When folks refer to it being 'crippled', usually that means that the headset profile and other more-or-less mundane profiles are enabled, but profiles that allow file transfers are intentionally disabled.
Seeing as how Apple isn't allowing any user controlled file transfers at this point I don't think we should be calling this "Bluetooth crippling."
No, its accurate, as of this writing. From Gizmodo:
... most Bluetooth phones sold by carriers in the US have been "crippled" in that sense, including the iPhone:
? It can't transfer files to a PC, or appear on a desktop for drag-and-drop file juggling.
? It can't send a photo to a Bluetooth printer.
? It can't stream audio via Bluetooth to a compatible speaker system or headset. (Video is out of the question.)
However, it can link with any Bluetooth headset on the market, including the Apple iPhone Bluetooth Headset that will soon be at an Apple Store near you.
Now, you can speculate that it's Apple's intention to UNcripple it in the future, via a software update or something, and I might even agree with you. But right now... yeah, it's definitely crippled. \
.
So, by your definition, if any feature you want is not included then it is crippled? I think crippled should be reserved for something that was present and then removed. Like Verizon is notorious for. At this point Bluetooth is simply unfinished, like a number of other features of the iPhone.
So, by your definition, if any feature you want is not included then it is crippled? I think crippled should be reserved for something that was present and then removed. Like Verizon is notorious for.
There really isn't any difference between Verizon turning off BT file transfers, and ATT/Apple doing it.
If Apple and ATT later turn ON said profiles, then that's great, but for now, the effect is the same. \
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy
At this point Bluetooth is simply unfinished, like a number of other features of the iPhone.
Unfortunately, that is only speculation, until said Bluetooth profiles actually are enabled. I hope you're right.
Saying bluetooth has been crippled is inaccurate. Not having official support for or not yet having adequate software for is not the same. To say it's cripples implies that Apple has created the software and then purposefully and willfully disabled it. Something that Verizon is certainly famous for. There are reports of handsfree working with some autos to a certain degree so expect a software update soon.
? A manufacturer having control over a carrier.
? A manufacturer getting a portion of the monthly dues from the carrier.
? A carrier to alter how it's voicemail system works to accommodate the manufacturer's wishes.
? Competing carrier finally willing to work with manufacturers to create integrated devices months in advance of the iPhone's actual release.
What the f@#k do you need before you see the shift in paradigms?
I'm happy about the stock prices today. I'm wondering if it will hold throughout Monday or should I dump it and buy in again after the dip. I expect $145-155 the AAPL releases its quarterly earning in 11 days.
RIMM is still surprising me with it's consistently higher jumps. CLWR has been okay but it's still to early to tell, I just I had bought in before the 30% bump.
Apple's marketing has something to do with the interest but the device is so cool. It seems everyone is interested in the damn thing. They should stop calling it the Jesus phone and start calling it the Devil phone. Even my parents know about the thing in detail... that is scary.
As far as the price goes...
I have friends who bother with "puts", etc. But I don't bother. I'm interested in the longer term trend. If I'm positive about a company, I stick with it. It's never failed.
There are therefore two things of interest to me when I trade that affect my decision (other than the price itself).
The first is the brokerage fee. I don't like online trading. If you've heard of all the horror stories I have over the years with that, you wouldn't like it either. It's also not always good with large accounts.
Second, is the taxes involved. If you keep your securities for one year, you are only subject to the 15% Federal Capital Gains tax (plus any applicable state and local taxes).
But, if you sell more often, you are then subject to the standard tax rate you are hit with for your income in that year.
That could amount to far more taxes. Definitely so, in my case.
Therefore, it doesn't pay to bother with small rises and dips. The amount of profit squeezed out after the bother, and worry (it may not go the way you think it will!), isn't worth it to me.
For example. The stock closed at $137.73. If we sold it for that, and it drops $5 Monday, do we buy it back, or see if it drops further?
If we wait, and it goes back up, we just lost any profits, perhaps ending up with a loss if we then rush to buy it back. (You can report that as a loss in April, but you only make a portion of it back, the percentage you pay in taxes).
Even if we buy it back right away, how much did it cost to sell, how much did it cost to buy back, and how much taxes did we pay on the way?
