An apparent delay in the approval of SlingPlayer's release on the App Store, coupled with unconfirmed reports that AT&T isn't keen on seeing the device make its way to the iPhone, has led to speculation that the wireless carrier is seeking to have the software rejected in its current form.
Formally announced at January's Macworld Expo with an expected release date of March, the SlingPlayer Mobile application promised to allow iPhone users to stream live television over WiFi or 3G by tapping into home TV setups equipped with a Slingbox.*A built-in remote control function would reportedly allow for channel surfing and DVR setup.
Sling Media announced on March 26th that it had submitted the highly-anticipated application to the App Store for Apple's approval. It's been three weeks since then and the app has yet to gain Apple's approval, suggesting something is holding up its release.
During a media event to preview its iPhone 3.0 software last month, the iPhone maker touted its turnaround times on certifying applications for inclusion on the download service, saying it had approved 96% of apps submitted during the preceding two weeks, with 98% of those apps seeing approval in less than 7 days. So by the company's own standards, SlingPlayer's approval status has fallen below the curve.
Now, a new -- albeit unconfirmed -- report is fueling speculation that something may have gone awry during the application's approval process. BGR is citing an unverified source who claims that Apple plans to deny the application in its current form because AT&T has expressed concerns about its potential to saturate its 3G network.
Assuming the claim is accurate, Sling Media may need to alter the application to function along the lines of Skype for iPhone, which will operate over a WiFi connection but not 3G wireless networks. Such a move would obviously curb the appeal of the Sling application, making it inoperable more often than not. The claim is dubious, however, given that a version of SlingPlayer runs on several other AT&T devices like the BlackBerry Bold.
For its part, Sling Media has said that is has received no official word from Apple on the status of its submission.
Meanwhile, industry watchers are taking advantage of the matter to speculate that AT&T may have ulterior motives for requesting that Apple deny the application, if it indeed has chosen to do so. In particular, it's theorized that the wireless carrier may be close to making good on a promise to launch a similar service that would allow iPhone users to steer video recorders for its U-verse digital TV offering from their handsets.
A little over two weeks ago AT&T abruptly altered its terms of service to prevent services like SlingPlayer from running on its network, explicitly prohibiting "customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device."
The carrier later reverted the terms of service, saying the change was a mistake.
Huh, what? Streaming live video is a "standard feature" on what carrier and handsets?
And, why do you assume these rumors are true? Why are you getting angry over a rumor?
Uhm, WinMo, Palm, Symbian and BB devices have had to pay $29 to buy the Slingplayer Mobile app. It does cost extra.
Now, it's quite possible there might be different rules for the iPhone due to its sheer popularity. If it weren't so damn popular, then AT&T wouldn't have to worry so damn much about the impact on the network it'll have. Perhaps, if you get rid of your iPhone, the bandwidth demands will drop so much, that they'll approve it, so I can use my Slingbox Solo with my iPhone!
Video Streaming is not included in the Blackberry Internet Service so you need to add another data plan on top of your voice and Blackberry plan or use the walled garden your network provider sometimes supplies.
I think you'll find that a lot of WinMo and Blackberry users don't use those functions, particularly those who had them given to them by their employers, using your employers bandwidth to stream live video does not really sound like a good idea.
I guess if you're happy to foot the bill for government employees to kick back and watch streaming video on their government issued smartphone's, just remember it's your taxes that will pay for it.
The thing is iPhone users use their phone's for Internet a lot, enough to show up just under Linux in DESKTOP browsers used, it's the only mobile platform that does so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
Your argument does not hold water. There are far more windows mobile phones out there on the market than iPhones sold total. Even now blackberrys are outselling iPhones and can also stream. There is an app called Orb on the app store which let's you stream live tv from a windows pc that is connected to your TV. Why is it suddenly that the slingbox for iPhone is different? The resolution is the same as on WM or blackberrys. Somehow I think when they release their U-Verse garbage, that it will not have any restrictions. There was also talk that at&t would be upgrading their networks just for the new iPhone this summer.
Fair enough, but what does that have to do with AT&T and the American market? Given the vast differences between the American cell market and the rest of the world, it seems reasonable to measure AT&T against other domestic carriers, does it not?
Unless you just want to rail against American cell service in general, which I realize some of Europe's brave new xenophobes probably do.....
