Speaking of not addressing, Melgross, have you ever addressed how SwirlyMMS provides this solution using the AT&T network with no ill effects on the first generation iPhone using the supposedly incompatible radio?
You have not.
Have you addressed the fact that Cydia allows the first generation iPhone to make iTunes music store purchases over the 2g network by removing the SOFTWARE restriction?
You have not.
Finally have you addressed the fact that the iPhone 3G will clearly be able to use MMS in areas where there is not 3G coverage since MMS does not require that technology and in fact the iPhone will be using the same 2G radio frequencies to send said MMS messages that it is claimed the iPhone 2G cannot use?
You have not.
You can claim I've ignored your points, but the reality is that there is no way to address "Well Trumptman is squishy about MMS" or "I'm going to ignore Consumer Reports and go with what I saw on the subway on the way home."
How does one address such lack of reasoning? There isn't a way. That stuff is DUST meant to distract.
Unless it was a different, recent thread, I am pretty sure it was discussed and addressed by Melgross (myself and others, too). While it was clearly possible for Apple to add MMS as slower, older phones without UMTS/HSDPA (and even without EDGE, only GPRS) have MMS, that does mean that the MMS that Apple is adding to iPhone 3.0 to their 3G iPhones will be the same MMS that those other devices have. It was discussed that there is obviously some info missing. that only speculations can be made at this point. All MMS is not the same.
Its difficult to believe AT&T (or any carrier) would allow hacked software to take a free ride on its service. If this is true then its likely that so few people are using SwirlySMS that its not worth AT&T taking any action against it.
What you want to do Trumpetman is jump to conclusions without yet having full knowledge of the difference. Apple did not say the original iPhone was incapable of MMS. Looking at all of the evidence at hand this most likely the MMS service Apple will use is over 3G, which is what the original iPhone doesn't have.
Who said anything about a free ride? No one has claimed that this allows you to use messaging without paying for it. If you pay for the service and it interfaces it as any other phone would, then why would AT&T care?
As for jumping to conclusions, you do so yourself in claiming that Apple will make their MMS service a function of 3G only. There is absolutely nothing from Apple that indicates this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Unless it was a different, recent thread, I am pretty sure it was discussed and addressed by Melgross (myself and others, too). While it was clearly possible for Apple to add MMS as slower, older phones without UMTS/HSDPA (and even without EDGE, only GPRS) have MMS, that does mean that the MMS that Apple is adding to iPhone 3.0 to their 3G iPhones will be the same MMS that those other devices have. It was discussed that there is obviously some info missing. that only speculations can be made at this point. All MMS is not the same.
The reality is that they can add it though and are choosing not only to not add it, but to not allow apps in their store that can provide it as well. That speaks volumes right there. Apple could easily absolve themselves of any concerns or complaints by simply allowing this to be done via third parties but they will not allow it to be done period.
As for jumping to conclusions, you do so yourself in claiming that Apple will make their MMS service a function of 3G only. There is absolutely nothing from Apple that indicates this.
You mean besides the comment made by Apple that this will be only for 3G iPhones and stated something about 3G protocols? Or this comment from the PR statement, "MMS messaging is available only on iPhone 3G; fees may apply. MMS may not be available in all areas."?
No available in all areas, even if you have an iPhone 3G. That makes me think that it will be a 3G service, only, though it could just mean that areas with only phone and no data service will not have MMS, of course, but I highly doubt that.
Quote:
The reality is that they can add it though and are choosing not only to not add it, but to not allow apps in their store that can provide it as well. That speaks volumes right there. Apple could easily absolve themselves of any concerns or complaints by simply allowing this to be done via third parties but they will not allow it to be done period.
You aren't considering anything but Apple on this. If I were working the deal for AT&T and I knew about the App Store and the unlimited data that Apple wanted, etc., I am sure I would have got it in the contract that Apple can't allow others to create an MMS app if AT&T wasn't going to have one. You have to stop and think, "why isn't there an MMS app on the iPhone. How does this benefit Apple or AT&T? Why would Apple and AT&T want to let other make one and make money off it, but them? Again, you clearly don't have all the information but are making accusations anyway.