Remember that $5 is only about a 3.63% drop. How much extra stock can we buy back after all those costs are taken out? The percentage left could be no more than a fraction of 1%, depending on your situation. At the most it would be (assuming that you do have online trading, and sell into the Capital Gains advantage, and have no state and local taxes) almost 3%.
So, if 3% profit, at most, on the two trades is worthwhile, go ahead.
But, remember this, for that tiny gain, you have given up your Capital Gains possibility for the next year. If the stock really goes up, and you have to sell, you will be hit by the much higher taxes, which will entirely wipe out any gain you made here, plus some.
It's up to you to decide. I'll wait it out.
As far as RIM goes, I don't think it's going to last for the medium term.
Too many people writing on the web are turning in their Pearls, and other newer models with poor keyboards, for iPhones. And with business software worked through AJAX here already, and more to come, the resistance in business will start to fall. That will, sooner or later, affect the more "traditional" keyboarded BB's as well.
Bluetooth headphones could work just fine with the iPhone, and the bluetooth would still be crippled. \
Bluetooth consists of a number of profiles. When folks refer to it being 'crippled', usually that means that the headset profile and other more-or-less mundane profiles are enabled, but profiles that allow file transfers are intentionally disabled.
.
I hate the word "crippled". It's a false term.
When IBM came out with the "Peanut" computer, now, many years ago, it was crippled. It had a chicklet keyboard that was very hard to type on, and it couldn't run many programs. That was a deliberate attempt to keep the machine from damaging sales to the business sector, which, at the time, comprised most of PC sales.
I don't see the fact that Bluetooth on the iPhone is lacking all of the features, is involved with Apple trying to prevent the iPhone from killing sales of any of its other products. Do you?
We also don't know if some of those features won't be enabled with future updates. Remember that Bluetooth on the Mac supported a very basic feature set at first. That has expanded.
Some of this is likely due to battery use, and possibly, the use as a modem connection (also on the far more capable WiFi), which is, so far, not enabled, is too. Though that could be because of arrangement with ATT. Though that would be a guess.
Seeing as how Apple isn't allowing any user controlled file transfers at this point I don't think we should be calling this "Bluetooth crippling."
How do you know that they aren't "allowing" it?
Allowing, and crippled, are terms meant to confer the idea that it it something the company is doing deliberately.
We don't know that.
Most of this could very well be because it's difficult to do, and Apple didn't have the time to get it out the door.
I would wait on the use of the pejorative, until a few months have gone by, with at least one major update. Only then will we see if they are adding to those capabilities.
Right now, it's too new.
There is a company that claims to have a product that will allow file transfers. If they can do that, then Apple has done nothing to dis-allow it, which they could have.
Yawn. Bluetooth has a number of profiles. They all can work, the carrier and phone maker simply have to allow them to do. Or they can DISABLE some of them, TURN THEM OFF, BLOCK them, LOCK them, FEE-FI-FLOCK THEM... hey, whatever word or phrase blows your particular skirt up. This is nothing new, has been going on in the industry for many years now.
Next up... physguy inititates a hard-hitting debate over what the definition of "is", is. Story at eleven.
When IBM came out with the "Peanut" computer, now, many years ago, it was crippled. It had a chicklet keyboard that was very hard to type on, and it couldn't run many programs. That was a deliberate attempt to keep the machine from damaging sales to the business sector, which, at the time, comprised most of PC sales.
I don't see the fact that Bluetooth on the iPhone is lacking all of the features, is involved with Apple trying to prevent the iPhone from killing sales of any of its other products. Do you?
It doesn't matter what you or I think Mel, 'crippled bluetooth' is just what cell phone afficionados call bluetooth implementations that have the file transfer profiles disabled. That isn't going to change.
It may be unfair in that Apple is intending to at some point turn those profiles back ON, but for right now, far as those guys are concerned, yeah, the BT is crippled. Quibbling over terminology won't help. What will help is Apple finishing their file browser or whatever else is the reason why BT file transfers were disabled, slapping together a nice software update, and turning those BT profiles on.
Then there's nothing anyone can say about it.
Quote:
We also don't know if some of those features won't be enabled with future updates. Remember that Bluetooth on the Mac supported a very basic feature set at first. That has expanded.