Huh, what? Streaming live video is a "standard feature" on what carrier and handsets?
As I said, WinMo, Palm, Symbian, and BB devices. When I pay for unlimited internet, I get it. I can use whatever app I want.
I don't have a WinMo Pocket PC anymore, but I had one running Slingplayer over EVDO and it is the only thing I miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC
And, why do you assume these rumors are true? Why are you getting angry over a rumor?
Not really angry, just disappointed to hear there is such a delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC
Uhm, WinMo, Palm, Symbian and BB devices have had to pay $29 to buy the Slingplayer Mobile app. It does cost extra.
The iPhone app will cost money too, but there is NO MONTHLY FEE. It's a one time purchase + free updates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC
Now, it's quite possible there might be different rules for the iPhone due to its sheer popularity.
So since a phone is popular, we should pay a premium for the phone and the service. That sounds like a fair deal. I don't mind paying for the iPhone technology. We all remember paying for the original iPhone ($499? Can't remember). The service fee should not change from phone to phone. Like I said in a previous post, they use the same ones and zeros.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC
If it weren't so damn popular, then AT&T wouldn't have to worry so damn much about the impact on the network it'll have. Perhaps, if you get rid of your iPhone, the bandwidth demands will drop so much, that they'll approve it, so I can use my Slingbox Solo with my iPhone!
So we agree?
I just hope you are correct about it being a rumor. Quite frankly I don't care if it is available over the 3G network or the future 4G network. I just want the option of getting online via WiFi while waiting at the airport gate. On the other hand, internet is internet. If I can go online and watch 1000 Youtube videos in a row without hearing complaints from AT&T why shouldn't I be able to watch a couple of hours of TV on my phone with a video streaming app like Slingplayer.
Appears simple to me.. They already have the terms in place to limit users to 5GB per month, so how in the world can they possibly justify limiting what users can do with that 5GB ??
Besides, if it was such a major issue than wouldn't Apple just (temporarily at least) limit the use to WiFI only?
ATT has hit new lows. I have hated them from the day I moved over. There service sucks and I live in a major metropolitan area where when I was using Verizon, never ONCE lost a call. WIth ATT it is a common occurrence. ALl the time and it actually reminds me of the early days of cellular service.
I left them because I wanted an iphone, I wanted a device that would roll into one all the devices I carried around and it succeeded in that.
There are now other devices out there that would accomplish the same things and now with the possibility of Verizon becoming the official carrier in 2010, I would not hesitate to jump back to the network that actually delivers a steady cellular service and is not afraid of bandwith usage of its customers.
And Apple is starting ot piss me off a little too. They approve without a problem hundreds of thousands of useless programs for that apps store, meaningless, thoughtless, idiotic programs that people pay a buck for and use a couple of times for the novelty of it and then throw them away shortly there after.. Its a frivolous shocking display of greed on their part.
And because they throw their hands up in the air and look the other way should there be a problem with any of the apps purchased on their site a total lack of intelligent direction with regard to maintaining a consistent brand identity.
And now to let ATT push them around regarding an App that people have been waiting for since the introduction of the iphone, to let Sling develop the program without giving them a heads up on the possibility of ATT's disproval and which is totally available and works beautifully on all of ATT's other smart phones, is just another example of their ignorance of what the real corporate world is all about and how they deal with the smaller fish that are beholden to them.
I also think this is a reflection of Steve Jobs not being on the scene, and the companies true lack of backbone without him. He would never have let this situation develop and would have told ATT to piss off and would have released the program for the device as is and designed for his hardware product. Someone should make him aware of this controversy so it can get resolved promptly!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SHAME ON ATT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SHAME ON APPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the Slingplayer gets rejected for the iPhone and I will definitely be dropping my iPhone. I doubt anybody at AT&T or Apple would care if they lost my service, but it really ticks me off. I'm very excited about the upcoming iPhone hardware and software upgrades, but Slingbox owners have been waiting for this since the original iPhone came out - it just makes sense. All Windows Mobile phones, Palms, Symbian, and Blackberry devices can use it, and it doesn't cost extra. I don't get why the iPhone gets a different set of rules. It's B.S.
There has been no effort to create true streaming media for the iPhone by Apple or AT&T, so we're stuck in cell phone stone age?
