The Apple boss was seemingly more willing to discuss the company's stance on iPhone unlocks and third-party application development. "This is constant cat-and-mouse game," he said of the ongoing attempts to untether the handset from its intended carriers. "[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."
Steve Jobs is so greedy!!! What he wants to do is illegal as it denies the ownership of iPhone buyers. Apple VP of Legal Affairs should instruct Steve Jobs that:
1) Apple is breaking consumer protection laws in preventing consumers from choosing a phone carrier for the phones they buy and own;
2) Apple is likely breaking the laws against false advertising;
3) Apple is breaking antitrust laws because tied sales are illegal in that a seller cannot tie the sale of a product, the iPhone, with a service, the ATT or O2 cell phone service;
4) Apple signed a contract which cannot be enforced against iPhone buyers without breaking the law, especially the right of every owner to choose what he wants to do with what he owns, as iPhones are sold, not leased;
5) Apple will damage its image with consumers by breaking the law to enforce a contract that cannot be enforced, just as Apple damaged its image with investors by paying a $650 million bonus to Steve Jobs in 2006, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet.
Yes I would count battery life as more important than data speed. Especially with the option to use WiFi which is even faster and consumes less power than both 3G and EDGE.
Isn't Jobs' comment about the short battery life somewhat of a half-truth? I could see the battery life being shortened to 2-3 hours if someone were constantly using 3G, but how often is someone going to be doing that? I believe my current Verizon phone has 3G (EVDO is a 3G network, correct?). It will last a couple of days without needing recharged since I don't use the 3G network (nor is it disabled in anyway, just not actively used). I'd imagine that most places you're going to use the iPhone long term would be the same places you could have wi-fi and 3G usage would still be pretty limited (just like EDGE) to short spans between wi-fi hotspots. The iPhone battery life would also be helped if Apple allowed real applications on the phone (thus not requiring "apps" to be using the data network).
Just seems at times Jobs likes to pull excuses out of his a**. Like the previous lame excuse explaining why no 3rd party apps allowed on the phone because it could bring down the AT&T network (if the AT&T network is that fragile, they shouldn't be running a cellular network in the first place).
doesn't have to be ugly, really a fraction of an inch more would not hurt.
I've seen some third party extended phone batteries which include a replacement battery cover that matches the larger size of the battery. So users could have a choice of installing a standard battery with a standard flat cover, or an extended battery with a slightly protruding cover.
why not? apple could make an extended battery, other companies do it. I would much rather have a 3g iPhone with a slight buldge on the back than an edge phone who's battery life isn't even that great.
I would much rather not.
See, that's the issue that a company such as Apple has to deal with.... damned if they do/don't.
Isn't Jobs' comment about the short battery life somewhat of a half-truth? I could see the battery life being shortened to 2-3 hours if someone were constantly using 3G, but how often is someone going to be doing that? I believe my current Verizon phone has 3G (EVDO is a 3G network, correct?). It will last a couple of days without needing recharged since I don't use the 3G network (nor is it disabled in anyway, just not actively used). I'd imagine that most places you're going to use the iPhone long term would be the same places you could have wi-fi and 3G usage would still be pretty limited (just like EDGE) to short spans between wi-fi hotspots. The iPhone battery life would also be helped if Apple allowed real applications on the phone (thus not requiring "apps" to be using the data network).
Just seems at times Jobs likes to pull excuses out of his a**. Like the previous lame excuse explaining why no 3rd party apps allowed on the phone because it could bring down the AT&T network (if the AT&T network is that fragile, they shouldn't be running a cellular network in the first place).
actually, 3g vs. edge can make a huge impact on talk time, because even though you are not downloading data (as in a web page) you are talking on that network. AnandTech has an article about 3g vs edge battery life on a samsung blackjack:
for just talk time, on 3g a blackjack got 251 minutes, but on edge got 525 minutes. that's a huge disparity. in other cases the difference was much less and in some cases (email) even better for 3g than edge.
doesn't have to be ugly, really a fraction of an inch more would not hurt.