Look at this way: If we know that MMS in its loosest form doesn't require 3G, but Apple is requiring 3G, yet they are not a network operator so they don't directly care about congestion, then why is Apple requiring it? Do you really think it's to get people to buy new iPhones? For that expensive service that is less utilized than SMS? if so, then why not exclude SMS? Why keep updating the 2 year old iPhone? Why prevent it from the App Store? You have answered none of these questions (or even addressed them as far as I can tell) yet they need to be remedied before you come to a conclusion. By best guess, reiterated, is that Apple is planning something beyond the typical MMS for iPhones. Something else to set it apart and probably make some money off the backend from the carriers.
Apple has not approved SwirlySMS use on the iPhone and AT&T has not given permission for it to use its service. Without permission its a free ride.
Quote:
Who said anything about a free ride? No one has claimed that this allows you to use messaging without paying for it. If you pay for the service and it interfaces it as any other phone would, then why would AT&T care?
Earlier in this thread I stated that WebOS only runs one true application: A Webkit based browser.
All of Palm's applications are actually web-apps running under the browser.
This is no longer true. There is a second App.
The PalmOS emulator is a true application - running in native code. Because, of course, you can't run an emulator as a WebApp.
I don't necessarily think this shows that the WebApp strategy is flawed.
Google's webmail application for the iPhone is, in some ways, superior to the native code Apple email client.
But there are lots of applications which will never run as web applications, and it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out.
But if the wind was blowing in Palm's favour - It certainly would be much easier for Apple to refactor its web applications to become WebOS-like. Than it would be for Palm to create a full native-code API - like Cocoa touch.
You mean besides the comment made by Apple that this will be only for 3G iPhones and stated something about 3G protocols? Or this comment from the PR statement, "MMS messaging is available only on iPhone 3G; fees may apply. MMS may not be available in all areas."?
No available in all areas, even if you have an iPhone 3G. That makes me think that it will be a 3G service, only, though it could just mean that areas with only phone and no data service will not have MMS, of course, but I highly doubt that.
You could be right or it could just be Apple's way of covering their butt legally since they have been sued so many times for offering features and not having the AT&T network keep its end of the deal.
Quote:
You aren't considering anything but Apple on this. If I were working the deal for AT&T and I knew about the App Store and the unlimited data that Apple wanted, etc., I am sure I would have got it in the contract that Apple can't allow others to create an MMS app if AT&T wasn't going to have one. You have to stop and think, "why isn't there an MMS app on the iPhone. How does this benefit Apple or AT&T? Why would Apple and AT&T want to let other make one and make money off it, but them? Again, you clearly don't have all the information but are making accusations anyway.
Apple has a very unique and exclusive deal with AT&T. You note why didn't AT&T step up and create an app, I'm not aware of any other apps that AT&T has created for the iPhone for services they offer. Is there an iPhone AT&T GPS application for example, or MobileTV app? Apple demanded they be allowed to create their own closed wall garden and AT&T has left them alone in that regard. Also since every other phone already has MMS built in, AT&T has never had to create a MMS app for a phone. It is in the interest of AT&T to allow MMS as others have noted since it is likely one of the most expensive services per byte delivered that they offer. Finally consider this, when a non-technical iPhone user is told the new iPhone has MMS and his old phone does not, AT&T can sign him to a new two year contract with new terms and conditions all to get a new phone. AT&T has a clear interest in procuring that contract commitment.
I have considered Apple in noting that they never wanted MMS. Jobs clearly and publicly repudiated MMS in his iPhone intro. He preferred email and declared that iPhone users should as well. I noted that Apple still didn't want MMS but clearly put it in as a response to user requests and the market. Claiming I don't have the information presumes someone else here does and of course they don't. So don't make a demand of me that you cannot meet yourself.
Apple clearly wanted to create a different market model with the iPhone. They wanted unsubsidized prices and to stop having as many services being offered by the cell carrier. They wanted to minimize the cell carrier. The last couple years have been us watching Apple refine and alternately cave in various forms on this model. The offered the iPod touch which does eliminate the carrier. They had to cave on price, allow the data plan to be raised and move to the subsidized model everyone else uses. They wanted a simplified data plan and so they offered SMS and email. Now their users will have the option of MMS and tacking that onto the data plan (thus raising costs) as well.