How much longer are these companies going to continue to nickel and dime us for standard features?
Very well said. I've been holding off buying an iphone until it has all the standard features that smart phones have had for years. The 3rd release is finally what should have been the first iphone. Sling Player is very important to me and if they don't give me 3g use, i'm not buying an iphone. I'm sick and tired of AT&T acting as wardens. Can't believe a company like Apple would ever deal with Big Blue, what am i saying they are Big Blue. I guess i need to do some reading up on the Palm Pre. I wish that group that is trying to get the FCC to investigate AT&T succeeds, it will be a huge victory for consumers. I can understand about skype but that also should have 3G access.If i have to choose, i would pick sling.
If it does turn out that AT&T is behind the move to better position an app for U-Verse then I'll be dropping my iPhone as well. It'll be Blackberry time...
And I'm not sweating the pitchfork thing... I can always save it for the rat $&%@# at TiVo for continuing to find new and exciting ways to shove their ads in my face.
Something to ponder, I've read that in order to get the iPhone, AT&T had to give Apple a cut of the revenue from the data plans. Does any other provider of cell phones get this and if not, perhaps that is the hiccup in the negotiations.
Something to ponder, I've read that in order to get the iPhone, AT&T had to give Apple a cut of the revenue from the data plans. Does any other provider of cell phones get this and if not, perhaps that is the hiccup in the negotiations.
This is well know and documented right after the original iPhone was announced. The $400 price for the original iPhone wasn't the full retail price had AT&T not been "revenue sharing" each month for each account for the iPhone. Apple had a had time getting this model to work with the rest of the world and so for the iPhone 3G they ended it. To do so in the states, it is reported that AT&T wanted to extend their exclusivity with Apple. AT&T liked this model as they weren't paying out a few hundred bucks to Apple for the sale of each iPhone before that revenue was made back over the next two years. For Apple it gave them more control over the handset, which is why Verizon would never have gone for it.
This was good for the consumer and you can see that the cellphone industry has already changed because of it. One of the benefits to the consumer is that if you maintained your account Apple was still getting paid so it behooved Apple to keep supplying rich updates to your phone, something that is just now becoming common because of the iPhone. I think that Apple's continued update for the original iPhone after 2 years is more to undermine the rest of the industry than anything else at this point. I'm not sure if they still get revenue sharing on those handsets after the 2 year contract is up. Personally, I would have wanted such a contract written that way I could still get paid for making a device that last more than 2 years on the same account without alterations.
This is well know and documented right after the original iPhone was announced. The $400 price for the original iPhone wasn't the full retail price had AT&T not been "revenue sharing" each month for each account for the iPhone. Apple had a had time getting this model to work with the rest of the world and so for the iPhone 3G they ended it. To do so in the states, it is reported that AT&T wanted to extend their exclusivity with Apple. AT&T liked this model as they weren't paying out a few hundred bucks to Apple for the sale of each iPhone before that revenue was made back over the next two years. For Apple it gave them more control over the handset, which is why Verizon would never have gone for it.
This was good for the consumer and you can see that the cellphone industry has already changed because of it. One of the benefits to the consumer is that if you maintained your account Apple was still getting paid so it behooved Apple to keep supplying rich updates to your phone, something that is just now becoming common because of the iPhone. I think that Apple's continued update for the original iPhone after 2 years is more to undermine the rest of the industry than anything else at this point. I'm not sure if they still get revenue sharing on those handsets after the 2 year contract is up. Personally, I would have wanted such a contract written that way I could still get paid for making a device that last more than 2 years on the same account without alterations.
Thanks for adding the details. What I was getting at is that perhaps since it is unlikely that this model is in place for other providers, AT&T might be seeking to alter or end it before agreeing to allow SlingPlayer on their network. It is very likely that the data agreements don't stop paying Apple that subsidy at the two year mark. I would bet that AT&T wants to end this revenue sharing before absorbing the cost of providing network services for apps such as this. I can't prove it. I'm pretty much playing a game of "one of these things is not like the other," and I'm trying to figure out why it wouldn't belong.
