Take a look at this article why RIM is the king of market share in the US.
Looks like iPhone is losing market share, because it's a consumer oriented device most likely. In tough times people buy the device that's going to make them money, and in business that's the serious looking Blackberry.
Also another important thing:
Pisses me off, Apple had a second chance to rule a market and they screw it up by ignoring the business market and catering only to consumers.
Okay, in case you're unaware, Verizon was running a "Buy One Get One Free" Blackberry promotion throughout most of the last quarter and that's why its market share was back up. No one is buying the "serious looking" Blackberry because they think it will make them money. Trust me, I've owned one and my brother's law firm requires he have one at all times. The email client on Blackberries is great, but literally everything else about them, especially the web browser, completely and utterly sucks.
In any case, Apple isn't ignoring the corporate world, they built Exchange support into the software, created the tools, and the rest is entirely up to IT departments to deploy. I will say though, if you've ever seen some of the awesome medical uses for the iPhone, you'd understand it alot better.
A) You're not going to do any of that, because I and my loved ones have the INALIENABLE right granted by our Creator to bear arms, and will turn you into a good commie faster than you can say "boo".
If you choose to do any of that to someone else, a good society will put your ass in jail or to death. Only a bed-wetter comes up with convoluted phrases like "This is because the negative consequences that society would visit upon me make this pretty unattractive." in response to battery and rape.
But I'm sure that's all lost on you, as you're a sick turd that likes to talk in the internet about battery, rape, and other people's wives. But I'm still spelling it out for any young impressionable kids reading this.
I'm glad I pissed you and a few others off with my melodramatic case for the social contract. Now, you are finally getting thie idea of it!
In the Law of the Jungle (in absence of an enforced social contract), you have no rights granted by a creator. You only have the rights you can preserve by force.
Who's to say you have better guns than I do? I may be a better shot and I could catch you by surprise.
I find it hilarious that you cower under the skirts of what a social contract provides you, even though you started this fight by denying that such a contract exists.
I hate to say this, but the answer is obvious. Exclusive contracts are good for consumers, despite that seeming counterintuitive at first. Yes, I would love the iphone or the palm pre on verizon, but the fact remains that if it weren't for exclusive contract, we those phones would not exist in the first place. It was the promise of a killer exclusive that convinced the carriers the give apple and the freedom to design a phone with no carrier branding, no forced carrier services and no tortured carrier specific UI elements.
I think the question is meaningless, because the root of the problem is the carriers themselves are a cartel, and preventing carrier exclusives does nothing to change that.
I hate to say this, but the answer is obvious. Exclusive contracts are good for consumers, despite that seeming counterintuitive at first. Yes, I would love the iphone or the palm pre on verizon, but the fact remains that if it weren't for exclusive contract, we those phones would not exist in the first place. It was the promise of a killer exclusive that convinced the carriers the give apple and the freedom to design a phone with no carrier branding, no forced carrier services and no tortured carrier specific UI elements.
I think the question is meaningless, because the root of the problem is the carriers themselves are a cartel, and preventing carrier exclusives does nothing to change that.
Well, yes, but if the carriers were not allowed to act as a cartel but forced to compete and act as dumb pipes (I believe the term 'orifices' has been used by some to describe them), which is what they should be, then there would be no question of Apple (or Palm, or anyone else) having the freedom to design a phone without carrier branding and carrier specific UI elements. We still got forced carrier services, and that should end too.
Even though the request sounds fair, are those smaller providers riding piggy back on the main networks that the big ones spent billions on to put in place during the last decade, or did they install their own towers etc.?
It's actually the other way around. If you take a phone from one of the big carriers out into rural territory, you usually end up roaming on a Tier II provider, although the phone usually lies to you and claims you're still on the big carrier's network.
At least, until the recent Verizon/Alltel merger. Which is the problem - the Tier I companies can't build networks. They only are able to buy companies that do, and that's how they get networks in places that aren't big cities. As soon as the last remaining Tier II companies are bought up, you can expect never to see any new coverage in out-of-the-way areas again.
