2) If you buy a Nokia phone to run on the Cingular network, are you a customer of Nokia or Cingular ... or both? When my shitty Motorola phone broke down, I didn't send it to Motorola - it got sent back to Cingular and replaced with a new (still shitty) phone. The argument about whose customers they are is sort of absurd. Ultimately they'll be Cingular customers with Apple hardware. The only difference is, I suspect you'll be able to take your iPhone to the Genius Bar if you have problems ... we may even see a Cingular rep in some stores to give their sales pitch or answer network questions. Apple isn't taking ANYTHING from Cingular. Your argument makes no sense...
I think the mobile phone market is screwed up. There is little chance to correct it if people allow themselves to be conditioned to simply accept a regressive regime like you have already done.
A couple of objections to what you're getting at...
1) Apple isn't going to start their own cellular network in 5 years. Not happening. Provide a varied line of "iPhones", sure, but there's no way Apple is going to piggyback Cingular for however long and then break off and become Apple Mobile selling only Apple branded phones. If Google succeeds in a National WiFi network, eh ... then maybe we have a chance at seeing an Apple VoIP phone. Don't hold your breath
2) If you buy a Nokia phone to run on the Cingular network, are you a customer of Nokia or Cingular ... or both? When my shitty Motorola phone broke down, I didn't send it to Motorola - it got sent back to Cingular and replaced with a new (still shitty) phone. The argument about whose customers they are is sort of absurd. Ultimately they'll be Cingular customers with Apple hardware. The only difference is, I suspect you'll be able to take your iPhone to the Genius Bar if you have problems ... we may even see a Cingular rep in some stores to give their sales pitch or answer network questions. Apple isn't taking ANYTHING from Cingular. Your argument makes no sense...
3) Are you a Verizon customer angry that you can't get an iPhone?
You must be the son or nephew of Steve Jobs. 5 years is a long time. How can you be so sure what apple would and would not do?. Even if cingular can assume that, why expose themselves to the risk?. Part of running a company is risk management. Did apple give it to them in ironclad agreement that they would never start a cell company?.. cause words don't mean shit. In love, business and war, everything is fair game.
Your second point kinda makes my point. You are the customer of the cell carrier. of course you sent your phone to cingular. That's my point.. why is a device manufacturer demanding to handle the customer?. My argument makes no sense?.. then why did apple demand the terms?. They did not say cingular would be in their stores or handle any of the hardware problems. They stated they would be totally in charge of all hardware. Did you read the article?. They wanted to totally freeze verizon out of the customer relationship. Verizon is not a non-profit. They are not a charitble organization. They are not in the business of handing apple their customers and saying to themselves "oh boy, i trust steve will do the right thing". Running your business on a wish and a prayer gets you booted with a golden parachute (then again, maybe that's what the cingular/att exec is hoping for, a fat golden parachute).
Here is what should have happened. Apple tells cingular the customer calls you. If there is a need to fix the phone, you direct them to a apple store or if one is not present, to apple.com, otherwise, you can replace the phone at your discretion. That's what should have happened. Think for a second here what apple has done. They have imposed their customer service values on cingular. Is cingular allowed to sell equpment service plans?. equipment insurance plans?. What if cingular wanted to institute a policy of "we'll replace any iphone for whatever reason, just buy insurance of $10 a month from us". Can they do that?.
Now i read that people expect cingular to discount the data plans for the iphone.. so let me get this straight.
Apple removes any chance for cingular to make additional income from the phone through service plans, insurance, etc.
Apple gets all the profit from selling this phone and then
cingular must turn around and give customers (who will be handled by apple) discounted plans?.
Is there something i am missing in this relationship??.
And lastly, i am not a verizon customer. Also i make sufficient money to afford a contract termination fee if i wanted to. Just because i can afford 500 does not mean i will fork 500 over to cingular for an overpriced phone and the pleasure of being locked into a two year contract for a phone that is not discounted. I work for my money. Contrary to what steve believes, it just does not grow on trees (also, i did not inherit from a rich uncle).
Sorry, your last point was kinda foolish. One does not have to be a verizon customer to realize that apple terms were bullshit. I am merely analyzing this purely on logic. I am not certain but i don't think i am even a shareholder of verizon.
I have no interest in them at all.. i am just puzzled why cingular did this deal. I mean, what could apple have said to them?.. deal with us or we will go home with our phone?. What if no one wanted to deal with apple on their terms.. would they have run home like a spoiled kid and play with their toy alone?. Obviously, the boys at cingular should call walmart lawyers.. now, there is a company that told apple to shove it where the sun does not shine. I believe walmart is doing just fine.. but walmart is kinda like apple. They bully their suppliers and all companies that have relationships with them.. i guess walmart met their match in apple and vice versa (in terms of trying to impose their will on each other)
I think the mobile phone market is screwed up. There is little chance to correct it if people allow themselves to be conditioned to simply accept a regressive regime like you have already done.