So what if AT&T is bringing its own media service, there's nothing malicious about that. That does not mean AT&T is blocking other media services from the phone. Seeing as their are already media services on the iPhone, there is no reason to believe that AT&T has any reason to block SlingBox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Being conspiring or not, AT&T have openly said, they launch their media service for iPhone this summer.
Comments
An apparent delay in the approval of SlingPlayer's release on the App Store, coupled with unconfirmed reports that AT&T isn't keen on seeing the device make its way to the iPhone, has led to speculation that the wireless carrier is seeking to have the software rejected in its current form.
Formally announced at January's Macworld Expo with an expected release date of March, the SlingPlayer Mobile application promised to allow iPhone users to stream live television over WiFi or 3G by tapping into home TV setups equipped with a Slingbox.*A built-in remote control function would reportedly allow for channel surfing and DVR setup.
Sling Media announced on March 26th that it had submitted the highly-anticipated application to the App Store for Apple's approval. It's been three weeks since then and the app has yet to gain Apple's approval, suggesting something is holding up its release.
During a media event to preview its iPhone 3.0 software last month, the iPhone maker touted its turnaround times on certifying applications for inclusion on the download service, saying it had approved 96% of apps submitted during the preceding two weeks, with 98% of those apps seeing approval in less than 7 days. So by the company's own standards, SlingPlayer's approval status has fallen below the curve.
Now, a new -- albeit unconfirmed -- report is fueling speculation that something may have gone awry during the application's approval process. BGR is citing an unverified source who claims that Apple plans to deny the application in its current form because AT&T has expressed concerns about its potential to saturate its 3G network.
Assuming the claim is accurate, Sling Media may need to alter the application to function along the lines of Skype for iPhone, which will operate over a WiFi connection but not 3G wireless networks. Such a move would obviously curb the appeal of the Sling application, making it inoperable more often than not. The claim is dubious, however, given that a version of SlingPlayer runs on several other AT&T devices like the BlackBerry Bold.
For its part, Sling Media has said that is has received no official word from Apple on the status of its submission.
Meanwhile, industry watchers are taking advantage of the matter to speculate that AT&T may have ulterior motives for requesting that Apple deny the application, if it indeed has chosen to do so. In particular, it's theorized that the wireless carrier may be close to making good on a promise to launch a similar service that would allow iPhone users to steer video recorders for its U-verse digital TV offering from their handsets.
A little over two weeks ago AT&T abruptly altered its terms of service to prevent services like SlingPlayer from running on its network, explicitly prohibiting "customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device."
The carrier later reverted the terms of service, saying the change was a mistake.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
People need to call ATT and Apple to complain. That's it!
http://www.gsmarena.com/streaming_or...e-news-871.php
Those Europeans, so advanced!
Huh, what? Streaming live video is a "standard feature" on what carrier and handsets?
And, why do you assume these rumors are true? Why are you getting angry over a rumor?
Uhm, WinMo, Palm, Symbian and BB devices have had to pay $29 to buy the Slingplayer Mobile app. It does cost extra.
Now, it's quite possible there might be different rules for the iPhone due to its sheer popularity. If it weren't so damn popular, then AT&T wouldn't have to worry so damn much about the impact on the network it'll have. Perhaps, if you get rid of your iPhone, the bandwidth demands will drop so much, that they'll approve it, so I can use my Slingbox Solo with my iPhone!
I think you'll find that a lot of WinMo and Blackberry users don't use those functions, particularly those who had them given to them by their employers, using your employers bandwidth to stream live video does not really sound like a good idea.
I guess if you're happy to foot the bill for government employees to kick back and watch streaming video on their government issued smartphone's, just remember it's your taxes that will pay for it.
The thing is iPhone users use their phone's for Internet a lot, enough to show up just under Linux in DESKTOP browsers used, it's the only mobile platform that does so.
Your argument does not hold water. There are far more windows mobile phones out there on the market than iPhones sold total. Even now blackberrys are outselling iPhones and can also stream. There is an app called Orb on the app store which let's you stream live tv from a windows pc that is connected to your TV. Why is it suddenly that the slingbox for iPhone is different? The resolution is the same as on WM or blackberrys. Somehow I think when they release their U-Verse garbage, that it will not have any restrictions. There was also talk that at&t would be upgrading their networks just for the new iPhone this summer.
Maybe he means something like this:-
http://www.gsmarena.com/streaming_or...e-news-871.php
Those Europeans, so advanced!
