I seriously doubt AT&T has ANY say in this. Apple has them by the balls because all the other carriers would give their left one to have the iPhone on their network.
Balls or no, AT&T isn't going to agree to data usage that kills their network.
With Sling running on the Blackberry... if ATT asks Apple to deny it for the iPhone.... that SHOULD anger Apple.
Apple is improving their devices for better Apps... and ATT is trying to cripple it... and ATT wants to extend the exclusive??? NO EXCLUSIVE WITH ATT!
Time Warner wants to cripple their internet connection caps because people use the internet for multi-media in competition with Time Warner's cable TV. ATT is into TV now with U-Verse and we can expect them to stifle competition there also.
I seriously doubt AT&T has ANY say in this. Apple has them by the balls because all the other carriers would give their left one to have the iPhone on their network.
You got is ass backwards. AT&T has Apple by its seeds. Do you really think Apple is happy with this crappy network they're STUCK with EXCLUSIVELY?
Actually, Sprint changed their terms of service last year on your aircard or tethered phone to include a five gigabyte soft limit. It seems the unlimited access "somehow bogged down their network."
At least it got me out of my Sprint contract.
I use an average of 20GB on my AT&T 3G card. On my iPhone I have received 2.2GB and sent 156MB in the last 4 days 16 hours. I recall that I seem to average 10GB a month on average. I'll look it up later when I have time to access to AT&T's slow website. It was advertised unlimited when I signed the contract but the retail associate told me that there is a soft cap of 5GB but that he had never heard of them actually enforcing it. This coincided with my previous info and since i have multiple iPhones and this 3G card on my account, pay on time with automated payment, and have been back with them since the first iPhone I figure I won't get hassled about it before I read articles of AT&T enforcing their contract caps. So far so good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phasornc
Simplify Media already lets you stream the music portion of your iTunes library to an iPhone, iPod Touch or any other Mac or (Win-Linux pc). I have an iPod touch (with which it works perfectly), but I also loaded the Simplify Media Mac client on my work computer and then tethered my Windows Mobile phone (Samsung Blackjack II) and streamed my music from home perfectly. So whats the big difference with Sling. Is it just video vs audio?
I think it is a bandwidth issue and by extension a video issue, as you state.
AT&T could beef up the 3G network since they know this stuff is coming rather than just wanting to block it all.
Also if they are planning on releasing their own and force Apple to deny SlingPlayer they are treading on VERY dangerous ground. That has anti-trust suit written all over it. Surely some of the many lawyers in their employ would see this and advise against it.
I can understand ATT's preference for U-Verse, but what if U-Verse is not available in my area? I been waiting for over 6 months for word on the roll-out in my area and they have no word on the progress.
I realize this is the internet, and all, but does anyone really think it's worth going into fist pumping fits of indignation based on entirely speculative analysis of made up motivations behind a rumor?
AT&T could beef up the 3G network since they know this stuff is coming rather than just wanting to block it all.
While I don't disagree that the internet service providers are not investing at the rate they should be, when you start to talk about RF based systems other issues come into play. For one thing for any given technology there is only so much bandwidth you can get out of a local.
Quote:
Also if they are planning on releasing their own and force Apple to deny SlingPlayer they are treading on VERY dangerous ground. That has anti-trust suit written all over it. Surely some of the many lawyers in their employ would see this and advise against it.
I doubt very much that they have a direct competitor to Sling Player in the works. A future TV service is possible but that isn't really what Sling offers up. The bigger issues in my mind is allocation of bandwidth. Honestly I'm not sure the carriers have this figured out yet as there are so many competing possibilities.
In the end though, if bandwidth demand continues to increase there will have to be restrictions on service or an expansion of allocated RF spectrum. It is not at all like having a pipe ran to your house where there are no physical reasons for not expanding capacity. In a nut shell it is a mistake to compare restrictions on spectrum usage to the failure of the carriers to expand their pipes to handle internet traffic. One has finite capacity and the other is rather unlimited.