Quote:
Look at this way: If we know that MMS in its loosest form doesn't require 3G, but Apple is requiring 3G, yet they are not a network operator so they don't directly care about congestion, then why is Apple requiring it? Do you really think it's to get people to buy new iPhones? For that expensive service that is less utilized than SMS? if so, then why not exclude SMS? Why keep updating the 2 year old iPhone? Why prevent it from the App Store? You have answered none of these questions (or even addressed them as far as I can tell) yet they need to be remedied before you come to a conclusion. By best guess, reiterated, is that Apple is planning something beyond the typical MMS for iPhones. Something else to set it apart and probably make some money off the backend from the carriers.
Apple can require it because they want to require it. Why did they make the latest lessons on Garage Band require a G5 when simple hacks have them running just fine on G4? Why is it likely they will exclude PPC from Snow Leopard when it is clear G5 class machines could run it just fine and it is nothing more than a compiling issue? Apple does this sort of stuff all the time. Most people create hacks that simply disable the installer check and it works just fine. Those who don't care go and buy new equipment.
As you note, why would they prevent SwirlyMMS from the app store when they would make a percentage of the $8 they charge? Well because Apple has engineered a closed-wall garden and clearly has said no to apps that compete in areas they want to own. Also the make a lot more from the sale of a new iPhone.
Will MMS get people to buy new iPhones? Of course it will. Most people are not technical at all. Cell users are already conditioned to a two year upgrade cycle. AT&T wants a new two year contract and Apple wants the sale of a new iPhone. Most people do not jailbreak or even read up anything with regard to their cell phone. The fact that we would even come to an Apple forum to discuss the iPhone makes us different than about 90% of the people out there. If Apple doesn't allow a MMS app then the large uninformed masses will follow the path of least resistance. Me, I might pick up one of these now "useless" iPhones on the cheap just to play with. I mean when I hit the selling owner with the information that their radio is "outdated" and that "no one is going to want it since it won't do MMS" I'll get it for even cheaper.
A NES/SNES emulator on the iPhone would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what does everyone think the chances of that would be? >0% I hope!
You could be right or it could just be Apple's way of covering their butt legally since they have been sued so many times for offering features and not having the AT&T network keep its end of the deal.
Now you're getting it. We just don't know the reason, but we know enough to know we don't have all the information to make a determination.
Quote:
Apple has a very unique and exclusive deal with AT&T. You note why didn't AT&T step up and create an app, I'm not aware of any other apps that AT&T has created for the iPhone for services they offer.
I didn't say that AT&T would be creating the app. They didn't create the phone or SMS app that is used on their network. I suggested that if AT&T really wanted an MMS app on the EDGE iPhone they would have had one (made by Apple). Of course, some other deal could have pushed it away in favour of something else, but I don't see what Apple would have against the relatively simple addition of MMS... unless they and AT&T were planning all along for some Super MMS for their 3G network. Again, we are missing an important part of the puzzle.
Quote:
Claiming I don't have the information presumes someone else here does and of course they don't. So don't make a demand of me that you cannot meet yourself.
So knowing something is false requires knowing what is the truth?
Quote:
Apple clearly wanted to create a different market model with the iPhone. They wanted unsubsidized prices and to stop having as many services being offered by the cell carrier. They wanted to minimize the cell carrier. The last couple years have been us watching Apple refine and alternately cave in various forms on this model. The offered the iPod touch which does eliminate the carrier. They had to cave on price, allow the data plan to be raised and move to the subsidized model everyone else uses. They wanted a simplified data plan and so they offered SMS and email. Now their users will have the option of MMS and tacking that onto the data plan (thus raising costs) as well.
Yes, they did want a new model. This US model is broken and we get companies like Verizon who take advantage, but it's not that great with any carrier. But they didn't cave in the US, they caved elsewhere and reportedly had to beg AT&T to let them go back to the old model of business, which required a 2 year extension on the exclusivity contract. I think AT&T really liked not having to push a few hundred dollars up front to the vendor for costs they weren't going to recoup in a net profit for nearly a year. I think they saw no real downside to let Apple deal with many of the iPhone customers and letting consumers activate their phones at home, away from their retail employees. It is time consuming in a store.