So how is what I've said "bowing to the evil empire"? All I said is that you can't really say well they're Apple's customers or Cingular's customers because they deal in two different sides of the same issue. Whether or not you like the cell phone market in it's present form is immaterial. Yes, I think most cell carriers are heavy-handed and difficult to deal with, but hey ... I'm on call with my employer. I have to have one. Do you have one? Are you accepting the regressive regime?
So how is what I've said "bowing to the evil empire"? All I said is that you can't really say well they're Apple's customers or Cingular's customers because they deal in two different sides of the same issue. Whether or not you like the cell phone market in it's present form is immaterial. Yes, I think most cell carriers are heavy-handed and difficult to deal with, but hey ... I'm on call with my employer. I have to have one. Do you have one? Are you accepting the regressive regime?
Not on call. Self employed.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
Exactly. We've just been forced to accept a very intrusive model from the cell phone industry that isn't like any other service provider. Oh, hey, guess what, Comcast wants you to buy the TVs they'll let you buy and they may disable some features if it means you might be tempted to use your own recording equipment instead of their DVR. Also, you're not allowed to hook a DVD player up to it because your supposed to use their On Demand service, not rent DVDs. They've got to, to insure the best possible experience, you know.
You must be the son or nephew of Steve Jobs. 5 years is a long time. How can you be so sure what apple would and would not do?. Even if cingular can assume that, why expose themselves to the risk?. Part of running a company is risk management. Did apple give it to them in ironclad agreement that they would never start a cell company?.. cause words don't mean shit. In love, business and war, everything is fair game.
You got me. My cover is blown. Yeah, 5 years is a long time to wait, but do you honestly think Apple is going to roll out a national cell phone network in 5 years? Cause they'll need more than one phone, then they'll need to either buy network or build their own, oh yeah ... then get the Fed approval. Remember, my Dad doesn't like to play his cards till he's been called. This would be a very public thing for Apple. You're right ... words don't mean much, but if I'm Cingular or Verizon or T-Mobile, I gotta like my chances of Apple NOT creating their own networkin 5 years. 15, eh ... maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
Your second point kinda makes my point. You are the customer of the cell carrier. of course you sent your phone to cingular. That's my point.. why is a device manufacturer demanding to handle the customer?. My argument makes no sense?.. then why did apple demand the terms?. They did not say cingular would be in their stores or handle any of the hardware problems. They stated they would be totally in charge of all hardware. Did you read the article?. They wanted to totally freeze verizon out of the customer relationship. Verizon is not a non-profit. They are not a charitble organization. They are not in the business of handing apple their customers and saying to themselves "oh boy, i trust steve will do the right thing". Running your business on a wish and a prayer gets you booted with a golden parachute (then again, maybe that's what the cingular/att exec is hoping for, a fat golden parachute).
Dear God ... Apple isn't taking customers from Verizon. What you're saying implies that Apple is going to steal people away from Cingular when Apple has nothing to offer them but a phone that they don't have a network for. If anything, I think Cingular will welcome having someone handle their iPhone customer service. It's one less phone model they have to worry about support staff and replacement parts for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
Here is what should have happened. Apple tells cingular the customer calls you. If there is a need to fix the phone, you direct them to a apple store or if one is not present, to apple.com, otherwise, you can replace the phone at your discretion. That's what should have happened. Think for a second here what apple has done. They have imposed their customer service values on cingular. Is cingular allowed to sell equpment service plans?. equipment insurance plans?. What if cingular wanted to institute a policy of "we'll replace any iphone for whatever reason, just buy insurance of $10 a month from us". Can they do that?.
Now i read that people expect cingular to discount the data plans for the iphone.. so let me get this straight.
Apple removes any chance for cingular to make additional income from the phone through service plans, insurance, etc.
Apple gets all the profit from selling this phone and then
cingular must turn around and give customers (who will be handled by apple) discounted plans?.
Is there something i am missing in this relationship??.
Ahhh, so we've finally come to the thing that's bugging the hell out of me since this damn phone was annunced. WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR ITS TIE-IN WITH CINGULAR. We won't know. Seems silly to have arguments over things that are completly irrelevsnt until June, when we find out PRECISELY what the iPhone / Cingular relationship holds in store. Also, people don't buy smartphones expecting discounted data plans. Why would this phone be any different. People who are expecting this are wishful thinkers or read too many rumor sites...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
And lastly, i am not a verizon customer. Also i make sufficient money to afford a contract termination fee if i wanted to. Just because i can afford 500 does not mean i will fork 500 over to cingular for an overpriced phone and the pleasure of being locked into a two year contract for a phone that is not discounted. I work for my money. Contrary to what steve believes, it just does not grow on trees (also, i did not inherit from a rich uncle).