Of course did you not know that only Apple and AT&T have unfair rules that rile righteous indignation. Every other carrier plays fair, everything they do is to the service of the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I realize this is the internet, and all, but does anyone really think it's worth going into fist pumping fits of indignation based on entirely speculative analysis of made up motivations behind a rumor?
Of course did you not know that only Apple and AT&T have unfair rules that rile righteous indignation. Every other carrier plays fair, everything they do is to the service of the consumer.
Yeah, I noticed that. Apparently, ATT&T charges you for unlimited data, which is much like rape.
Almost 2 years in with the iPhone and Apple is still "scared" of its shitty network coming to a standstill because of basic services that are enjoyed in other countries. First it was "rogue" applications that could crash the network and many people (no names mentioned) on this site actually bought in and even tried to defend Apple and AT&T only to find that they were duped. Now it is the stress and strain of using normal applications like streaming which are supposed to be a key component of the newer network data speeds. AT&T is shitting on its customers again with another bogus reason (real aim is to figure a way to charge for the data) and people are actually defending them. Thank God, I do not have to use AT&T and have a real service provider that provides real value for money.
I realize this is the internet, and all, but does anyone really think it's worth going into fist pumping fits of indignation based on entirely speculative analysis of made up motivations behind a rumor?
These are just "speculative" fist pumpings and fits of indignation.
the real stuff will come out if the rumor is true...
These are just "speculative" fist pumpings and fits of indignation.
the real stuff will come out if the rumor is true...
I dunno, I think the problem with rumor based fury is that it doesn't really matter what the motivation is, fury is fury. And then if it turns out to be unfounded you're still left with a lingering sense of resentment.
After a while, people pile up resentment systems based on nothing, making their threshold for jumping at the next outrage that much lower.
For instance, I would guess that for a lot of the people posting in this thread, the rumor counts as just another reason why AT&T sucks, and that will be held against them regardless of what proves to be true. So when somebody says that AT&T is openly murdering babies, for such people it will be just that much easier to believe.
During a media event to preview its iPhone 3.0 software last month, the iPhone maker touted its turnaround times on certifying applications for inclusion on the download service, saying it had approved 96% of apps submitted during the preceding two weeks, with 98% of those apps seeing approval in less than 7 days. So by the company's own standards, SlingPlayer's approval status has fallen below the curve..
I would assume that those stats are heavily skewed by updates. Updates also need approval, and they would probably be quickest to turn around. I believe first-time app submissions would take quite a bit longer.
If the Slingplayer gets rejected for the iPhone and I will definitely be dropping my iPhone. I doubt anybody at AT&T or Apple would care if they lost my service, but it really ticks me off. I'm very excited about the upcoming iPhone hardware and software upgrades, but Slingbox owners have been waiting for this since the original iPhone came out - it just makes sense. All Windows Mobile phones, Palms, Symbian, and Blackberry devices can use it, and it doesn't cost extra. I don't get why the iPhone gets a different set of rules. It's B.S.
There has been no effort to create true streaming media for the iPhone by Apple or AT&T, so we're stuck in cell phone stone age?
How much longer are these companies going to continue to nickel and dime us for standard features?
Huh, what? Streaming live video is a "standard feature" on what carrier and handsets?
And, why do you assume these rumors are true? Why are you getting angry over a rumor?
Uhm, WinMo, Palm, Symbian and BB devices have had to pay $29 to buy the Slingplayer Mobile app. It does cost extra.
Now, it's quite possible there might be different rules for the iPhone due to its sheer popularity. If it weren't so damn popular, then AT&T wouldn't have to worry so damn much about the impact on the network it'll have. Perhaps, if you get rid of your iPhone, the bandwidth demands will drop so much, that they'll approve it, so I can use my Slingbox Solo with my iPhone!