The government asked AT&T for wireless records, government lawyers approved this action. Why would government lawyers then turn and prosecute AT&T for what it asked AT&T to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystigo
If AT&T can get away with illegally wiretapping its customers, I don't think it will have any problem with this one.
The government already messed up in controlling this type of lock in. When wireless business was being established the government should have mandated that every carrier use the same technology. That above all else would allow users to easily switch carriers.
The government cannot force Apple to make a CDMA phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seahawk Fan 2
That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.
In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.
Bed-wetter. The very purpose of government is to protect FREEDOM, NOT 'FAIRNESS'!!!
"- In order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure the Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity -"
I'm thinking it's better for the consumer to be able to buy an Acura at GM as well.
Although at second thought, it's a little like only being able to use Sony TV's with your local Cable company but this is a free market and if it's about being fair, why aren't they investigating 29% interest credit cards??, etc., etc.
Isn't this all moot So you get your unlocked phone, it will not run on the other networks or will be as crippled as verizon makes theirs unless the phone makers accommodate. The government can eliminate but cannot make them accommodate!
AT&T gave federal agencies a back door to it's phone network. That is illegal because it did it without the oversight of the court system as the Fourth Amendment requires. The Republicans went in after the fact and changed the laws around so AT&T could escape liability. So in summary you have no idea what you are talking about. If I am wrong please cite some case law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceQuit
huh? What the hell are you talking about? (and don't say activities under the Patriot Act, that have been upheld by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court for years).
One can debate the need for such wiretaps, but claiming they are illegal is dubious at best.
QUOTE=TBell;1435439]AT&T gave federal agencies a back door to it's phone network. That is illegal because it did it without the oversight of the court system as the Fourth Amendment requires. The Republicans went in after the fact and changed the laws around so AT&T could escape liability. So in summary you have no idea what you are talking about. If I am wrong please cite some case law.[/QUOTE]
The President has inherent Article II Constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder (yes that Eric Holder) during his confirmation hearings.
On 2/27 the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss the Al-Haramain suit.
In court documents the Justice argued that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."
I agree on the timing with respect to the law, but so far the courts have upheld it and the Obama appears to support this right of the executive as well.
The real issue is that almost everyone wants the iPhone. They just can't wait to get it. Meaning, they are with T-Mobile, Verizon, etc, and when their contract gets close to coming up, they think "I'm gonna wait for my contract to expire, then, get an iPhone!"
But, they can't wait. The allure of that new phone from their current provider (along with words like "FREE", "VIP customer", "Special Upgrade Price"), comes at them from all sides. SO, they visit their carrier, only to be duped but the sales rep when he says "You don't want the iPhone....You want 'the pre', or 'Storm'"
So, they get a phone. A Pre, Storm, G1, or Blackberryt. After a few days, it gets old. Just exactly like their old phone. Sure they try to justify, "It's better than the iPhone..." They try to convince themselves.
Then it's over. It's gone. It's just a phone again, and the "magic" is gone.
They keep hearing about the iPhone, every day....new apps, top rated phones, fastest phone...and then the nail in the coffin...one of their friends gets it!
And everyone who has ever had an iPhone (95%, so almost everyone), loves it. In fact with each software update 2.2, 3.0, the phone keeps getting better. And better and better. Will the "Pre", get better? How about the "Storm". (which just didn't quit live up to the hype). "G1"? faded fast. Nope won't happen!
So, they lash out. "Why can't my carrier have the iPhone. Why oh Why? Then I would not be such an idiot. I hate AT&T. I hate Apple....."
I hate my phone!
And so, it goes. Those people that hate AT&T in most cases, really don't. It's not usually coverage, or service, or price. In fact AT&T is growing faster than any other carrier, according to 1st quarter results.
What they hate is themselves. They hate the fact that they settled, on something less than the iPhone.
That's the real issue here. We need to get lawmakers involved to make use all feel better. More importantly, we need them to protect us, from ourselves. That's freedom....
The government already messed up in controlling this type of lock in. When wireless business was being established the government should have mandated that every carrier use the same technology. That above all else would allow users to easily switch carriers.
The government cannot force Apple to make a CDMA phone.