Sorry, your last point was kinda foolish. One does not have to be a verizon customer to realize that apple terms were bullshit. I am merely analyzing this purely on logic. I am not certain but i don't think i am even a shareholder of verizon.
I have no interest in them at all.. i am just puzzled why cingular did this deal. I mean, what could apple have said to them?.. deal with us or we will go home with our phone?. What if no one wanted to deal with apple on their terms.. would they have run home like a spoiled kid and play with their toy alone?. Obviously, the boys at cingular should call walmart lawyers.. now, there is a company that told apple to shove it where the sun does not shine. I believe walmart is doing just fine.. but walmart is kinda like apple. They bully their suppliers and all companies that have relationships with them.. i guess walmart met their match in apple and vice versa (in terms of trying to impose their will on each other)
Well, my last point was sort of in jest, but what the heck. Again, we won't know exactly what the deal reached between apple and cingular was. We won't even know until June the final features of the product and the service Cingular will roll with it. Apple is also in the unique position right now of being able to set terms. They couldn't have done that 5 years ago. Heck, they couldn't really do it until 3 years ago when they got all 5 major record labels signed onto the iTS. Despite what you or I or anyone else thinks of Apple as a company or in their business practices, they are a desired brand. Think about it like this ... 5 years ago when the iPod came out, there were a lot of skeptics. It entered into a market that already had players like Sony and Creative and Rio and was a Mac only device. A lot of people said it'd go the way of the Newton. Well, the rest is history. You as a company executive knowing that this same company is going to tackle a mobile phone would probably at least pay attention to them. Record companies hated talking with Steve over iTS, but he got it his way. I think we can all agree that iTS has been moderately successful. Well, if Steve got his way with Cingular over whatever plans or features, then I guess we'll have to wait and see how that pans out in the real market when the product is released.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
Oh, I completely agree with you. I'd love not to be tied to a provider. I'd like national WiFi and an iPhone so I could use VoIP for everything. It's going to take a while for cell companies to change ther model. Look how long it took the recording industry to consider digital media. They're still dragging on it by arguing for DRM to "protect their property". The music industry is slowly changing. I hope the cell phone industry can do the same.
I think the mobile phone market is screwed up. There is little chance to correct it if people allow themselves to be conditioned to simply accept a regressive regime like you have already done.
I used to argue with Aegis about this.
But, I'm coming around to his viewpoint. Not sure if I should tell him though, more interesting this way.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see their argument.
The other services you mention are very simple. What would you expect the water company to send you through the water, other than pretty pure water?
Earthlink, and others do provide a modem, or gateway if you get broadband, though you can pay for your own.
But, so far, the powerline company just delivers power, as does the gas or oil company.
The phone company used to require that you buy your phone and other equipment from them. The breakup deal ended that.
Taking the side of the cell and cable companies for a moment:
The cell companies and the cable companies are the ones that still pretty much require you to buy from them.
That's because they offer the most complex services. You can buy a phone that will work with most networks, but it may not support all of the features of the networks, then what?
Another cable box may not support pay Tv from one cable company, but may work with another. Problems all around.
Somehow, this has been worked out to a certain extent in Europe, I would imagine, but perhaps not. It might be your business to figure it out.
This post took much longer than it should have. Right in the middle, my wireless keyboard lost sync with the computer.
But, it did give me the opportunity, which I've been avoiding, to set my Treo 700p up as a Bluetooth device. Now, I can use it as a broadband modem, among other uses.
At least Sprint doesn't charge extra for that, as long as you subscribe to their Power vision already.
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see their argument.
The other services you mention are very simple. What would you expect the water company to send you through the water, other than pretty pure water?
Earthlink, and others do provide a modem, or gateway if you get broadband, though you can pay for your own.
But, so far, the powerline company just delivers power, as does the gas or oil company.
The phone company used to require that you buy your phone and other equipment from them. The breakup deal ended that.
Taking the side of the cell and cable companies for a moment:
The cell companies and the cable companies are the ones that still pretty much require you to buy from them.
That's because they offer the most complex services. You can buy a phone that will work with most networks, but it may not support all of the features of the networks, then what?
Another cable box may not support pay Tv from one cable company, but may work with another. Problems all around.
Somehow, this has been worked out to a certain extent in Europe, I would imagine, but perhaps not. It might be your business to figure it out.
This post took much longer than it should have. Right in the middle, my wireless keyboard lost sync with the computer.
But, it did give me the opportunity, which I've been avoiding, to set my Treo 700p up as a Bluetooth device. Now, I can use it as a broadband modem, among other uses.
At least Sprint doesn't charge extra for that, as long as you subscribe to their Power vision already.
I hear what you're saying, but if the landline telcos can allow the variety of devices and uses that their services get put to, and do it more or less invisibly, then I can't see why the cell carriers can't figure something out.