Yep, that's a good possibility. I'm hoping they go that route.
It doesn't matter what you or I think Mel, 'crippled bluetooth' is just what cell phone afficionados call bluetooth implementations that have the file transfer profiles disabled. That isn't going to change.
It may be unfair in that Apple is intending to at some point turn those profiles back ON, but for right now, far as those guys are concerned, yeah, the BT is crippled. Quibbling over terminology won't help. What will help is Apple finishing their file browser or whatever else is the reason why BT file transfers were disabled, slapping together a nice software update, and turning those BT profiles on.
Then there's nothing anyone can say about it.
Yep, that's a good possibility. I'm hoping they go that route.
.
I just prefer a bit less grouchiness. People should be calmer, and give Apple some time.
It's like saying that OS X was crippled when it first came out, and that Apple deliberately left out all of the features that have come since.
It's also like the lack of 3G right now. The in depth reviews I've been reading from ARs, Anands, etc, have all said that Apple made the best choice at this time.
If we don't see some of these features by the end of the year, then I'll agree with the views of those who think that it's "crippled".
I just prefer a bit less grouchiness. People should be calmer, and give Apple some time.
It's like saying that OS X was crippled when it first came out, and that Apple deliberately left out all of the features that have come since.
I can see the point of giving Apple some time, as they are new to this market. But as you state elsewhere, if the Bluetooth is still crippled six months from now, I don't think anyone is going to owe Apple much of an apology on this one. \
Quote:
It's also like the lack of 3G right now. The in depth reviews I've been reading from ARs, Anands, etc, have all said that Apple made the best choice at this time.
I dunno Mel... I've read a veritable of mountain of reviews kidney-punching Apple for leaving 3G out. Pogue's NY Times review was particularly emphatic on the point, and even the AnandTech review you cite said that no 3G was a problem and that it'd be good if the next iPhone had it.
I think the majority of folks think it was a mistake (though not a fatal one), especially considering that it wasn't an 'either-or' thing... the iPhone could've supported 3G and EDGE. Several phones do so already.
I dunno Mel... I've read a veritable of mountain of reviews kidney-punching Apple for leaving 3G out. Pogue's NY Times review was particularly emphatic on the point, and even the AnandTech review you cite said that no 3G was a problem and that it'd be good if the next iPhone had it.
The reviews that said that didn't do a technical analysis. this was just their opinion, based on what they wanted.
What the conclusion of that Anandtech review was actually this:
Quote:
Apple had to make a number of tradeoffs with the iPhone, and without a doubt its power hungry screen was not worth sacrificing, even for better network performance. The iPhone's biggest selling point is its UI, and Apple seems to have made the right tradeoff by embracing Wi-Fi for the first generation - as frustrating as it may be for users.
The long term solution however isn't simply to rely on Wi-Fi hotspots for faster net access, as 3G deployments become even more widespread and technology improves you can expect to see lower power and more tightly integrated 3G chipsets available. We'd venture a guess that a 3G iPhone is at least 12 months out, but until then keep an eye out for 802.11 hotspots - you'll get a better usage experience and better battery life on your iPhone.
Which is something I agree with, and basically is what Jobs said as well.
Yawn. Bluetooth has a number of profiles. They all can work, the carrier and phone maker simply have to allow them to do. Or they can DISABLE some of them, TURN THEM OFF, BLOCK them, LOCK them, FEE-FI-FLOCK THEM... hey, whatever word or phrase blows your particular skirt up. This is nothing new, has been going on in the industry for many years now.
Next up... physguy inititates a hard-hitting debate over what the definition of "is", is. Story at eleven.
\
.
Since your speculation knows no bounds I'll skip is (since that's been done before) and go right to can.
Of course all those profiles can work if their coded, tested, ported, debugged, etc. But are they? Since you seem to know what parts of OS X Apple has devoted their scarce (note the delay of Leopard for the iPhone if you haven't already) resources to porting, debugging, testing, and 'turning off' (I can use that again since we've already dealt with the definition) it would be great if you would let us know what other nuggets are just waiting for Apple to 'turn on' (definition should be clear as the opposite of 'turn off').