This is a completely subjective view. But obviously a common one from the looks of the N95 and such. But the problem is, the N95 et. al do not seem to have done all that well since introduction. (I could be wrong about that, but nobody seems to provide data on their consumer uptake. OTOH, we know that somewhere between 1.0 and 1.2 million iPhone have already been sold in the US).
I think thinness in form factor has generally had more success in the consumer electronic product marketplace.
No offense intended to anyone, but from a design/looks standpoint, most people think that "thin is cool."
See, that's the issue that a company such as Apple has to deal with.... damned if they do/don't.
It would not be an issue if users could change both the battery and the battery cover. Users could buy standard batteries for use with the standard flat cover, or extended batteries for use with a bulging battery cover. Apple could include both types of battery covers with the iPhone, or sell the bulging battery cover separately.
Isn't Jobs' comment about the short battery life somewhat of a half-truth? I could see the battery life being shortened to 2-3 hours if someone were constantly using 3G, but how often is someone going to be doing that?
Many of the functions of the iPhone use the data network. So the phone would always need to be connected. If you cut the data network off Visual Voicemail and most of the apps would no longer work.
Steve Jobs is so greedy!!! What he wants to do is illegal as it denies the ownership of iPhone buyers. Apple VP of Legal Affairs should instruct Steve Jobs that:
1) Apple is breaking consumer protection laws in preventing consumers from choosing a phone carrier for the phones they buy and own;
NO!
I'm not comfortable talking about the situation in the UK, but in the USA, no manufacturer or network operator is legally obliged to facilitate network interoperability. They can offer an unlocking service if they want to, or they can choose not to provide the service.
The general consensus, though, is that you are protected against legal action by the Big Boys if you've done nothing more than achieve network interoperability on your own without their help.
However, the Big Boys might choose to change the mechanism by which the SIM lock is enforced, thereby undoing previous attempts to unlock the phone. (Remember, nobody's forcing you to apply all the latest firmware updates.)
This whole argument is hilarious coming from a fellow Canadian, where network interoperability simply does not exist, because the vast majority of phones (pretty much everything other than Rogers-Fido) are SIM-free, CDMA phones which can never be activated with carriers other than the one from which it was originally purchased.
"[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."
Huh?
It's Apple's job to LIMIT use of their product?
This whole locking business is like limiting the Mac to only work with RoadRunner Cable internet.
No. It's Steve's job to make it look as if they are making an effort to limit use; to appease their network partners who are paying Apple large amounts of money for the privalege of working for them.
"[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."
Huh?
It's Apple's job to LIMIT use of their product?
This whole locking business is like limiting the Mac to only work with RoadRunner Cable internet.
Apple has managed to do what nobody thought possible: get a share of revenue from their cell phone "partners". Obviously they want to protect that income.
On the flip side, they know that people in places like Vermont, where AT&T doesn't offer service, are buying iPhones. Add all the iPhones heading north to Canada or across the oceans and there's a substantial number of sales that are directly tied to the possibility of unlocking them. If Apple tries too hard to lock down the iPhone those sales are going to dry up.
So the best course of action for Apple is to continue the cat-and-mouse game, but not try too hard.
Steve Jobs is so greedy!!! What he wants to do is illegal as it denies the ownership of iPhone buyers. Apple VP of Legal Affairs should instruct Steve Jobs that:
1) Apple is breaking consumer protection laws in preventing consumers from choosing a phone carrier for the phones they buy and own;
2) Apple is likely breaking the laws against false advertising;
3) Apple is breaking antitrust laws because tied sales are illegal in that a seller cannot tie the sale of a product, the iPhone, with a service, the ATT or O2 cell phone service;
4) Apple signed a contract which cannot be enforced against iPhone buyers without breaking the law, especially the right of every owner to choose what he wants to do with what he owns, as iPhones are sold, not leased;
5) Apple will damage its image with consumers by breaking the law to enforce a contract that cannot be enforced, just as Apple damaged its image with investors by paying a $650 million bonus to Steve Jobs in 2006, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet.