The ATT land line coming into my home can be plugged into any of a thousand types of phones, with tens of thousands of features. It also serves as the carrier for my Earthlink internet account, and the nearly limitless possibilities that entails in terms of additional services and hardware, including video downloads, the entire iTunes ecology and any VOIP plan I care to subscribe to.
And nowhere, in any of this, is my phone company looking over my shoulder, constricting my hardware choices, trying to make me pay for media traveling over "their" lines or jacking up my bill with mysterious surcharges and penalties. I pay them a flat rate, they provide the plumbing. End of story.
I find it hard to believe that the cell infrastructure is so much more complex than all of that that the carriers are "forced" into ham fisted control.
It just looks like straight up greed to me, with Verizon being the very worst.
I hear what you're saying, but if the landline telcos can allow the variety of devices and uses that their services get put to, and do it more or less invisibly, then I can't see why the cell carriers can't figure something out.
The ATT land line coming into my home can be plugged into any of a thousand types of phones, with tens of thousands of features. It also serves as the carrier for my Earthlink internet account, and the nearly limitless possibilities that entails in terms of additional services and hardware, including video downloads, the entire iTunes ecology and any VOIP plan I care to subscribe to.
And nowhere, in any of this, is my phone company looking over my shoulder, constricting my hardware choices, trying to make me pay for media traveling over "their" lines or jacking up my bill with mysterious surcharges and penalties. I pay them a flat rate, they provide the plumbing. End of story.
I find it hard to believe that the cell infrastructure is so much more complex than all of that that the carriers are "forced" into ham fisted control.
It just looks like straight up greed to me, with Verizon being the very worst.
Well, landlines haven't offered that much over the years, except telephone service. Most everything that followed was developed independently. The telco's fought it very hard, but lost.
Cell is somewhat different. They offer services over the network that landlines can't support.
In the beginning, it was likely a good idea for them to run things the way they wanted to. When this is controlled from outside, it doesn't develop well.
If the government said, from the beginning, that the phone manufacturers would decide what features would run on their (the cell) networks, who can say if the cell providers would have been interested, or that the phone manufacturers would have even been able to come up with something coherent? As we see all the time, each manufacturer would have had a different implementation. A phone from Moto wouldn't work with one from Nokia, etc.
The cell companies enforce standards across their networks so that all phones can communicate with each other. But, they differentiate by offering different upper class services.
Even those are being standardized.
It might be time to tell the cells that they have go give up some control. The business is now well established.
But, unless the Gov. is going to force all of the networks to be 100% compliant with each other's services, phone manufacturers are still going to have a hell of a time getting their products to work with every service from every provider.
I'd like to put a correction to my previous post that you're responding to. In reading a sentence again, I realise that I sounded as though I was telling Jeff to do something, when I was speaking to a general audience:
Well, landlines haven't offered that much over the years, except telephone service. Most everything that followed was developed independently. The telco's fought it very hard, but lost.
Cell is somewhat different. They offer services over the network that landlines can't support.
In the beginning, it was likely a good idea for them to run things the way they wanted to. When this is controlled from outside, it doesn't develop well.
If the government said, from the beginning, that the phone manufacturers would decide what features would run on their (the cell) networks, who can say if the cell providers would have been interested, or that the phone manufacturers would have even been able to come up with something coherent? As we see all the time, each manufacturer would have had a different implementation. A phone from Moto wouldn't work with one from Nokia, etc.
The cell companies enforce standards across their networks so that all phones can communicate with each other. But, they differentiate by offering different upper class services.
Even those are being standardized.
It might be time to tell the cells that they have go give up some control. The business is now well established.
But, unless the Gov. is going to force all of the networks to be 100% compliant with each other's services, phone manufacturers are still going to have a hell of a time getting their products to work with every service from every provider.
I'd like to put a correction to my previous post that you're responding to. In reading a sentence again, I realise that I sounded as though I was telling Jeff to do something, when I was speaking to a general audience:
That's the errant line.
Yeah, multiple cell standards was a mistake. If we had had multiple internets and your hardware had to conform it would have crippled the development of the web and who knows where we'd be.
I think global communication infrastructures are too economically and strategically valuable to leave to the whims of the market. Settle on a standard and let people compete and innovate on the same playing field. I realize that might mean that an inferior tech is mandated, but is that really so much worse than having that same inferior tech and some other tech and yet another tech all swimming around banging into each other?
And as you say, we're reaching the "baby bell" point with the cell carriers, but there's no obvious way to spread things around because of the varying formats, and no obvious way to force standardization.
But I still think the picture is being distorted by these sort of quasi-monopolies, with their lock-in and device control and metered billing. At the very least the whole two year contract thing should be tossed. People think they're getting their subsidized phones "for free" but never do the math.