It's not like AT&T and Apple are just winging it with their plans. They knew the direction this was going to go. I feel like you and some others on here are just making excuses. C'mon, we've all had our share of the Apple and now AT&T Kool-Aid, but you have to be blind if you can't see an ulterior motive. AT&T wants to charge iPhone users more than everybody else because we all pay a premium. They want to give you garbage media like Sprint did and offer CNN, WEATHER CHANNEL, and FASHION NETWORK and charge you $30 a month for it.
It has nothing to do with "baby steps", it's all about charging us for something that should be included.
Before the iPhone, do you KNOW how much UNLIMITED data plans cost? It was the iPhone that started the whole lower data plan cost cycle. Thank Apple for that. And, before you start assuming what AT&T will do, whether it's like Sprint, why can't you wait for some facts before going on like a loose cannon? The crying is so effing annoying.
We can't have it both ways. It's funny that the same people who yesterday were saying how much AT&T's network is crap, that it can't handle the users that it already has in x-city, that it isn't spending its billions upgrading their network fast enough are now saying that AT&T sould allow it and there network is fine.
I have owned a SlingBox (not the afore mentioned SlingBlade I referred to). It was great when I needed it but I would spend a great deal of continuous time on it compared to watching a video or two on YouTube. If you've owned one you'd know that it's just not a great fit to be thrown willy nilly onto an already saturated network. It's just too easy to abuse the data requirements. I have great throughput with my iPhone and my 3G card for my notebook, both on AT&T, most of the time, but large cities are still very much hampered at this time without SlingBox and the next iPhone due out shortly causing making things worse. I would prefer for Apple and AT&T to only sell iPhones when the network can handle it. While it would suck to be on a waiting list for a couple months I would rather have that happen than get a new iPhone and have network trouble with it like too many did last year. It's just not good for business. MobileMe has been working since 3 days after its launch and yet it still has a stigma of being shoddy because of a poor release plan.
That said, if a SlingPlayer for iPhone app were to be allowed I would buy the new device immediately so I could use it on my iPhone. It's up to AT&T to keep up with the devices they allow, not me.
Your argument does not hold water. There are far more windows mobile phones out there on the market than iPhones sold total. Even now blackberrys are outselling iPhones and can also stream. There is an app called Orb on the app store which let's you stream live tv from a windows pc that is connected to your TV. Why is it suddenly that the slingbox for iPhone is different? The resolution is the same as on WM or blackberrys. Somehow I think when they release their U-Verse garbage, that it will not have any restrictions. There was also talk that at&t would be upgrading their networks just for the new iPhone this summer.
If AT&T does this, they are playing a dangerous game. They will not lose customers over the slingbox, but they will lose them by having too much control. A column today in appleinsider quoted an Apple official who said that Macs do the things you want it to do. Apple should be using that same idea with the iPhone.
Comments
I seriously doubt AT&T has ANY say in this. Apple has them by the balls because all the other carriers would give their left one to have the iPhone on their network.
Balls or no, AT&T isn't going to agree to data usage that kills their network.
Apple is improving their devices for better Apps... and ATT is trying to cripple it... and ATT wants to extend the exclusive??? NO EXCLUSIVE WITH ATT!
Time Warner wants to cripple their internet connection caps because people use the internet for multi-media in competition with Time Warner's cable TV. ATT is into TV now with U-Verse and we can expect them to stifle competition there also.
I want each type of media to be priced based on its data usage. Fair's fair.
=solipsism;1403742 Baby steps are often the best way to ensure long term success.
I seriously doubt AT&T has ANY say in this. Apple has them by the balls because all the other carriers would give their left one to have the iPhone on their network.
You got is ass backwards. AT&T has Apple by its seeds. Do you really think Apple is happy with this crappy network they're STUCK with EXCLUSIVELY?
My only take on this is that I don't want my voice and sms plan to subsidize others' video streaming.
I want each type of media to be priced based on its data usage. Fair's fair.
Then you might want to consider a network provider that doesn't support the latest multi-media, convergence, digital assistants.
www.metropcs.com
Actually, Sprint changed their terms of service last year on your aircard or tethered phone to include a five gigabyte soft limit. It seems the unlimited access "somehow bogged down their network."