It would not be an issue if users could change both the battery and the battery cover. Users could buy standard batteries for use with the standard flat cover, or extended batteries for use with a bulging battery cover. Apple could include both types of battery covers with the iPhone, or sell the bulging battery cover separately.
Yeah, sure. Why stop at that? Why not, say, different colors that consumers could choose from? Or a memory-add attachment that a consumer can opt to buy? Etc?
The problem is, decisions like that also have an impact on production runs, economies of scale, demand forecasting and such, esp. when the product is a completely new thing. As we saw, even the "4GB" v. "8GB" choice -- with all else identical -- ended up resulting in one redundancy, and in the process, a misstep for Apple.
There's a lot to be said for one-size-fits-all and simplicity in the design/delivery of early versions of a brand new product. These add-ons can (and will) come eventually. People are demanding of Apple too much, too soon.
Think of how the iPod evolved over time: from 5GB to 160GB; from 2-3 hours of battery life to 15-25 hours; from one size to multiple sizes; etc.
It's likely that those applications would be the first of any to receive an official endorsement from Apple, according to Jobs' comments, as those that require Internet access could threaten the 'high standard' of experience customers have come to expect with the iPhone.
I can't believe no one' picking on this. First, what is this 'high-standard of experience' apple is talking about. And, second, why exactly would non-internet apps be OK, but internet-based ones would somehow magically threaten that experience. Wouldn't stand-alone apps have just the same ability to threaten that experience? Or is it Apple wanting to make sure no one dares do anything that could cut into their business model?
Comments
How about strapping two batteries back to back like a magazine on a machine gun? jeezzz
Would this be one of those Apple machine guns which do not have user replaceable bullets?
The Apple boss was seemingly more willing to discuss the company's stance on iPhone unlocks and third-party application development. "This is constant cat-and-mouse game," he said of the ongoing attempts to untether the handset from its intended carriers. "[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."
Steve Jobs is so greedy!!! What he wants to do is illegal as it denies the ownership of iPhone buyers. Apple VP of Legal Affairs should instruct Steve Jobs that:
1) Apple is breaking consumer protection laws in preventing consumers from choosing a phone carrier for the phones they buy and own;
2) Apple is likely breaking the laws against false advertising;
3) Apple is breaking antitrust laws because tied sales are illegal in that a seller cannot tie the sale of a product, the iPhone, with a service, the ATT or O2 cell phone service;
4) Apple signed a contract which cannot be enforced against iPhone buyers without breaking the law, especially the right of every owner to choose what he wants to do with what he owns, as iPhones are sold, not leased;
5) Apple will damage its image with consumers by breaking the law to enforce a contract that cannot be enforced, just as Apple damaged its image with investors by paying a $650 million bonus to Steve Jobs in 2006, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet.
Yes I would count battery life as more important than data speed. Especially with the option to use WiFi which is even faster and consumes less power than both 3G and EDGE.
Isn't Jobs' comment about the short battery life somewhat of a half-truth? I could see the battery life being shortened to 2-3 hours if someone were constantly using 3G, but how often is someone going to be doing that? I believe my current Verizon phone has 3G (EVDO is a 3G network, correct?). It will last a couple of days without needing recharged since I don't use the 3G network (nor is it disabled in anyway, just not actively used). I'd imagine that most places you're going to use the iPhone long term would be the same places you could have wi-fi and 3G usage would still be pretty limited (just like EDGE) to short spans between wi-fi hotspots. The iPhone battery life would also be helped if Apple allowed real applications on the phone (thus not requiring "apps" to be using the data network).
Just seems at times Jobs likes to pull excuses out of his a**. Like the previous lame excuse explaining why no 3rd party apps allowed on the phone because it could bring down the AT&T network (if the AT&T network is that fragile, they shouldn't be running a cellular network in the first place).
doesn't have to be ugly, really a fraction of an inch more would not hurt.