This is Silicon Valley we are talking about --- where if you can have 99 start-up busts and 1 start-up winner, you would still become a billionaire.
Governments DO pick the wrong technologies time to time. GSM was a lucky choice, WCDMA was a complete bust --- and the US ended up eclipsing Europe in 3G penetration. This is why every major spectrum license auction in Europe for the past 5 years has been technology neutral.
The Japanese government picked analog HDTV --- another major mistake (though can't really blame them because at the time when they pushed it, digital HDTV was totally unfeasible given CPU required). The Korean government mandated every cell phone in Korea needs the Korean only software api --- which is why they still don't have the iphone. The Chinese government mandates one of their mobile license to have their home-grown 3G technology --- it's vaporware so far.
They designed WCDMA through committees trying to leave as many Qualcomm patents as possible --- some of which turned out to be really useful. The technology simply was not ready for prime time. All the 3G licenses in Europe had to revise their build-out requirements several times --- and still a few carriers missed the revised timelines.
It is a very telling thing that every major spectrum/license auction in Europe for the past 4-5 years has been technology neutral.
Comments
Take a look at this article why RIM is the king of market share in the US.
Looks like iPhone is losing market share, because it's a consumer oriented device most likely. In tough times people buy the device that's going to make them money, and in business that's the serious looking Blackberry.
Also another important thing:
Pisses me off, Apple had a second chance to rule a market and they screw it up by ignoring the business market and catering only to consumers.
http://www.crn.com/retail/218000045;...PCKH0CJUNN2JVN
Okay, in case you're unaware, Verizon was running a "Buy One Get One Free" Blackberry promotion throughout most of the last quarter and that's why its market share was back up. No one is buying the "serious looking" Blackberry because they think it will make them money. Trust me, I've owned one and my brother's law firm requires he have one at all times. The email client on Blackberries is great, but literally everything else about them, especially the web browser, completely and utterly sucks.
In any case, Apple isn't ignoring the corporate world, they built Exchange support into the software, created the tools, and the rest is entirely up to IT departments to deploy. I will say though, if you've ever seen some of the awesome medical uses for the iPhone, you'd understand it alot better.
Dear sick turd:
A) You're not going to do any of that, because I and my loved ones have the INALIENABLE right granted by our Creator to bear arms, and will turn you into a good commie faster than you can say "boo".
But I'm sure that's all lost on you, as you're a sick turd that likes to talk in the internet about battery, rape, and other people's wives. But I'm still spelling it out for any young impressionable kids reading this.
I'm glad I pissed you and a few others off with my melodramatic case for the social contract. Now, you are finally getting thie idea of it!
In the Law of the Jungle (in absence of an enforced social contract), you have no rights granted by a creator. You only have the rights you can preserve by force.
Who's to say you have better guns than I do? I may be a better shot and I could catch you by surprise.
I find it hilarious that you cower under the skirts of what a social contract provides you, even though you started this fight by denying that such a contract exists.
I think the question is meaningless, because the root of the problem is the carriers themselves are a cartel, and preventing carrier exclusives does nothing to change that.
I hate to say this, but the answer is obvious. Exclusive contracts are good for consumers, despite that seeming counterintuitive at first. Yes, I would love the iphone or the palm pre on verizon, but the fact remains that if it weren't for exclusive contract, we those phones would not exist in the first place. It was the promise of a killer exclusive that convinced the carriers the give apple and the freedom to design a phone with no carrier branding, no forced carrier services and no tortured carrier specific UI elements.
I think the question is meaningless, because the root of the problem is the carriers themselves are a cartel, and preventing carrier exclusives does nothing to change that.
Well, yes, but if the carriers were not allowed to act as a cartel but forced to compete and act as dumb pipes (I believe the term 'orifices' has been used by some to describe them), which is what they should be, then there would be no question of Apple (or Palm, or anyone else) having the freedom to design a phone without carrier branding and carrier specific UI elements. We still got forced carrier services, and that should end too.
And, you might have added, 9674 usually knowledgeable posts, versus 31 random/angry/inane posts.
I think you and solipism are the same person - like me and beezlebub.