Comments
2) If you buy a Nokia phone to run on the Cingular network, are you a customer of Nokia or Cingular ... or both? When my shitty Motorola phone broke down, I didn't send it to Motorola - it got sent back to Cingular and replaced with a new (still shitty) phone. The argument about whose customers they are is sort of absurd. Ultimately they'll be Cingular customers with Apple hardware. The only difference is, I suspect you'll be able to take your iPhone to the Genius Bar if you have problems ... we may even see a Cingular rep in some stores to give their sales pitch or answer network questions. Apple isn't taking ANYTHING from Cingular. Your argument makes no sense...
I think the mobile phone market is screwed up. There is little chance to correct it if people allow themselves to be conditioned to simply accept a regressive regime like you have already done.
A couple of objections to what you're getting at...
1) Apple isn't going to start their own cellular network in 5 years. Not happening. Provide a varied line of "iPhones", sure, but there's no way Apple is going to piggyback Cingular for however long and then break off and become Apple Mobile selling only Apple branded phones. If Google succeeds in a National WiFi network, eh ... then maybe we have a chance at seeing an Apple VoIP phone. Don't hold your breath
2) If you buy a Nokia phone to run on the Cingular network, are you a customer of Nokia or Cingular ... or both? When my shitty Motorola phone broke down, I didn't send it to Motorola - it got sent back to Cingular and replaced with a new (still shitty) phone. The argument about whose customers they are is sort of absurd. Ultimately they'll be Cingular customers with Apple hardware. The only difference is, I suspect you'll be able to take your iPhone to the Genius Bar if you have problems ... we may even see a Cingular rep in some stores to give their sales pitch or answer network questions. Apple isn't taking ANYTHING from Cingular. Your argument makes no sense...
3) Are you a Verizon customer angry that you can't get an iPhone?
You must be the son or nephew of Steve Jobs. 5 years is a long time. How can you be so sure what apple would and would not do?. Even if cingular can assume that, why expose themselves to the risk?. Part of running a company is risk management. Did apple give it to them in ironclad agreement that they would never start a cell company?.. cause words don't mean shit. In love, business and war, everything is fair game.
Your second point kinda makes my point. You are the customer of the cell carrier. of course you sent your phone to cingular. That's my point.. why is a device manufacturer demanding to handle the customer?. My argument makes no sense?.. then why did apple demand the terms?. They did not say cingular would be in their stores or handle any of the hardware problems. They stated they would be totally in charge of all hardware. Did you read the article?. They wanted to totally freeze verizon out of the customer relationship. Verizon is not a non-profit. They are not a charitble organization. They are not in the business of handing apple their customers and saying to themselves "oh boy, i trust steve will do the right thing". Running your business on a wish and a prayer gets you booted with a golden parachute (then again, maybe that's what the cingular/att exec is hoping for, a fat golden parachute).
Here is what should have happened. Apple tells cingular the customer calls you. If there is a need to fix the phone, you direct them to a apple store or if one is not present, to apple.com, otherwise, you can replace the phone at your discretion. That's what should have happened. Think for a second here what apple has done. They have imposed their customer service values on cingular. Is cingular allowed to sell equpment service plans?. equipment insurance plans?. What if cingular wanted to institute a policy of "we'll replace any iphone for whatever reason, just buy insurance of $10 a month from us". Can they do that?.
Now i read that people expect cingular to discount the data plans for the iphone.. so let me get this straight.
Apple removes any chance for cingular to make additional income from the phone through service plans, insurance, etc.
Apple gets all the profit from selling this phone and then
cingular must turn around and give customers (who will be handled by apple) discounted plans?.
Is there something i am missing in this relationship??.
And lastly, i am not a verizon customer. Also i make sufficient money to afford a contract termination fee if i wanted to. Just because i can afford 500 does not mean i will fork 500 over to cingular for an overpriced phone and the pleasure of being locked into a two year contract for a phone that is not discounted. I work for my money. Contrary to what steve believes, it just does not grow on trees (also, i did not inherit from a rich uncle).
Sorry, your last point was kinda foolish. One does not have to be a verizon customer to realize that apple terms were bullshit. I am merely analyzing this purely on logic. I am not certain but i don't think i am even a shareholder of verizon.
I have no interest in them at all.. i am just puzzled why cingular did this deal. I mean, what could apple have said to them?.. deal with us or we will go home with our phone?. What if no one wanted to deal with apple on their terms.. would they have run home like a spoiled kid and play with their toy alone?. Obviously, the boys at cingular should call walmart lawyers.. now, there is a company that told apple to shove it where the sun does not shine. I believe walmart is doing just fine.. but walmart is kinda like apple. They bully their suppliers and all companies that have relationships with them.. i guess walmart met their match in apple and vice versa (in terms of trying to impose their will on each other)
I think the mobile phone market is screwed up. There is little chance to correct it if people allow themselves to be conditioned to simply accept a regressive regime like you have already done.