I've seen some third party extended phone batteries which include a replacement battery cover that matches the larger size of the battery. So users could have a choice of installing a standard battery with a standard flat cover, or an extended battery with a slightly protruding cover.
why not? apple could make an extended battery, other companies do it. I would much rather have a 3g iPhone with a slight buldge on the back than an edge phone who's battery life isn't even that great.
I would much rather not.
See, that's the issue that a company such as Apple has to deal with.... damned if they do/don't.
Huh?
It's Apple's job to LIMIT use of their product?
This whole locking business is like limiting the Mac to only work with RoadRunner Cable internet.
Isn't Jobs' comment about the short battery life somewhat of a half-truth? I could see the battery life being shortened to 2-3 hours if someone were constantly using 3G, but how often is someone going to be doing that? I believe my current Verizon phone has 3G (EVDO is a 3G network, correct?). It will last a couple of days without needing recharged since I don't use the 3G network (nor is it disabled in anyway, just not actively used). I'd imagine that most places you're going to use the iPhone long term would be the same places you could have wi-fi and 3G usage would still be pretty limited (just like EDGE) to short spans between wi-fi hotspots. The iPhone battery life would also be helped if Apple allowed real applications on the phone (thus not requiring "apps" to be using the data network).
Just seems at times Jobs likes to pull excuses out of his a**. Like the previous lame excuse explaining why no 3rd party apps allowed on the phone because it could bring down the AT&T network (if the AT&T network is that fragile, they shouldn't be running a cellular network in the first place).
actually, 3g vs. edge can make a huge impact on talk time, because even though you are not downloading data (as in a web page) you are talking on that network. AnandTech has an article about 3g vs edge battery life on a samsung blackjack:
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3036
for just talk time, on 3g a blackjack got 251 minutes, but on edge got 525 minutes. that's a huge disparity. in other cases the difference was much less and in some cases (email) even better for 3g than edge.
doesn't have to be ugly, really a fraction of an inch more would not hurt.
This is a completely subjective view. But obviously a common one from the looks of the N95 and such. But the problem is, the N95 et. al do not seem to have done all that well since introduction. (I could be wrong about that, but nobody seems to provide data on their consumer uptake. OTOH, we know that somewhere between 1.0 and 1.2 million iPhone have already been sold in the US).
I think thinness in form factor has generally had more success in the consumer electronic product marketplace.
No offense intended to anyone, but from a design/looks standpoint, most people think that "thin is cool."
Would this be one of those Apple machine guns which do not have user replaceable bullets?
A good point, well made.
That's one of the best posts I've read in a long time.
I would much rather not.
See, that's the issue that a company such as Apple has to deal with.... damned if they do/don't.
It would not be an issue if users could change both the battery and the battery cover. Users could buy standard batteries for use with the standard flat cover, or extended batteries for use with a bulging battery cover. Apple could include both types of battery covers with the iPhone, or sell the bulging battery cover separately.
Isn't Jobs' comment about the short battery life somewhat of a half-truth? I could see the battery life being shortened to 2-3 hours if someone were constantly using 3G, but how often is someone going to be doing that?
Many of the functions of the iPhone use the data network. So the phone would always need to be connected. If you cut the data network off Visual Voicemail and most of the apps would no longer work.
So the big question is, why only the 8GB model?
Because they've already ordered the parts, started the production/assembly/testing?
And, many many '000s of jobs and many many millions of dollars are at stake with those commitments already entered into?
So the big question is, why only the 8GB model?
Er, because that's the only model they make?
Steve Jobs is so greedy!!! What he wants to do is illegal as it denies the ownership of iPhone buyers. Apple VP of Legal Affairs should instruct Steve Jobs that:
1) Apple is breaking consumer protection laws in preventing consumers from choosing a phone carrier for the phones they buy and own;
NO!
I'm not comfortable talking about the situation in the UK, but in the USA, no manufacturer or network operator is legally obliged to facilitate network interoperability. They can offer an unlocking service if they want to, or they can choose not to provide the service.
