yup, Bush will take it hard in an intimate place whenever big business says so. Sadly, so would most other US politicians, and all the ones with a chance of being elected
True, but there are degrees of big business whoredom.
Your average politician is a streetwalker, but Bush is the streetwalker who does the nasty things the other girls refuse to do. And likes it.
You get the feeling that Wal-Mart or Exxon or whomever could propose that all US citizens should have RFID chips implanted in their bottoms for 'easy customer tracking' and that children's playgrounds be designated as toxic waste dump areas, and Bush would go, "Sounds good to me. Now pull my skirt up."
.
ah, the weather report was right. not a single cloud on cupertino's sky.
i'll just sit here and wait for the following headlines: "bears eat all treos" and "blackberries make baby jesus cry"
The stars do seem aligned, don't they?
.
So you are saying that Steve is responsible for the US International Trade Commission ruling?
Of course!
Well OK... it might have been Vin Diesel.
2.5G still sucks, EDGE still sucks, GSM still sucks. Blocking Qualcomm won't make AT&T's abysmal QoS any better.
As a current AT&T/ Cingulat user, and past Sprint and T-mobile user, I have found that AT&T' service to be courteous and helpful, their plans competitive, coverage in Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada, SFO, LA, OC California to be as good as, or better, than the others I have used. Web access has been reasonable, though somewhat slow- but it was never fast on any system I have used.
GSM has served my phone purposes well. I do use the device to make phone calls- perhaps that is my problem.
I have used it in multiple countries with very little trouble... making phone calls, though.
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if AT&T were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are? Extrapolating from your single adjective-- your fellow citizens must, therefore, be in the same category. Perhaps, in your stunning insight you might expand on "sucks" and tell us how, we and your nemeses, fall under that lacerating description? I would love to know and how it applies to 50 odd million users. Do tell---
To simply keep saying "sucks" adds nothing to our undestanding of your problem. One cannot generalize so superficially-- indeed, if AT&T were THAT bad, why would they be in the dominant position they are?
I agree, saying something sucks doesn't really add much to the discussion.
Far as why ATT is in a 'dominant position', well, they really aren't. They have about 25-30% of the US market, and are one of the 'Big Three' carriers- Verizon and Sprint are nearly as large as they are. ATT/Cingular got to be so big largely writing a check... namely, back when they were Cingular, ponying up $41 billion to buy the old ATT Wireless and its 21 million or so customers. That's what put them up to #1 in customer count. However, they are in danger of losing that distinction, as Verizon consistently net adds more customers than they do, and is right on their heels in # of customers already.
The problem with ATT/Cingular so much isn't size, but quality. Their network is mediocre overall (if you're in an area where its good, bully for you, but ATT/Cing does so-so to poor in nationwide surveys) and their customer service overall is not well-rated or well-respected. They've got excellent distribution (i.e. a lot of places sell ATT/Cingular phones and service), but their churn rate (i.e. the number of customers who leave them) is rather high compared to their best competition (Verizon).
So, a lot of people sign up for ATT/Cing service, but a lot of people leave them too- over a million a month. They're trying to fix that, but it's slow going. On the plus side, at least their churn rate isn't as bad as Sprint-Nextel's, which has been horrific lately, largely due to merger issues.
.
AT&T's network will be "different" when the iPhone is launched.
I haven't any experience with AT&T (not cell phones, anyway) but I know that I haven't been impressed with Verizon's customer service the few times I've had to use it, and their practice of locking out all the native features of a phone to attempt to suck your blood with their for-pay services is deplorable.
Again, I don't know from personal experience, but from things I've heard I think the cell phone industry, in general, is not really very "good" from a consumer experience and that's what Apple has fortunately managed to address with many of the terms they wrangled out of AT&T. For example, taking over customer support for the device, controlling features and software, etc. Given the stories about how AT&T is beefing up their service in prepping for the iPhone, they problem have some agreements on that issue as well in the 5-year deal.
I don't know about AT&T being different after the launch, but I think Apple is doing their best to make sure that the iPhone experience is radically different.
Apple have the luck of the Irish sometimes. Here they are about to launch their first ever cellphone and, as if on cue, their competitors get banned from importing.
Yes, that is why they are involved in about 12 law suits a year.
AT&T's network will be "different" when the iPhone is launched.
In just three short weeks? Not really. All they're doing is something called 'Fine EDGE', where they're trying to bump up their EDGE network speeds a little. It'll still be quite slow. And their network reliability won't be dramatically different either.
To truly improve a network takes billions of dollars and a lot more time than a few weeks. They'll probably get there, but its going to be awhile.
.
...[Verizon's] practice of locking out all the native features of a phone to attempt to suck your blood with their for-pay services is deplorable.
Word on that. I think their policy there is ultimately self-defeating.
I had one of the few (only?) Verizon phones that supported OBEX (the Nokia 6256i; in other words, I didn't have to pay the 'toll' to transfer pictures from my phone to my computer- bluetooth object exchange was not disabled on it) and Verizon treated that phone like a red-headed stepchild.
Great phone, but you almost never saw it in the Verizon corporate stores (and even when they had it, it was often mysteriously not on display), and it was discontinued after a fairly short run, even though Nokia didn't really have a replacement for it.
Coincidence? Hmmm....
Point is, Verizon is hurting their phone lineup and alienating a certain percentage of their existing and potential customers by engaging in such shenanigans. Some bean counter probably did the sums and said they'd come out ahead by doing it this way, but you have to wonder if its really worth it.
They're being cocky because their customer loyalty is #1 by a wide margin, but if the competition gets better, this will bite them in the ass.
.
Yes, that is why they are involved in about 12 law suits a year.
That's not bad. Other large companies can be involved in a hundred. It's the way of the world.
Most of these suits are nuisance suits.
In just three short weeks? Not really. All they're doing is something called 'Fine EDGE', where they're trying to bump up their EDGE network speeds a little. It'll still be quite slow. And their network reliability won't be dramatically different either.
To truly improve a network takes billions of dollars and a lot more time than a few weeks. They'll probably get there, but its going to be awhile.
.
Really? Why do you think Apple spent 3 years in the development. They negotiated the AT&T deal over a year ago. They've been working together to throw the switch.
Think about the billions of dollars at stake.
Really? Why do you think Apple spent 3 years in the development. They negotiated the AT&T deal over a year ago. They've been working together to throw the switch.
Think about the billions of dollars at stake.
I agree with you.
To add to what you've said:
We have 19 days left before this will be resolved. At that point we will know the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Just remember this:
If the network is so bad, why did Apple put their precious reputation on the line with it?
If there is a serious problem, the iPhone could fail. I would think that Apple has tested this plenty. I just don't see them thinking,"What the hell. if it works, it works".
Just think about this. In a few years, Apple could be selling 50 million phones a year, if it is sucessful. That's big bucks. Bugger bucks than Apple has ever seen.
If the average price of an iPhone will be $350 at that time, yearly sales would be $17.5 billion a year, of which Apple would be getting more than half, perhaps two thirds. That's a LOT of money.
If Apple becomes a sucessful phone manufacturer, they could sell 100 million phones annually. That would be about 10% of the market today, but less in the future, as phone sales are still on the rise. So, it's doable. Think of the money then, even if the average price drops to $250.
And then Apple would be getting sales from their own software, plus a possible royalty from third party software, plus a percentage if it is sold over iTunes.
That could come out to another billion or three a year, almost all profit.
Do you think Apple would risk all of that if they thought the network was so crappy?
I don't think so.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...mms-im-details