The problem with 'turning off' and 'crippling' is that they imply intent, which at this point is pure, yes there it is again, SPECULATION. All we know is that these profiles are not there. Why? Don't know. Could be turned off. Low probability (yes IMO) as that would mean they spent time 'turning it on'.
At this point I would definitely give Apple the benefit of the doubt. Apple and ATT already delivered more than they promised - Edge network upgraded right before release, much better battery time than originally advertised, glass screen (amazingly scratch resistant), You Tube integration.
The point is assigning INTENT at this point is pure speculation.
In a way, it's pretty scary. Look at what the stock closed at today. This is well ahead of my expectations.
My wife today told me that on a crowded elevator in her place of business, one guy took out his iPhone, and everyone tried to crowd around to see it. This isn't a bunch of grocery clerks (nothing disrespectful meant there), but highly paid lawyers and business people.
It is a bit shocking how quickly and "effortlessly" Steve+Apple has crafted the acceptance of iPhone into the global consciousness. Nearly every single person I've seen up close with an iPhone becomes positively rapturous when they hold it. Very bizarre. ...I wonder if the flicker rate of the iPhone is similar to that of television (30 fps)? If so, it may have a similar psychological effect. \
I don't know who crippled the bluetooth... could've been Apple, ATT, or both. \
I'm gonna guess it was Apple, though hopefully for good reasons (security, we haven't finished the file browser yet, etc.), and not reasons like why Verizon does it to most of their phones ("So that we can charge you for picture transfers, muhahahaha!!! ).
And I did not say that Apple should have ALL the power, only that there should be a 'balance' of power between the phone makers and the carriers. Because, the carriers routinely run roughshod over the phone makers, often to the detriment of the consumer.
Read up on it, its actually some pretty fascinating stuff.
.
I am shocked. You willing to give apple the benefit of the doubt but not verizon. Have you ever read verizon excuse for why they cripple certain features on their phones (i assure you, none of their explanations mention money or profit). So, verizon is to be distrusted but apple, they have good intentions?. Hmmm.. interesting.
How did the iPhone change the celluar business? Things are still the same as it where before the iPhone came out.
1) Have you used one yet? If not, you may not know what you're talking about.
2) "Things were the same" at a similar point in time in the MP3 business when the iPod was introduced; "things were the same" at a similar point in time in the auto industry when the Toyota Prius was introduced; "things were the same" at a similar point in time in the animation business when Toy Story was introduced; etc.
I am shocked. You willing to give apple the benefit of the doubt but not verizon. Have you ever read verizon excuse for why they cripple certain features on their phones (i assure you, none of their explanations mention money or profit). So, verizon is to be distrusted but apple, they have good intentions?. Hmmm.. interesting.
You are only kidding, right?
I mean, you don't live in a parallel universe or some such thing......
I mean, you don't live in a parallel universe or some such thing......
I live in the same universe as you.. i assume that is how we are able to communicate. I know what your PERSONAL opinion of why verizon cripple some services.. i am not really interested in your personal opinion or TBaggins (the original poster). what makes your or his opinion valid?.. my point is that people are willing to give apple the benefit of the doubt without so much as even knowing why apple crippled a feature (not unless he was an employee of apple with inside information). You or anyone else here has 0 (and i mean absolutely 0) clue as to why apple would not include a feature or cripple a feature in their phone.
wow spamsandwich you may have touched on something there
Perhaps in 2 to 5 years we'll see how many at&t customers become 'switchers' to Apple's network...
__________________
now that is an interesting concept, build the base then if it's better for apple to have a mvno then more to it OR with such a loyal base as per ipod experience work the deal between at&t and verizon ....then whoever they go with so will the base. hmmmmm SJ is smart.....very smart. it puts apple in the driver seat for a long long time and it's revenue is NOT dependent on ipod and itunes sales.....smart very smart.
Comments
When folks refer to it being 'crippled', usually that means that the headset profile and other more-or-less mundane profiles are enabled, but profiles that allow file transfers are intentionally disabled.
Seeing as how Apple isn't allowing any user controlled file transfers at this point I don't think we should be calling this "Bluetooth crippling."
Seeing as how Apple isn't allowing any user controlled file transfers at this point I don't think we should be calling this "Bluetooth crippling."