Fair enough, but what does that have to do with AT&T and the American market? Given the vast differences between the American cell market and the rest of the world, it seems reasonable to measure AT&T against other domestic carriers, does it not?
Unless you just want to rail against American cell service in general, which I realize some of Europe's brave new xenophobes probably do.....
People need to call ATT and Apple to complain. That's it!
Is there an APP for that?
Is there an APP for that?
Huh, what? Streaming live video is a "standard feature" on what carrier and handsets?
As I said, WinMo, Palm, Symbian, and BB devices. When I pay for unlimited internet, I get it. I can use whatever app I want.
I don't have a WinMo Pocket PC anymore, but I had one running Slingplayer over EVDO and it is the only thing I miss.
And, why do you assume these rumors are true? Why are you getting angry over a rumor?
Not really angry, just disappointed to hear there is such a delay.
Uhm, WinMo, Palm, Symbian and BB devices have had to pay $29 to buy the Slingplayer Mobile app. It does cost extra.
The iPhone app will cost money too, but there is NO MONTHLY FEE. It's a one time purchase + free updates.
Now, it's quite possible there might be different rules for the iPhone due to its sheer popularity.
So since a phone is popular, we should pay a premium for the phone and the service. That sounds like a fair deal. I don't mind paying for the iPhone technology. We all remember paying for the original iPhone ($499? Can't remember). The service fee should not change from phone to phone. Like I said in a previous post, they use the same ones and zeros.
If it weren't so damn popular, then AT&T wouldn't have to worry so damn much about the impact on the network it'll have. Perhaps, if you get rid of your iPhone, the bandwidth demands will drop so much, that they'll approve it, so I can use my Slingbox Solo with my iPhone!
So we agree?
I just hope you are correct about it being a rumor. Quite frankly I don't care if it is available over the 3G network or the future 4G network. I just want the option of getting online via WiFi while waiting at the airport gate. On the other hand, internet is internet. If I can go online and watch 1000 Youtube videos in a row without hearing complaints from AT&T why shouldn't I be able to watch a couple of hours of TV on my phone with a video streaming app like Slingplayer.
Besides, if it was such a major issue than wouldn't Apple just (temporarily at least) limit the use to WiFI only?
I left them because I wanted an iphone, I wanted a device that would roll into one all the devices I carried around and it succeeded in that.
There are now other devices out there that would accomplish the same things and now with the possibility of Verizon becoming the official carrier in 2010, I would not hesitate to jump back to the network that actually delivers a steady cellular service and is not afraid of bandwith usage of its customers.
And Apple is starting ot piss me off a little too. They approve without a problem hundreds of thousands of useless programs for that apps store, meaningless, thoughtless, idiotic programs that people pay a buck for and use a couple of times for the novelty of it and then throw them away shortly there after.. Its a frivolous shocking display of greed on their part.
And because they throw their hands up in the air and look the other way should there be a problem with any of the apps purchased on their site a total lack of intelligent direction with regard to maintaining a consistent brand identity.
And now to let ATT push them around regarding an App that people have been waiting for since the introduction of the iphone, to let Sling develop the program without giving them a heads up on the possibility of ATT's disproval and which is totally available and works beautifully on all of ATT's other smart phones, is just another example of their ignorance of what the real corporate world is all about and how they deal with the smaller fish that are beholden to them.
I also think this is a reflection of Steve Jobs not being on the scene, and the companies true lack of backbone without him. He would never have let this situation develop and would have told ATT to piss off and would have released the program for the device as is and designed for his hardware product. Someone should make him aware of this controversy so it can get resolved promptly!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SHAME ON ATT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SHAME ON APPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Slingplayer for iPhone still wating for approval
It was also posted here on Macrumors...
Macrumors Slingplayer Mobile Submitted to App Store - Page 11
Don't get me wrong... it still looks like there may be some issues, but at least I didn't waste any time yesterday writing a bunch of replies on here.
Don't get me wrong... it still looks like there may be some issues, but at least I didn't waste any time yesterday writing a bunch of replies on here.
So does this mean AT&T is not really conspiring to block this app to then launch their own media service?
I hope not as I wouldn't all those village idiots will have to return all those torches and pitchforks they bought.