The Touch only eliminates the carrier if you don't want a phone. I don't think it has baring on your comment about Apple caving. I also don't see how not offering MMS made things simple to the consumer. We know it's a cash cow for carriers so we have to figure out why AT&T didn't want it, or why AT&T was okay with Apple not including it and why Apple didn't want to include it. You don't have those answers!
Your last sentence doesn't seem to fit except to be negative. The cost of MMS would still be there with the original iPhone had they added it. I don't understand why people are so intent of paying such outrageous fees to send MMS and SMS through a carrier anyway. I understand that it currently connects to more phones than email but the data to cost ratio is so outrageous.
[quote]Apple can require it because they want to require it. Why did they make the latest lessons on Garage Band require a G5 when simple hacks have them running just fine on G4? Why is it likely they will exclude PPC from Snow Leopard when it is clear G5 class machines could run it just fine and it is nothing more than a compiling issue? Apple does this sort of stuff all the time. Most people create hacks that simply disable the installer check and it works just fine. Those who don't care go and buy new equipment.
Your last paragraph was complaining about Apple having to cave to [foreign] carriers. Now your complaining that Apple can do anything it wants but for some reason choose not to do be "doodieheads". I don't think you are being rational or fair in your evaluation. The Garage Band issue is like any other issue. Apple has to draw the line somewhere. I bet I can get Garage Band to run on any Mac that runs Leopard, no matter how old it is, but that doesn't mean it will run well. As a company you have to consider these things. People are suing Apple because AT&T's network isn't as fast for 3G than they thought it would be or that 3G isn't in their area. Do you think that Apple wouldn't get sued for making an app and saying that it can run on any of their HW running OS X and not have unhappy customers if it's too slow to be useful. They made a blatant cut off at G4, that is a marketing decision that makes it easy for the consumer to understand, even at the risk of losing a few dozen sales on fast G4's that it will run well on.
Quote:
As you note, why would they prevent SwirlyMMS from the app store when they would make a percentage of the $8 they charge? Well because Apple has engineered a closed-wall garden and clearly has said no to apps that compete in areas they want to own. Also the make a lot more from the sale of a new iPhone.
Again, you state for a fact that it's Apple, when I see no reason why having MMS wold compete with Apple's business model since it would only add an app to the iPhone and make them money on each sale. You coming it from a PoV that Apple is in the wrong before you look at the facts. I'd guess that Apple under contract can't have other MMS apps on their device.
Quote:
Will MMS get people to buy new iPhones? Of course it will. Most people are not technical at all.
The people that most likely use MMS are younger and therefore more technically inclined due to our culture.
Quote:
Cell users are already conditioned to a two year upgrade cycle. AT&T wants a new two year contract and Apple wants the sale of a new iPhone.
If that is the case then why is Apple updating all those 2 year old iPhones with v3.0. It surely doesn't bode well for selling new iPhones if they are getting a major firmware overhaul to extend their usefulness. We aren't just talking bug fixes.
Quote:
Me, I might pick up one of these now "useless" iPhones on the cheap just to play with. I mean when I hit the selling owner with the information that their radio is "outdated" and that "no one is going to want it since it won't do MMS" I'll get it for even cheaper.
If that were the case then the original iPhone wouldn't have been so popular. I sold mine for more than I bought for after a year of use on that "useless" phone.
A NES/SNES emulator on the iPhone would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what does everyone think the chances of that would be? >0% I hope!
The Good:
Apple did just make their SDK and App Store allow for in app purchases, which would make it great to have one emulator app for a console and then have all the games listed and buyable within that app.
The Bad:
Apple still doesn't allow emulators or any other engines to run within 3rd-party apps.
The Ugly:
If Apple did allow for an emulator app to pass, it wouldn't be from Nintendo. They have the same whole widget model as Apple and I don't see them wavering even if they could. Especially with them being the biggest company in Japan making more money as production costs lower. However, if Apple were to open up to emulators then perhaps Atari or Sega or the other forgotten consoles could make a comeback on the iPhone, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
What definition did I make up? If Apple or AT&T allowed SMS/MMS software to use AT&T's service Then their would be many apps in the app store that performed this function. The action of creating a hack that goes around this allowance, what else would you call it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
It must be nice to make up the definitions of words. Install it, send a MMS and see if the cost is free.
What definition did I make up? If Apple or AT&T allowed SMS/MMS software to use AT&T's service Then their would be many apps in the app store that performed this function. The action of creating a hack that goes around this allowance, what else would you call it?