It is what it is. I'm not pissed about it, as I won't be a buyer 'til at least 'iPhone 2'.
.
No, its accurate, as of this writing. From Gizmodo:
... most Bluetooth phones sold by carriers in the US have been "crippled" in that sense, including the iPhone:
? It can't transfer files to a PC, or appear on a desktop for drag-and-drop file juggling.
? It can't send a photo to a Bluetooth printer.
? It can't stream audio via Bluetooth to a compatible speaker system or headset. (Video is out of the question.)
However, it can link with any Bluetooth headset on the market, including the Apple iPhone Bluetooth Headset that will soon be at an Apple Store near you.
Now, you can speculate that it's Apple's intention to UNcripple it in the future, via a software update or something, and I might even agree with you. But right now... yeah, it's definitely crippled.
.
So, by your definition, if any feature you want is not included then it is crippled? I think crippled should be reserved for something that was present and then removed. Like Verizon is notorious for. At this point Bluetooth is simply unfinished, like a number of other features of the iPhone.
So, by your definition, if any feature you want is not included then it is crippled? I think crippled should be reserved for something that was present and then removed. Like Verizon is notorious for.
There really isn't any difference between Verizon turning off BT file transfers, and ATT/Apple doing it.
If Apple and ATT later turn ON said profiles, then that's great, but for now, the effect is the same.
At this point Bluetooth is simply unfinished, like a number of other features of the iPhone.
Unfortunately, that is only speculation, until said Bluetooth profiles actually are enabled. I hope you're right.
.
There really isn't any difference between Verizon turning off BT file transfers, and ATT/Apple doing it.
If Apple and ATT later turn ON said profiles, then that's great, but for now, the effect is the same.
The difference is the phrase turned off
Unfortunately, that is only speculation, until said Bluetooth profiles actually are enabled. I hope you're right.
.
As is your speculation that it was turned off
Saying bluetooth has been crippled is inaccurate. Not having official support for or not yet having adequate software for is not the same. To say it's cripples implies that Apple has created the software and then purposefully and willfully disabled it. Something that Verizon is certainly famous for. There are reports of handsfree working with some autos to a certain degree so expect a software update soon.
? A manufacturer having control over a carrier.
? A manufacturer getting a portion of the monthly dues from the carrier.
? A carrier to alter how it's voicemail system works to accommodate the manufacturer's wishes.
? Competing carrier finally willing to work with manufacturers to create integrated devices months in advance of the iPhone's actual release.
What the f@#k do you need before you see the shift in paradigms?
I'm happy about the stock prices today. I'm wondering if it will hold throughout Monday or should I dump it and buy in again after the dip. I expect $145-155 the AAPL releases its quarterly earning in 11 days.
RIMM is still surprising me with it's consistently higher jumps. CLWR has been okay but it's still to early to tell, I just I had bought in before the 30% bump.
Apple's marketing has something to do with the interest but the device is so cool. It seems everyone is interested in the damn thing. They should stop calling it the Jesus phone and start calling it the Devil phone. Even my parents know about the thing in detail... that is scary.
As far as the price goes...
I have friends who bother with "puts", etc. But I don't bother. I'm interested in the longer term trend. If I'm positive about a company, I stick with it. It's never failed.
There are therefore two things of interest to me when I trade that affect my decision (other than the price itself).
The first is the brokerage fee. I don't like online trading. If you've heard of all the horror stories I have over the years with that, you wouldn't like it either. It's also not always good with large accounts.
Second, is the taxes involved. If you keep your securities for one year, you are only subject to the 15% Federal Capital Gains tax (plus any applicable state and local taxes).
But, if you sell more often, you are then subject to the standard tax rate you are hit with for your income in that year.
That could amount to far more taxes. Definitely so, in my case.
Therefore, it doesn't pay to bother with small rises and dips. The amount of profit squeezed out after the bother, and worry (it may not go the way you think it will!), isn't worth it to me.
For example. The stock closed at $137.73. If we sold it for that, and it drops $5 Monday, do we buy it back, or see if it drops further?