At least it got me out of my Sprint contract.
I use an average of 20GB on my AT&T 3G card. On my iPhone I have received 2.2GB and sent 156MB in the last 4 days 16 hours. I recall that I seem to average 10GB a month on average. I'll look it up later when I have time to access to AT&T's slow website. It was advertised unlimited when I signed the contract but the retail associate told me that there is a soft cap of 5GB but that he had never heard of them actually enforcing it. This coincided with my previous info and since i have multiple iPhones and this 3G card on my account, pay on time with automated payment, and have been back with them since the first iPhone I figure I won't get hassled about it before I read articles of AT&T enforcing their contract caps. So far so good.
Simplify Media already lets you stream the music portion of your iTunes library to an iPhone, iPod Touch or any other Mac or (Win-Linux pc). I have an iPod touch (with which it works perfectly), but I also loaded the Simplify Media Mac client on my work computer and then tethered my Windows Mobile phone (Samsung Blackjack II) and streamed my music from home perfectly. So whats the big difference with Sling. Is it just video vs audio?
I think it is a bandwidth issue and by extension a video issue, as you state.
AT&T could beef up the 3G network since they know this stuff is coming rather than just wanting to block it all.
Also if they are planning on releasing their own and force Apple to deny SlingPlayer they are treading on VERY dangerous ground. That has anti-trust suit written all over it. Surely some of the many lawyers in their employ would see this and advise against it.
How so?
AT&T could beef up the 3G network since they know this stuff is coming rather than just wanting to block it all.
While I don't disagree that the internet service providers are not investing at the rate they should be, when you start to talk about RF based systems other issues come into play. For one thing for any given technology there is only so much bandwidth you can get out of a local.
Also if they are planning on releasing their own and force Apple to deny SlingPlayer they are treading on VERY dangerous ground. That has anti-trust suit written all over it. Surely some of the many lawyers in their employ would see this and advise against it.
I doubt very much that they have a direct competitor to Sling Player in the works. A future TV service is possible but that isn't really what Sling offers up. The bigger issues in my mind is allocation of bandwidth. Honestly I'm not sure the carriers have this figured out yet as there are so many competing possibilities.
In the end though, if bandwidth demand continues to increase there will have to be restrictions on service or an expansion of allocated RF spectrum. It is not at all like having a pipe ran to your house where there are no physical reasons for not expanding capacity. In a nut shell it is a mistake to compare restrictions on spectrum usage to the failure of the carriers to expand their pipes to handle internet traffic. One has finite capacity and the other is rather unlimited.
Dave
I realize this is the internet, and all, but does anyone really think it's worth going into fist pumping fits of indignation based on entirely speculative analysis of made up motivations behind a rumor?
Of course did you not know that only Apple and AT&T have unfair rules that rile righteous indignation. Every other carrier plays fair, everything they do is to the service of the consumer.
Yeah, I noticed that. Apparently, ATT&T charges you for unlimited data, which is much like rape.
I realize this is the internet, and all, but does anyone really think it's worth going into fist pumping fits of indignation based on entirely speculative analysis of made up motivations behind a rumor?
These are just "speculative" fist pumpings and fits of indignation.
the real stuff will come out if the rumor is true...
These are just "speculative" fist pumpings and fits of indignation.
the real stuff will come out if the rumor is true...
I dunno, I think the problem with rumor based fury is that it doesn't really matter what the motivation is, fury is fury. And then if it turns out to be unfounded you're still left with a lingering sense of resentment.
After a while, people pile up resentment systems based on nothing, making their threshold for jumping at the next outrage that much lower.
For instance, I would guess that for a lot of the people posting in this thread, the rumor counts as just another reason why AT&T sucks, and that will be held against them regardless of what proves to be true. So when somebody says that AT&T is openly murdering babies, for such people it will be just that much easier to believe.