So many of have tried to talk to sense to the kid and yet he still comes back with the oddest stuff. I don't think that having a rational conversation is possible.
Comments
Speaking of not addressing, Melgross, have you ever addressed how SwirlyMMS provides this solution using the AT&T network with no ill effects on the first generation iPhone using the supposedly incompatible radio?
You have not.
Have you addressed the fact that Cydia allows the first generation iPhone to make iTunes music store purchases over the 2g network by removing the SOFTWARE restriction?
You have not.
Finally have you addressed the fact that the iPhone 3G will clearly be able to use MMS in areas where there is not 3G coverage since MMS does not require that technology and in fact the iPhone will be using the same 2G radio frequencies to send said MMS messages that it is claimed the iPhone 2G cannot use?
You have not.
You can claim I've ignored your points, but the reality is that there is no way to address "Well Trumptman is squishy about MMS" or "I'm going to ignore Consumer Reports and go with what I saw on the subway on the way home."
How does one address such lack of reasoning? There isn't a way. That stuff is DUST meant to distract.
Unless it was a different, recent thread, I am pretty sure it was discussed and addressed by Melgross (myself and others, too). While it was clearly possible for Apple to add MMS as slower, older phones without UMTS/HSDPA (and even without EDGE, only GPRS) have MMS, that does mean that the MMS that Apple is adding to iPhone 3.0 to their 3G iPhones will be the same MMS that those other devices have. It was discussed that there is obviously some info missing. that only speculations can be made at this point. All MMS is not the same.
Its difficult to believe AT&T (or any carrier) would allow hacked software to take a free ride on its service. If this is true then its likely that so few people are using SwirlySMS that its not worth AT&T taking any action against it.
What you want to do Trumpetman is jump to conclusions without yet having full knowledge of the difference. Apple did not say the original iPhone was incapable of MMS. Looking at all of the evidence at hand this most likely the MMS service Apple will use is over 3G, which is what the original iPhone doesn't have.
Who said anything about a free ride? No one has claimed that this allows you to use messaging without paying for it. If you pay for the service and it interfaces it as any other phone would, then why would AT&T care?
As for jumping to conclusions, you do so yourself in claiming that Apple will make their MMS service a function of 3G only. There is absolutely nothing from Apple that indicates this.
Unless it was a different, recent thread, I am pretty sure it was discussed and addressed by Melgross (myself and others, too). While it was clearly possible for Apple to add MMS as slower, older phones without UMTS/HSDPA (and even without EDGE, only GPRS) have MMS, that does mean that the MMS that Apple is adding to iPhone 3.0 to their 3G iPhones will be the same MMS that those other devices have. It was discussed that there is obviously some info missing. that only speculations can be made at this point. All MMS is not the same.
The reality is that they can add it though and are choosing not only to not add it, but to not allow apps in their store that can provide it as well. That speaks volumes right there. Apple could easily absolve themselves of any concerns or complaints by simply allowing this to be done via third parties but they will not allow it to be done period.
As for jumping to conclusions, you do so yourself in claiming that Apple will make their MMS service a function of 3G only. There is absolutely nothing from Apple that indicates this.
You mean besides the comment made by Apple that this will be only for 3G iPhones and stated something about 3G protocols? Or this comment from the PR statement, "MMS messaging is available only on iPhone 3G; fees may apply. MMS may not be available in all areas."?
No available in all areas, even if you have an iPhone 3G. That makes me think that it will be a 3G service, only, though it could just mean that areas with only phone and no data service will not have MMS, of course, but I highly doubt that.
The reality is that they can add it though and are choosing not only to not add it, but to not allow apps in their store that can provide it as well. That speaks volumes right there. Apple could easily absolve themselves of any concerns or complaints by simply allowing this to be done via third parties but they will not allow it to be done period.
You aren't considering anything but Apple on this. If I were working the deal for AT&T and I knew about the App Store and the unlimited data that Apple wanted, etc., I am sure I would have got it in the contract that Apple can't allow others to create an MMS app if AT&T wasn't going to have one. You have to stop and think, "why isn't there an MMS app on the iPhone. How does this benefit Apple or AT&T? Why would Apple and AT&T want to let other make one and make money off it, but them? Again, you clearly don't have all the information but are making accusations anyway.