The general consensus, though, is that you are protected against legal action by the Big Boys if you've done nothing more than achieve network interoperability on your own without their help.
However, the Big Boys might choose to change the mechanism by which the SIM lock is enforced, thereby undoing previous attempts to unlock the phone. (Remember, nobody's forcing you to apply all the latest firmware updates.)
This whole argument is hilarious coming from a fellow Canadian, where network interoperability simply does not exist, because the vast majority of phones (pretty much everything other than Rogers-Fido) are SIM-free, CDMA phones which can never be activated with carriers other than the one from which it was originally purchased.
"[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."
Huh?
It's Apple's job to LIMIT use of their product?
This whole locking business is like limiting the Mac to only work with RoadRunner Cable internet.
No. It's Steve's job to make it look as if they are making an effort to limit use; to appease their network partners who are paying Apple large amounts of money for the privalege of working for them.
"[P]eople are going to try and break in and it's our job to try and stop them."
Huh?
It's Apple's job to LIMIT use of their product?
This whole locking business is like limiting the Mac to only work with RoadRunner Cable internet.
Apple has managed to do what nobody thought possible: get a share of revenue from their cell phone "partners". Obviously they want to protect that income.
On the flip side, they know that people in places like Vermont, where AT&T doesn't offer service, are buying iPhones. Add all the iPhones heading north to Canada or across the oceans and there's a substantial number of sales that are directly tied to the possibility of unlocking them. If Apple tries too hard to lock down the iPhone those sales are going to dry up.
So the best course of action for Apple is to continue the cat-and-mouse game, but not try too hard.
Steve Jobs is so greedy!!! What he wants to do is illegal as it denies the ownership of iPhone buyers. Apple VP of Legal Affairs should instruct Steve Jobs that:
1) Apple is breaking consumer protection laws in preventing consumers from choosing a phone carrier for the phones they buy and own;
2) Apple is likely breaking the laws against false advertising;
3) Apple is breaking antitrust laws because tied sales are illegal in that a seller cannot tie the sale of a product, the iPhone, with a service, the ATT or O2 cell phone service;
4) Apple signed a contract which cannot be enforced against iPhone buyers without breaking the law, especially the right of every owner to choose what he wants to do with what he owns, as iPhones are sold, not leased;
5) Apple will damage its image with consumers by breaking the law to enforce a contract that cannot be enforced, just as Apple damaged its image with investors by paying a $650 million bonus to Steve Jobs in 2006, making him the highest paid CEO on the planet.
You are being stupid.
It would not be an issue if users could change both the battery and the battery cover. Users could buy standard batteries for use with the standard flat cover, or extended batteries for use with a bulging battery cover. Apple could include both types of battery covers with the iPhone, or sell the bulging battery cover separately.
Yeah, sure. Why stop at that? Why not, say, different colors that consumers could choose from? Or a memory-add attachment that a consumer can opt to buy? Etc?
The problem is, decisions like that also have an impact on production runs, economies of scale, demand forecasting and such, esp. when the product is a completely new thing. As we saw, even the "4GB" v. "8GB" choice -- with all else identical -- ended up resulting in one redundancy, and in the process, a misstep for Apple.
There's a lot to be said for one-size-fits-all and simplicity in the design/delivery of early versions of a brand new product. These add-ons can (and will) come eventually. People are demanding of Apple too much, too soon.
Think of how the iPod evolved over time: from 5GB to 160GB; from 2-3 hours of battery life to 15-25 hours; from one size to multiple sizes; etc.
It's likely that those applications would be the first of any to receive an official endorsement from Apple, according to Jobs' comments, as those that require Internet access could threaten the 'high standard' of experience customers have come to expect with the iPhone.
I can't believe no one' picking on this. First, what is this 'high-standard of experience' apple is talking about. And, second, why exactly would non-internet apps be OK, but internet-based ones would somehow magically threaten that experience. Wouldn't stand-alone apps have just the same ability to threaten that experience? Or is it Apple wanting to make sure no one dares do anything that could cut into their business model?