So does this mean AT&T is not really conspiring to block this app to then launch their own media service?
I hope not as I wouldn't want all those village idiots will have to return all those torches and pitchforks they just bought.
There has been no effort to create true streaming media for the iPhone by Apple or AT&T, so we're stuck in cell phone stone age?
How much longer are these companies going to continue to nickel and dime us for standard features?
Very well said. I've been holding off buying an iphone until it has all the standard features that smart phones have had for years. The 3rd release is finally what should have been the first iphone. Sling Player is very important to me and if they don't give me 3g use, i'm not buying an iphone. I'm sick and tired of AT&T acting as wardens. Can't believe a company like Apple would ever deal with Big Blue, what am i saying they are Big Blue. I guess i need to do some reading up on the Palm Pre. I wish that group that is trying to get the FCC to investigate AT&T succeeds, it will be a huge victory for consumers. I can understand about skype but that also should have 3G access.If i have to choose, i would pick sling.
And I'm not sweating the pitchfork thing... I can always save it for the rat $&%@# at TiVo for continuing to find new and exciting ways to shove their ads in my face.
So does this mean AT&T is not really conspiring to block this app to then launch their own media service?
Being conspiring or not, AT&T have openly said, they launch their media service for iPhone this summer.
Something to ponder, I've read that in order to get the iPhone, AT&T had to give Apple a cut of the revenue from the data plans. Does any other provider of cell phones get this and if not, perhaps that is the hiccup in the negotiations.
This is well know and documented right after the original iPhone was announced. The $400 price for the original iPhone wasn't the full retail price had AT&T not been "revenue sharing" each month for each account for the iPhone. Apple had a had time getting this model to work with the rest of the world and so for the iPhone 3G they ended it. To do so in the states, it is reported that AT&T wanted to extend their exclusivity with Apple. AT&T liked this model as they weren't paying out a few hundred bucks to Apple for the sale of each iPhone before that revenue was made back over the next two years. For Apple it gave them more control over the handset, which is why Verizon would never have gone for it.
This was good for the consumer and you can see that the cellphone industry has already changed because of it. One of the benefits to the consumer is that if you maintained your account Apple was still getting paid so it behooved Apple to keep supplying rich updates to your phone, something that is just now becoming common because of the iPhone. I think that Apple's continued update for the original iPhone after 2 years is more to undermine the rest of the industry than anything else at this point. I'm not sure if they still get revenue sharing on those handsets after the 2 year contract is up. Personally, I would have wanted such a contract written that way I could still get paid for making a device that last more than 2 years on the same account without alterations.
This is well know and documented right after the original iPhone was announced. The $400 price for the original iPhone wasn't the full retail price had AT&T not been "revenue sharing" each month for each account for the iPhone. Apple had a had time getting this model to work with the rest of the world and so for the iPhone 3G they ended it. To do so in the states, it is reported that AT&T wanted to extend their exclusivity with Apple. AT&T liked this model as they weren't paying out a few hundred bucks to Apple for the sale of each iPhone before that revenue was made back over the next two years. For Apple it gave them more control over the handset, which is why Verizon would never have gone for it.
This was good for the consumer and you can see that the cellphone industry has already changed because of it. One of the benefits to the consumer is that if you maintained your account Apple was still getting paid so it behooved Apple to keep supplying rich updates to your phone, something that is just now becoming common because of the iPhone. I think that Apple's continued update for the original iPhone after 2 years is more to undermine the rest of the industry than anything else at this point. I'm not sure if they still get revenue sharing on those handsets after the 2 year contract is up. Personally, I would have wanted such a contract written that way I could still get paid for making a device that last more than 2 years on the same account without alterations.
Thanks for adding the details. What I was getting at is that perhaps since it is unlikely that this model is in place for other providers, AT&T might be seeking to alter or end it before agreeing to allow SlingPlayer on their network. It is very likely that the data agreements don't stop paying Apple that subsidy at the two year mark. I would bet that AT&T wants to end this revenue sharing before absorbing the cost of providing network services for apps such as this. I can't prove it. I'm pretty much playing a game of "one of these things is not like the other," and I'm trying to figure out why it wouldn't belong.
Being conspiring or not, AT&T have openly said, they launch their media service for iPhone this summer.