Look at this way: If we know that MMS in its loosest form doesn't require 3G, but Apple is requiring 3G, yet they are not a network operator so they don't directly care about congestion, then why is Apple requiring it? Do you really think it's to get people to buy new iPhones? For that expensive service that is less utilized than SMS? if so, then why not exclude SMS? Why keep updating the 2 year old iPhone? Why prevent it from the App Store? You have answered none of these questions (or even addressed them as far as I can tell) yet they need to be remedied before you come to a conclusion. By best guess, reiterated, is that Apple is planning something beyond the typical MMS for iPhones. Something else to set it apart and probably make some money off the backend from the carriers.
Who said anything about a free ride? No one has claimed that this allows you to use messaging without paying for it. If you pay for the service and it interfaces it as any other phone would, then why would AT&T care?
All of Palm's applications are actually web-apps running under the browser.
This is no longer true. There is a second App.
The PalmOS emulator is a true application - running in native code. Because, of course, you can't run an emulator as a WebApp.
I don't necessarily think this shows that the WebApp strategy is flawed.
Google's webmail application for the iPhone is, in some ways, superior to the native code Apple email client.
But there are lots of applications which will never run as web applications, and it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out.
But if the wind was blowing in Palm's favour - It certainly would be much easier for Apple to refactor its web applications to become WebOS-like. Than it would be for Palm to create a full native-code API - like Cocoa touch.
C.
You mean besides the comment made by Apple that this will be only for 3G iPhones and stated something about 3G protocols? Or this comment from the PR statement, "MMS messaging is available only on iPhone 3G; fees may apply. MMS may not be available in all areas."?
No available in all areas, even if you have an iPhone 3G. That makes me think that it will be a 3G service, only, though it could just mean that areas with only phone and no data service will not have MMS, of course, but I highly doubt that.
You could be right or it could just be Apple's way of covering their butt legally since they have been sued so many times for offering features and not having the AT&T network keep its end of the deal.
You aren't considering anything but Apple on this. If I were working the deal for AT&T and I knew about the App Store and the unlimited data that Apple wanted, etc., I am sure I would have got it in the contract that Apple can't allow others to create an MMS app if AT&T wasn't going to have one. You have to stop and think, "why isn't there an MMS app on the iPhone. How does this benefit Apple or AT&T? Why would Apple and AT&T want to let other make one and make money off it, but them? Again, you clearly don't have all the information but are making accusations anyway.
Apple has a very unique and exclusive deal with AT&T. You note why didn't AT&T step up and create an app, I'm not aware of any other apps that AT&T has created for the iPhone for services they offer. Is there an iPhone AT&T GPS application for example, or MobileTV app? Apple demanded they be allowed to create their own closed wall garden and AT&T has left them alone in that regard. Also since every other phone already has MMS built in, AT&T has never had to create a MMS app for a phone. It is in the interest of AT&T to allow MMS as others have noted since it is likely one of the most expensive services per byte delivered that they offer. Finally consider this, when a non-technical iPhone user is told the new iPhone has MMS and his old phone does not, AT&T can sign him to a new two year contract with new terms and conditions all to get a new phone. AT&T has a clear interest in procuring that contract commitment.
I have considered Apple in noting that they never wanted MMS. Jobs clearly and publicly repudiated MMS in his iPhone intro. He preferred email and declared that iPhone users should as well. I noted that Apple still didn't want MMS but clearly put it in as a response to user requests and the market. Claiming I don't have the information presumes someone else here does and of course they don't. So don't make a demand of me that you cannot meet yourself.
Apple clearly wanted to create a different market model with the iPhone. They wanted unsubsidized prices and to stop having as many services being offered by the cell carrier. They wanted to minimize the cell carrier. The last couple years have been us watching Apple refine and alternately cave in various forms on this model. The offered the iPod touch which does eliminate the carrier. They had to cave on price, allow the data plan to be raised and move to the subsidized model everyone else uses. They wanted a simplified data plan and so they offered SMS and email. Now their users will have the option of MMS and tacking that onto the data plan (thus raising costs) as well.