If we wait, and it goes back up, we just lost any profits, perhaps ending up with a loss if we then rush to buy it back. (You can report that as a loss in April, but you only make a portion of it back, the percentage you pay in taxes).
Even if we buy it back right away, how much did it cost to sell, how much did it cost to buy back, and how much taxes did we pay on the way?
Remember that $5 is only about a 3.63% drop. How much extra stock can we buy back after all those costs are taken out? The percentage left could be no more than a fraction of 1%, depending on your situation. At the most it would be (assuming that you do have online trading, and sell into the Capital Gains advantage, and have no state and local taxes) almost 3%.
So, if 3% profit, at most, on the two trades is worthwhile, go ahead.
But, remember this, for that tiny gain, you have given up your Capital Gains possibility for the next year. If the stock really goes up, and you have to sell, you will be hit by the much higher taxes, which will entirely wipe out any gain you made here, plus some.
It's up to you to decide. I'll wait it out.
As far as RIM goes, I don't think it's going to last for the medium term.
Too many people writing on the web are turning in their Pearls, and other newer models with poor keyboards, for iPhones. And with business software worked through AJAX here already, and more to come, the resistance in business will start to fall. That will, sooner or later, affect the more "traditional" keyboarded BB's as well.
Bluetooth headphones could work just fine with the iPhone, and the bluetooth would still be crippled.
Bluetooth consists of a number of profiles. When folks refer to it being 'crippled', usually that means that the headset profile and other more-or-less mundane profiles are enabled, but profiles that allow file transfers are intentionally disabled.
.
I hate the word "crippled". It's a false term.
When IBM came out with the "Peanut" computer, now, many years ago, it was crippled. It had a chicklet keyboard that was very hard to type on, and it couldn't run many programs. That was a deliberate attempt to keep the machine from damaging sales to the business sector, which, at the time, comprised most of PC sales.
I don't see the fact that Bluetooth on the iPhone is lacking all of the features, is involved with Apple trying to prevent the iPhone from killing sales of any of its other products. Do you?
We also don't know if some of those features won't be enabled with future updates. Remember that Bluetooth on the Mac supported a very basic feature set at first. That has expanded.
Some of this is likely due to battery use, and possibly, the use as a modem connection (also on the far more capable WiFi), which is, so far, not enabled, is too. Though that could be because of arrangement with ATT. Though that would be a guess.
Seeing as how Apple isn't allowing any user controlled file transfers at this point I don't think we should be calling this "Bluetooth crippling."
How do you know that they aren't "allowing" it?
Allowing, and crippled, are terms meant to confer the idea that it it something the company is doing deliberately.
We don't know that.
Most of this could very well be because it's difficult to do, and Apple didn't have the time to get it out the door.
I would wait on the use of the pejorative, until a few months have gone by, with at least one major update. Only then will we see if they are adding to those capabilities.
Right now, it's too new.
There is a company that claims to have a product that will allow file transfers. If they can do that, then Apple has done nothing to dis-allow it, which they could have.
The difference is the phrase turned off
As is your speculation that it was turned off
Yawn. Bluetooth has a number of profiles. They all can work, the carrier and phone maker simply have to allow them to do. Or they can DISABLE some of them, TURN THEM OFF, BLOCK them, LOCK them, FEE-FI-FLOCK THEM... hey, whatever word or phrase blows your particular skirt up. This is nothing new, has been going on in the industry for many years now.
Next up... physguy inititates a hard-hitting debate over what the definition of "is", is. Story at eleven.
.
I hate the word "crippled". It's a false term.
When IBM came out with the "Peanut" computer, now, many years ago, it was crippled. It had a chicklet keyboard that was very hard to type on, and it couldn't run many programs. That was a deliberate attempt to keep the machine from damaging sales to the business sector, which, at the time, comprised most of PC sales.
I don't see the fact that Bluetooth on the iPhone is lacking all of the features, is involved with Apple trying to prevent the iPhone from killing sales of any of its other products. Do you?
It doesn't matter what you or I think Mel, 'crippled bluetooth' is just what cell phone afficionados call bluetooth implementations that have the file transfer profiles disabled. That isn't going to change.