So how is what I've said "bowing to the evil empire"? All I said is that you can't really say well they're Apple's customers or Cingular's customers because they deal in two different sides of the same issue. Whether or not you like the cell phone market in it's present form is immaterial. Yes, I think most cell carriers are heavy-handed and difficult to deal with, but hey ... I'm on call with my employer. I have to have one. Do you have one? Are you accepting the regressive regime?
So how is what I've said "bowing to the evil empire"? All I said is that you can't really say well they're Apple's customers or Cingular's customers because they deal in two different sides of the same issue. Whether or not you like the cell phone market in it's present form is immaterial. Yes, I think most cell carriers are heavy-handed and difficult to deal with, but hey ... I'm on call with my employer. I have to have one. Do you have one? Are you accepting the regressive regime?
Not on call. Self employed.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
Not on call. Self employed.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
Exactly. We've just been forced to accept a very intrusive model from the cell phone industry that isn't like any other service provider. Oh, hey, guess what, Comcast wants you to buy the TVs they'll let you buy and they may disable some features if it means you might be tempted to use your own recording equipment instead of their DVR. Also, you're not allowed to hook a DVD player up to it because your supposed to use their On Demand service, not rent DVDs. They've got to, to insure the best possible experience, you know.
You must be the son or nephew of Steve Jobs. 5 years is a long time. How can you be so sure what apple would and would not do?. Even if cingular can assume that, why expose themselves to the risk?. Part of running a company is risk management. Did apple give it to them in ironclad agreement that they would never start a cell company?.. cause words don't mean shit. In love, business and war, everything is fair game.
Your second point kinda makes my point. You are the customer of the cell carrier. of course you sent your phone to cingular. That's my point.. why is a device manufacturer demanding to handle the customer?. My argument makes no sense?.. then why did apple demand the terms?. They did not say cingular would be in their stores or handle any of the hardware problems. They stated they would be totally in charge of all hardware. Did you read the article?. They wanted to totally freeze verizon out of the customer relationship. Verizon is not a non-profit. They are not a charitble organization. They are not in the business of handing apple their customers and saying to themselves "oh boy, i trust steve will do the right thing". Running your business on a wish and a prayer gets you booted with a golden parachute (then again, maybe that's what the cingular/att exec is hoping for, a fat golden parachute).
Dear God ... Apple isn't taking customers from Verizon. What you're saying implies that Apple is going to steal people away from Cingular when Apple has nothing to offer them but a phone that they don't have a network for. If anything, I think Cingular will welcome having someone handle their iPhone customer service. It's one less phone model they have to worry about support staff and replacement parts for.
Here is what should have happened. Apple tells cingular the customer calls you. If there is a need to fix the phone, you direct them to a apple store or if one is not present, to apple.com, otherwise, you can replace the phone at your discretion. That's what should have happened. Think for a second here what apple has done. They have imposed their customer service values on cingular. Is cingular allowed to sell equpment service plans?. equipment insurance plans?. What if cingular wanted to institute a policy of "we'll replace any iphone for whatever reason, just buy insurance of $10 a month from us". Can they do that?.
Now i read that people expect cingular to discount the data plans for the iphone.. so let me get this straight.
Apple removes any chance for cingular to make additional income from the phone through service plans, insurance, etc.
Apple gets all the profit from selling this phone and then
cingular must turn around and give customers (who will be handled by apple) discounted plans?.
Is there something i am missing in this relationship??.
Ahhh, so we've finally come to the thing that's bugging the hell out of me since this damn phone was annunced. WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR ITS TIE-IN WITH CINGULAR. We won't know. Seems silly to have arguments over things that are completly irrelevsnt until June, when we find out PRECISELY what the iPhone / Cingular relationship holds in store. Also, people don't buy smartphones expecting discounted data plans. Why would this phone be any different. People who are expecting this are wishful thinkers or read too many rumor sites...
And lastly, i am not a verizon customer. Also i make sufficient money to afford a contract termination fee if i wanted to. Just because i can afford 500 does not mean i will fork 500 over to cingular for an overpriced phone and the pleasure of being locked into a two year contract for a phone that is not discounted. I work for my money. Contrary to what steve believes, it just does not grow on trees (also, i did not inherit from a rich uncle).
Sorry, your last point was kinda foolish. One does not have to be a verizon customer to realize that apple terms were bullshit. I am merely analyzing this purely on logic. I am not certain but i don't think i am even a shareholder of verizon.