Look at this way: If we know that MMS in its loosest form doesn't require 3G, but Apple is requiring 3G, yet they are not a network operator so they don't directly care about congestion, then why is Apple requiring it? Do you really think it's to get people to buy new iPhones? For that expensive service that is less utilized than SMS? if so, then why not exclude SMS? Why keep updating the 2 year old iPhone? Why prevent it from the App Store? You have answered none of these questions (or even addressed them as far as I can tell) yet they need to be remedied before you come to a conclusion. By best guess, reiterated, is that Apple is planning something beyond the typical MMS for iPhones. Something else to set it apart and probably make some money off the backend from the carriers.
Apple can require it because they want to require it. Why did they make the latest lessons on Garage Band require a G5 when simple hacks have them running just fine on G4? Why is it likely they will exclude PPC from Snow Leopard when it is clear G5 class machines could run it just fine and it is nothing more than a compiling issue? Apple does this sort of stuff all the time. Most people create hacks that simply disable the installer check and it works just fine. Those who don't care go and buy new equipment.
As you note, why would they prevent SwirlyMMS from the app store when they would make a percentage of the $8 they charge? Well because Apple has engineered a closed-wall garden and clearly has said no to apps that compete in areas they want to own. Also the make a lot more from the sale of a new iPhone.
Will MMS get people to buy new iPhones? Of course it will. Most people are not technical at all. Cell users are already conditioned to a two year upgrade cycle. AT&T wants a new two year contract and Apple wants the sale of a new iPhone. Most people do not jailbreak or even read up anything with regard to their cell phone. The fact that we would even come to an Apple forum to discuss the iPhone makes us different than about 90% of the people out there. If Apple doesn't allow a MMS app then the large uninformed masses will follow the path of least resistance. Me, I might pick up one of these now "useless" iPhones on the cheap just to play with. I mean when I hit the selling owner with the information that their radio is "outdated" and that "no one is going to want it since it won't do MMS" I'll get it for even cheaper.
Apple has not approved SwirlySMS use on the iPhone and AT&T has not given permission for it to use its service. Without permission its a free ride.
It must be nice to make up the definitions of words. Install it, send a MMS and see if the cost is free.
So what does everyone think the chances of that would be? >0% I hope!
You could be right or it could just be Apple's way of covering their butt legally since they have been sued so many times for offering features and not having the AT&T network keep its end of the deal.
Now you're getting it.
Apple has a very unique and exclusive deal with AT&T. You note why didn't AT&T step up and create an app, I'm not aware of any other apps that AT&T has created for the iPhone for services they offer.
I didn't say that AT&T would be creating the app. They didn't create the phone or SMS app that is used on their network. I suggested that if AT&T really wanted an MMS app on the EDGE iPhone they would have had one (made by Apple). Of course, some other deal could have pushed it away in favour of something else, but I don't see what Apple would have against the relatively simple addition of MMS... unless they and AT&T were planning all along for some Super MMS for their 3G network. Again, we are missing an important part of the puzzle.
Claiming I don't have the information presumes someone else here does and of course they don't. So don't make a demand of me that you cannot meet yourself.
So knowing something is false requires knowing what is the truth?
Apple clearly wanted to create a different market model with the iPhone. They wanted unsubsidized prices and to stop having as many services being offered by the cell carrier. They wanted to minimize the cell carrier. The last couple years have been us watching Apple refine and alternately cave in various forms on this model. The offered the iPod touch which does eliminate the carrier. They had to cave on price, allow the data plan to be raised and move to the subsidized model everyone else uses. They wanted a simplified data plan and so they offered SMS and email. Now their users will have the option of MMS and tacking that onto the data plan (thus raising costs) as well.
Yes, they did want a new model. This US model is broken and we get companies like Verizon who take advantage, but it's not that great with any carrier. But they didn't cave in the US, they caved elsewhere and reportedly had to beg AT&T to let them go back to the old model of business, which required a 2 year extension on the exclusivity contract. I think AT&T really liked not having to push a few hundred dollars up front to the vendor for costs they weren't going to recoup in a net profit for nearly a year. I think they saw no real downside to let Apple deal with many of the iPhone customers and letting consumers activate their phones at home, away from their retail employees. It is time consuming in a store.