It may be unfair in that Apple is intending to at some point turn those profiles back ON, but for right now, far as those guys are concerned, yeah, the BT is crippled. Quibbling over terminology won't help. What will help is Apple finishing their file browser or whatever else is the reason why BT file transfers were disabled, slapping together a nice software update, and turning those BT profiles on.
Then there's nothing anyone can say about it.
We also don't know if some of those features won't be enabled with future updates. Remember that Bluetooth on the Mac supported a very basic feature set at first. That has expanded.
Yep, that's a good possibility. I'm hoping they go that route.
.
It doesn't matter what you or I think Mel, 'crippled bluetooth' is just what cell phone afficionados call bluetooth implementations that have the file transfer profiles disabled. That isn't going to change.
It may be unfair in that Apple is intending to at some point turn those profiles back ON, but for right now, far as those guys are concerned, yeah, the BT is crippled. Quibbling over terminology won't help. What will help is Apple finishing their file browser or whatever else is the reason why BT file transfers were disabled, slapping together a nice software update, and turning those BT profiles on.
Then there's nothing anyone can say about it.
Yep, that's a good possibility. I'm hoping they go that route.
.
I just prefer a bit less grouchiness. People should be calmer, and give Apple some time.
It's like saying that OS X was crippled when it first came out, and that Apple deliberately left out all of the features that have come since.
It's also like the lack of 3G right now. The in depth reviews I've been reading from ARs, Anands, etc, have all said that Apple made the best choice at this time.
If we don't see some of these features by the end of the year, then I'll agree with the views of those who think that it's "crippled".
Right now, I think that's it's unfinished.
I just prefer a bit less grouchiness. People should be calmer, and give Apple some time.
It's like saying that OS X was crippled when it first came out, and that Apple deliberately left out all of the features that have come since.
I can see the point of giving Apple some time, as they are new to this market. But as you state elsewhere, if the Bluetooth is still crippled six months from now, I don't think anyone is going to owe Apple much of an apology on this one.
It's also like the lack of 3G right now. The in depth reviews I've been reading from ARs, Anands, etc, have all said that Apple made the best choice at this time.
I dunno Mel... I've read a veritable of mountain of reviews kidney-punching Apple for leaving 3G out. Pogue's NY Times review was particularly emphatic on the point, and even the AnandTech review you cite said that no 3G was a problem and that it'd be good if the next iPhone had it.
I think the majority of folks think it was a mistake (though not a fatal one), especially considering that it wasn't an 'either-or' thing... the iPhone could've supported 3G and EDGE. Several phones do so already.
Oh well... that's what the 'iPhone 2' is for.
.
I dunno Mel... I've read a veritable of mountain of reviews kidney-punching Apple for leaving 3G out. Pogue's NY Times review was particularly emphatic on the point, and even the AnandTech review you cite said that no 3G was a problem and that it'd be good if the next iPhone had it.
The reviews that said that didn't do a technical analysis. this was just their opinion, based on what they wanted.
What the conclusion of that Anandtech review was actually this:
Apple had to make a number of tradeoffs with the iPhone, and without a doubt its power hungry screen was not worth sacrificing, even for better network performance. The iPhone's biggest selling point is its UI, and Apple seems to have made the right tradeoff by embracing Wi-Fi for the first generation - as frustrating as it may be for users.
The long term solution however isn't simply to rely on Wi-Fi hotspots for faster net access, as 3G deployments become even more widespread and technology improves you can expect to see lower power and more tightly integrated 3G chipsets available. We'd venture a guess that a 3G iPhone is at least 12 months out, but until then keep an eye out for 802.11 hotspots - you'll get a better usage experience and better battery life on your iPhone.
Which is something I agree with, and basically is what Jobs said as well.
Yawn. Bluetooth has a number of profiles. They all can work, the carrier and phone maker simply have to allow them to do. Or they can DISABLE some of them, TURN THEM OFF, BLOCK them, LOCK them, FEE-FI-FLOCK THEM... hey, whatever word or phrase blows your particular skirt up. This is nothing new, has been going on in the industry for many years now.
Next up... physguy inititates a hard-hitting debate over what the definition of "is", is. Story at eleven.
.
Since your speculation knows no bounds I'll skip is (since that's been done before) and go right to can.