I have no interest in them at all.. i am just puzzled why cingular did this deal. I mean, what could apple have said to them?.. deal with us or we will go home with our phone?. What if no one wanted to deal with apple on their terms.. would they have run home like a spoiled kid and play with their toy alone?. Obviously, the boys at cingular should call walmart lawyers.. now, there is a company that told apple to shove it where the sun does not shine. I believe walmart is doing just fine.. but walmart is kinda like apple. They bully their suppliers and all companies that have relationships with them.. i guess walmart met their match in apple and vice versa (in terms of trying to impose their will on each other)
Well, my last point was sort of in jest, but what the heck. Again, we won't know exactly what the deal reached between apple and cingular was. We won't even know until June the final features of the product and the service Cingular will roll with it. Apple is also in the unique position right now of being able to set terms. They couldn't have done that 5 years ago. Heck, they couldn't really do it until 3 years ago when they got all 5 major record labels signed onto the iTS. Despite what you or I or anyone else thinks of Apple as a company or in their business practices, they are a desired brand. Think about it like this ... 5 years ago when the iPod came out, there were a lot of skeptics. It entered into a market that already had players like Sony and Creative and Rio and was a Mac only device. A lot of people said it'd go the way of the Newton. Well, the rest is history. You as a company executive knowing that this same company is going to tackle a mobile phone would probably at least pay attention to them. Record companies hated talking with Steve over iTS, but he got it his way. I think we can all agree that iTS has been moderately successful. Well, if Steve got his way with Cingular over whatever plans or features, then I guess we'll have to wait and see how that pans out in the real market when the product is released.
Not on call. Self employed.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
Oh, I completely agree with you. I'd love not to be tied to a provider. I'd like national WiFi and an iPhone so I could use VoIP for everything. It's going to take a while for cell companies to change ther model. Look how long it took the recording industry to consider digital media. They're still dragging on it by arguing for DRM to "protect their property". The music industry is slowly changing. I hope the cell phone industry can do the same.
I think the mobile phone market is screwed up. There is little chance to correct it if people allow themselves to be conditioned to simply accept a regressive regime like you have already done.
I used to argue with Aegis about this.
But, I'm coming around to his viewpoint. Not sure if I should tell him though, more interesting this way.
Not on call. Self employed.
I'm just saying that tying a product with a service is ridiculous when the tie is unnecessary. Earthlink doesn't require you buy your computer from them, and no one is confused by who is responsible for what, so why should a phone be tied to a service provider? I don't buy my appliances through my power company, or my land line handset through the land line provider. Even a water utility doesn't have anything to do with my choice of faucet or toilet. I don't see why it's too much to expect or why it would be legitimate for the cell phone industry to be treated differently.
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see their argument.
The other services you mention are very simple. What would you expect the water company to send you through the water, other than pretty pure water?
Earthlink, and others do provide a modem, or gateway if you get broadband, though you can pay for your own.
But, so far, the powerline company just delivers power, as does the gas or oil company.
The phone company used to require that you buy your phone and other equipment from them. The breakup deal ended that.
Taking the side of the cell and cable companies for a moment:
The cell companies and the cable companies are the ones that still pretty much require you to buy from them.
That's because they offer the most complex services. You can buy a phone that will work with most networks, but it may not support all of the features of the networks, then what?
Another cable box may not support pay Tv from one cable company, but may work with another. Problems all around.
Somehow, this has been worked out to a certain extent in Europe, I would imagine, but perhaps not. It might be your business to figure it out.
This post took much longer than it should have. Right in the middle, my wireless keyboard lost sync with the computer.
But, it did give me the opportunity, which I've been avoiding, to set my Treo 700p up as a Bluetooth device. Now, I can use it as a broadband modem, among other uses.
At least Sprint doesn't charge extra for that, as long as you subscribe to their Power vision already.
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see their argument.
The other services you mention are very simple. What would you expect the water company to send you through the water, other than pretty pure water?
Earthlink, and others do provide a modem, or gateway if you get broadband, though you can pay for your own.
But, so far, the powerline company just delivers power, as does the gas or oil company.
The phone company used to require that you buy your phone and other equipment from them. The breakup deal ended that.
Taking the side of the cell and cable companies for a moment:
The cell companies and the cable companies are the ones that still pretty much require you to buy from them.
That's because they offer the most complex services. You can buy a phone that will work with most networks, but it may not support all of the features of the networks, then what?
Another cable box may not support pay Tv from one cable company, but may work with another. Problems all around.
Somehow, this has been worked out to a certain extent in Europe, I would imagine, but perhaps not. It might be your business to figure it out.
This post took much longer than it should have. Right in the middle, my wireless keyboard lost sync with the computer.
But, it did give me the opportunity, which I've been avoiding, to set my Treo 700p up as a Bluetooth device. Now, I can use it as a broadband modem, among other uses.
At least Sprint doesn't charge extra for that, as long as you subscribe to their Power vision already.
I hear what you're saying, but if the landline telcos can allow the variety of devices and uses that their services get put to, and do it more or less invisibly, then I can't see why the cell carriers can't figure something out.