The Touch only eliminates the carrier if you don't want a phone. I don't think it has baring on your comment about Apple caving. I also don't see how not offering MMS made things simple to the consumer. We know it's a cash cow for carriers so we have to figure out why AT&T didn't want it, or why AT&T was okay with Apple not including it and why Apple didn't want to include it. You don't have those answers!
Your last sentence doesn't seem to fit except to be negative. The cost of MMS would still be there with the original iPhone had they added it. I don't understand why people are so intent of paying such outrageous fees to send MMS and SMS through a carrier anyway. I understand that it currently connects to more phones than email but the data to cost ratio is so outrageous.
[quote]Apple can require it because they want to require it. Why did they make the latest lessons on Garage Band require a G5 when simple hacks have them running just fine on G4? Why is it likely they will exclude PPC from Snow Leopard when it is clear G5 class machines could run it just fine and it is nothing more than a compiling issue? Apple does this sort of stuff all the time. Most people create hacks that simply disable the installer check and it works just fine. Those who don't care go and buy new equipment.
Your last paragraph was complaining about Apple having to cave to [foreign] carriers. Now your complaining that Apple can do anything it wants but for some reason choose not to do be "doodieheads". I don't think you are being rational or fair in your evaluation. The Garage Band issue is like any other issue. Apple has to draw the line somewhere. I bet I can get Garage Band to run on any Mac that runs Leopard, no matter how old it is, but that doesn't mean it will run well. As a company you have to consider these things. People are suing Apple because AT&T's network isn't as fast for 3G than they thought it would be or that 3G isn't in their area. Do you think that Apple wouldn't get sued for making an app and saying that it can run on any of their HW running OS X and not have unhappy customers if it's too slow to be useful. They made a blatant cut off at G4, that is a marketing decision that makes it easy for the consumer to understand, even at the risk of losing a few dozen sales on fast G4's that it will run well on.
As you note, why would they prevent SwirlyMMS from the app store when they would make a percentage of the $8 they charge? Well because Apple has engineered a closed-wall garden and clearly has said no to apps that compete in areas they want to own. Also the make a lot more from the sale of a new iPhone.
Again, you state for a fact that it's Apple, when I see no reason why having MMS wold compete with Apple's business model since it would only add an app to the iPhone and make them money on each sale. You coming it from a PoV that Apple is in the wrong before you look at the facts. I'd guess that Apple under contract can't have other MMS apps on their device.
Will MMS get people to buy new iPhones? Of course it will. Most people are not technical at all.
The people that most likely use MMS are younger and therefore more technically inclined due to our culture.
Cell users are already conditioned to a two year upgrade cycle. AT&T wants a new two year contract and Apple wants the sale of a new iPhone.
If that is the case then why is Apple updating all those 2 year old iPhones with v3.0. It surely doesn't bode well for selling new iPhones if they are getting a major firmware overhaul to extend their usefulness. We aren't just talking bug fixes.
Me, I might pick up one of these now "useless" iPhones on the cheap just to play with. I mean when I hit the selling owner with the information that their radio is "outdated" and that "no one is going to want it since it won't do MMS" I'll get it for even cheaper.
If that were the case then the original iPhone wouldn't have been so popular. I sold mine for more than I bought for after a year of use on that "useless" phone.
A NES/SNES emulator on the iPhone would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what does everyone think the chances of that would be? >0% I hope!
The Good:
Apple did just make their SDK and App Store allow for in app purchases, which would make it great to have one emulator app for a console and then have all the games listed and buyable within that app.
The Bad:
Apple still doesn't allow emulators or any other engines to run within 3rd-party apps.
The Ugly:
If Apple did allow for an emulator app to pass, it wouldn't be from Nintendo. They have the same whole widget model as Apple and I don't see them wavering even if they could. Especially with them being the biggest company in Japan making more money as production costs lower. However, if Apple were to open up to emulators then perhaps Atari or Sega or the other forgotten consoles could make a comeback on the iPhone, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
It must be nice to make up the definitions of words. Install it, send a MMS and see if the cost is free.
What definition did I make up? If Apple or AT&T allowed SMS/MMS software to use AT&T's service Then their would be many apps in the app store that performed this function. The action of creating a hack that goes around this allowance, what else would you call it?
So many of have tried to talk to sense to the kid and yet he still comes back with the oddest stuff. I don't think that having a rational conversation is possible.