Of course all those profiles can work if their coded, tested, ported, debugged, etc. But are they? Since you seem to know what parts of OS X Apple has devoted their scarce (note the delay of Leopard for the iPhone if you haven't already) resources to porting, debugging, testing, and 'turning off' (I can use that again since we've already dealt with the definition) it would be great if you would let us know what other nuggets are just waiting for Apple to 'turn on' (definition should be clear as the opposite of 'turn off').
The problem with 'turning off' and 'crippling' is that they imply intent, which at this point is pure, yes there it is again, SPECULATION. All we know is that these profiles are not there. Why? Don't know. Could be turned off. Low probability (yes IMO) as that would mean they spent time 'turning it on'.
At this point I would definitely give Apple the benefit of the doubt. Apple and ATT already delivered more than they promised - Edge network upgraded right before release, much better battery time than originally advertised, glass screen (amazingly scratch resistant), You Tube integration.
The point is assigning INTENT at this point is pure speculation.
In a way, it's pretty scary. Look at what the stock closed at today. This is well ahead of my expectations.
My wife today told me that on a crowded elevator in her place of business, one guy took out his iPhone, and everyone tried to crowd around to see it. This isn't a bunch of grocery clerks (nothing disrespectful meant there), but highly paid lawyers and business people.
It is a bit shocking how quickly and "effortlessly" Steve+Apple has crafted the acceptance of iPhone into the global consciousness. Nearly every single person I've seen up close with an iPhone becomes positively rapturous when they hold it. Very bizarre. ...I wonder if the flicker rate of the iPhone is similar to that of television (30 fps)? If so, it may have a similar psychological effect.
I don't know who crippled the bluetooth... could've been Apple, ATT, or both.
I'm gonna guess it was Apple, though hopefully for good reasons (security, we haven't finished the file browser yet, etc.), and not reasons like why Verizon does it to most of their phones ("So that we can charge you for picture transfers, muhahahaha!!!
And I did not say that Apple should have ALL the power, only that there should be a 'balance' of power between the phone makers and the carriers. Because, the carriers routinely run roughshod over the phone makers, often to the detriment of the consumer.
Read up on it, its actually some pretty fascinating stuff.
.
I am shocked. You willing to give apple the benefit of the doubt but not verizon. Have you ever read verizon excuse for why they cripple certain features on their phones (i assure you, none of their explanations mention money or profit). So, verizon is to be distrusted but apple, they have good intentions?. Hmmm.. interesting.
How did the iPhone change the celluar business? Things are still the same as it where before the iPhone came out.
1) Have you used one yet? If not, you may not know what you're talking about.
2) "Things were the same" at a similar point in time in the MP3 business when the iPod was introduced; "things were the same" at a similar point in time in the auto industry when the Toyota Prius was introduced; "things were the same" at a similar point in time in the animation business when Toy Story was introduced; etc.
I am shocked. You willing to give apple the benefit of the doubt but not verizon. Have you ever read verizon excuse for why they cripple certain features on their phones (i assure you, none of their explanations mention money or profit). So, verizon is to be distrusted but apple, they have good intentions?. Hmmm.. interesting.
You are only kidding, right?
I mean, you don't live in a parallel universe or some such thing......
You are only kidding, right?
I mean, you don't live in a parallel universe or some such thing......
I live in the same universe as you.. i assume that is how we are able to communicate. I know what your PERSONAL opinion of why verizon cripple some services.. i am not really interested in your personal opinion or TBaggins (the original poster). what makes your or his opinion valid?.. my point is that people are willing to give apple the benefit of the doubt without so much as even knowing why apple crippled a feature (not unless he was an employee of apple with inside information). You or anyone else here has 0 (and i mean absolutely 0) clue as to why apple would not include a feature or cripple a feature in their phone.
Perhaps in 2 to 5 years we'll see how many at&t customers become 'switchers' to Apple's network...
__________________
now that is an interesting concept, build the base then if it's better for apple to have a mvno then more to it OR with such a loyal base as per ipod experience work the deal between at&t and verizon ....then whoever they go with so will the base. hmmmmm SJ is smart.....very smart. it puts apple in the driver seat for a long long time and it's revenue is NOT dependent on ipod and itunes sales.....smart very smart.