During a media event to preview its iPhone 3.0 software last month, the iPhone maker touted its turnaround times on certifying applications for inclusion on the download service, saying it had approved 96% of apps submitted during the preceding two weeks, with 98% of those apps seeing approval in less than 7 days. So by the company's own standards, SlingPlayer's approval status has fallen below the curve..
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I would assume that those stats are heavily skewed by updates. Updates also need approval, and they would probably be quickest to turn around. I believe first-time app submissions would take quite a bit longer.
There has been no effort to create true streaming media for the iPhone by Apple or AT&T, so we're stuck in cell phone stone age?
How much longer are these companies going to continue to nickel and dime us for standard features?
Huh, what? Streaming live video is a "standard feature" on what carrier and handsets?
And, why do you assume these rumors are true? Why are you getting angry over a rumor?
Uhm, WinMo, Palm, Symbian and BB devices have had to pay $29 to buy the Slingplayer Mobile app. It does cost extra.
Now, it's quite possible there might be different rules for the iPhone due to its sheer popularity. If it weren't so damn popular, then AT&T wouldn't have to worry so damn much about the impact on the network it'll have. Perhaps, if you get rid of your iPhone, the bandwidth demands will drop so much, that they'll approve it, so I can use my Slingbox Solo with my iPhone!
It's not like AT&T and Apple are just winging it with their plans. They knew the direction this was going to go. I feel like you and some others on here are just making excuses. C'mon, we've all had our share of the Apple and now AT&T Kool-Aid, but you have to be blind if you can't see an ulterior motive. AT&T wants to charge iPhone users more than everybody else because we all pay a premium. They want to give you garbage media like Sprint did and offer CNN, WEATHER CHANNEL, and FASHION NETWORK and charge you $30 a month for it.
It has nothing to do with "baby steps", it's all about charging us for something that should be included.
Before the iPhone, do you KNOW how much UNLIMITED data plans cost? It was the iPhone that started the whole lower data plan cost cycle. Thank Apple for that. And, before you start assuming what AT&T will do, whether it's like Sprint, why can't you wait for some facts before going on like a loose cannon? The crying is so effing annoying.
We can't have it both ways. It's funny that the same people who yesterday were saying how much AT&T's network is crap, that it can't handle the users that it already has in x-city, that it isn't spending its billions upgrading their network fast enough are now saying that AT&T sould allow it and there network is fine.
I have owned a SlingBox (not the afore mentioned SlingBlade I referred to). It was great when I needed it but I would spend a great deal of continuous time on it compared to watching a video or two on YouTube. If you've owned one you'd know that it's just not a great fit to be thrown willy nilly onto an already saturated network. It's just too easy to abuse the data requirements. I have great throughput with my iPhone and my 3G card for my notebook, both on AT&T, most of the time, but large cities are still very much hampered at this time without SlingBox and the next iPhone due out shortly causing making things worse. I would prefer for Apple and AT&T to only sell iPhones when the network can handle it. While it would suck to be on a waiting list for a couple months I would rather have that happen than get a new iPhone and have network trouble with it like too many did last year. It's just not good for business. MobileMe has been working since 3 days after its launch and yet it still has a stigma of being shoddy because of a poor release plan.
That said, if a SlingPlayer for iPhone app were to be allowed I would buy the new device immediately so I could use it on my iPhone. It's up to AT&T to keep up with the devices they allow, not me.
Your argument does not hold water. There are far more windows mobile phones out there on the market than iPhones sold total. Even now blackberrys are outselling iPhones and can also stream. There is an app called Orb on the app store which let's you stream live tv from a windows pc that is connected to your TV. Why is it suddenly that the slingbox for iPhone is different? The resolution is the same as on WM or blackberrys. Somehow I think when they release their U-Verse garbage, that it will not have any restrictions. There was also talk that at&t would be upgrading their networks just for the new iPhone this summer.
If AT&T does this, they are playing a dangerous game. They will not lose customers over the slingbox, but they will lose them by having too much control. A column today in appleinsider quoted an Apple official who said that Macs do the things you want it to do. Apple should be using that same idea with the iPhone.