The ATT land line coming into my home can be plugged into any of a thousand types of phones, with tens of thousands of features. It also serves as the carrier for my Earthlink internet account, and the nearly limitless possibilities that entails in terms of additional services and hardware, including video downloads, the entire iTunes ecology and any VOIP plan I care to subscribe to.
And nowhere, in any of this, is my phone company looking over my shoulder, constricting my hardware choices, trying to make me pay for media traveling over "their" lines or jacking up my bill with mysterious surcharges and penalties. I pay them a flat rate, they provide the plumbing. End of story.
I find it hard to believe that the cell infrastructure is so much more complex than all of that that the carriers are "forced" into ham fisted control.
It just looks like straight up greed to me, with Verizon being the very worst.
I hear what you're saying, but if the landline telcos can allow the variety of devices and uses that their services get put to, and do it more or less invisibly, then I can't see why the cell carriers can't figure something out.
The ATT land line coming into my home can be plugged into any of a thousand types of phones, with tens of thousands of features. It also serves as the carrier for my Earthlink internet account, and the nearly limitless possibilities that entails in terms of additional services and hardware, including video downloads, the entire iTunes ecology and any VOIP plan I care to subscribe to.
And nowhere, in any of this, is my phone company looking over my shoulder, constricting my hardware choices, trying to make me pay for media traveling over "their" lines or jacking up my bill with mysterious surcharges and penalties. I pay them a flat rate, they provide the plumbing. End of story.
I find it hard to believe that the cell infrastructure is so much more complex than all of that that the carriers are "forced" into ham fisted control.
It just looks like straight up greed to me, with Verizon being the very worst.
Well, landlines haven't offered that much over the years, except telephone service. Most everything that followed was developed independently. The telco's fought it very hard, but lost.
Cell is somewhat different. They offer services over the network that landlines can't support.
In the beginning, it was likely a good idea for them to run things the way they wanted to. When this is controlled from outside, it doesn't develop well.
If the government said, from the beginning, that the phone manufacturers would decide what features would run on their (the cell) networks, who can say if the cell providers would have been interested, or that the phone manufacturers would have even been able to come up with something coherent? As we see all the time, each manufacturer would have had a different implementation. A phone from Moto wouldn't work with one from Nokia, etc.
The cell companies enforce standards across their networks so that all phones can communicate with each other. But, they differentiate by offering different upper class services.
Even those are being standardized.
It might be time to tell the cells that they have go give up some control. The business is now well established.
But, unless the Gov. is going to force all of the networks to be 100% compliant with each other's services, phone manufacturers are still going to have a hell of a time getting their products to work with every service from every provider.
I'd like to put a correction to my previous post that you're responding to. In reading a sentence again, I realise that I sounded as though I was telling Jeff to do something, when I was speaking to a general audience:
It might be your business to figure it out.
That's the errant line.
Well, landlines haven't offered that much over the years, except telephone service. Most everything that followed was developed independently. The telco's fought it very hard, but lost.
Cell is somewhat different. They offer services over the network that landlines can't support.
In the beginning, it was likely a good idea for them to run things the way they wanted to. When this is controlled from outside, it doesn't develop well.
If the government said, from the beginning, that the phone manufacturers would decide what features would run on their (the cell) networks, who can say if the cell providers would have been interested, or that the phone manufacturers would have even been able to come up with something coherent? As we see all the time, each manufacturer would have had a different implementation. A phone from Moto wouldn't work with one from Nokia, etc.
The cell companies enforce standards across their networks so that all phones can communicate with each other. But, they differentiate by offering different upper class services.
Even those are being standardized.
It might be time to tell the cells that they have go give up some control. The business is now well established.
But, unless the Gov. is going to force all of the networks to be 100% compliant with each other's services, phone manufacturers are still going to have a hell of a time getting their products to work with every service from every provider.
I'd like to put a correction to my previous post that you're responding to. In reading a sentence again, I realise that I sounded as though I was telling Jeff to do something, when I was speaking to a general audience:
That's the errant line.
Yeah, multiple cell standards was a mistake. If we had had multiple internets and your hardware had to conform it would have crippled the development of the web and who knows where we'd be.
I think global communication infrastructures are too economically and strategically valuable to leave to the whims of the market. Settle on a standard and let people compete and innovate on the same playing field. I realize that might mean that an inferior tech is mandated, but is that really so much worse than having that same inferior tech and some other tech and yet another tech all swimming around banging into each other?
And as you say, we're reaching the "baby bell" point with the cell carriers, but there's no obvious way to spread things around because of the varying formats, and no obvious way to force standardization.
But I still think the picture is being distorted by these sort of quasi-monopolies, with their lock-in and device control and metered billing. At the very least the whole two year contract thing should be tossed. People think they're getting their subsidized phones "for free" but never do the math.