Even though the request sounds fair, are those smaller providers riding piggy back on the main networks that the big ones spent billions on to put in place during the last decade, or did they install their own towers etc.?
It's actually the other way around. If you take a phone from one of the big carriers out into rural territory, you usually end up roaming on a Tier II provider, although the phone usually lies to you and claims you're still on the big carrier's network.
At least, until the recent Verizon/Alltel merger. Which is the problem - the Tier I companies can't build networks. They only are able to buy companies that do, and that's how they get networks in places that aren't big cities. As soon as the last remaining Tier II companies are bought up, you can expect never to see any new coverage in out-of-the-way areas again.
It also shows that some senators cannot be bought off with campaign contributions paid by lobbyists for major corporations.
If AT&T can get away with illegally wiretapping its customers, I don't think it will have any problem with this one.
The government cannot force Apple to make a CDMA phone.
That's not the point of what they are contesting. It's tying a phone to a Cellular Provider as and exclusive.
In othe words the iPhone would be available on Verizon and the Pre would be available on AT&T so people don't have to switch vendors to get the phone they want.
Life is not always fair.
BTW you do have a choice.
Where to live
Where to work
If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move!
People! Think they are entitled to EVERYHTING!!!
Not everyone has a choice of jobs or where they live. Just entitled children like you who have time to bitch about others sense of entitlement.
Handsets should be untied from carriers, that's just fair for the consumer.
Bed-wetter. The very purpose of government is to protect FREEDOM, NOT 'FAIRNESS'!!!
"- In order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure the Domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defense, promote the General Welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity -"
Although at second thought, it's a little like only being able to use Sony TV's with your local Cable company but this is a free market and if it's about being fair, why aren't they investigating 29% interest credit cards??, etc., etc.
huh? What the hell are you talking about? (and don't say activities under the Patriot Act, that have been upheld by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court for years).
One can debate the need for such wiretaps, but claiming they are illegal is dubious at best.
The President has inherent Article II Constitutional powers that neither the judiciary nor statutes like FISA can impinge upon. The FISA appeals court said as much in a decision released in January, as did Attorney General Eric Holder (yes that Eric Holder) during his confirmation hearings.
On 2/27 the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss the Al-Haramain suit.
In court documents the Justice argued that the decision to release classified information "is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access." The brief continues that federal judges are "ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch."
I agree on the timing with respect to the law, but so far the courts have upheld it and the Obama appears to support this right of the executive as well.
Life is not always fair.
BTW you do have a choice.
Where to live
Where to work
If picking your cell phone is so important, and you can't the phone you want....move!
People! Think they are entitled to EVERYHTING!!!
So running away is your answer to everything or just cell phone restrictions?
Do you suggest bending backwards and/or *moving to another state* for every problem one might face?
Talk about cowardice...
But, they can't wait. The allure of that new phone from their current provider (along with words like "FREE", "VIP customer", "Special Upgrade Price"), comes at them from all sides. SO, they visit their carrier, only to be duped but the sales rep when he says "You don't want the iPhone....You want 'the pre', or 'Storm'"
So, they get a phone. A Pre, Storm, G1, or Blackberryt. After a few days, it gets old. Just exactly like their old phone. Sure they try to justify, "It's better than the iPhone..." They try to convince themselves.
Then it's over. It's gone. It's just a phone again, and the "magic" is gone.
They keep hearing about the iPhone, every day....new apps, top rated phones, fastest phone...and then the nail in the coffin...one of their friends gets it!
And everyone who has ever had an iPhone (95%, so almost everyone), loves it. In fact with each software update 2.2, 3.0, the phone keeps getting better. And better and better. Will the "Pre", get better? How about the "Storm". (which just didn't quit live up to the hype). "G1"? faded fast. Nope won't happen!
So, they lash out. "Why can't my carrier have the iPhone. Why oh Why? Then I would not be such an idiot. I hate AT&T. I hate Apple....."
I hate my phone!
And so, it goes. Those people that hate AT&T in most cases, really don't. It's not usually coverage, or service, or price. In fact AT&T is growing faster than any other carrier, according to 1st quarter results.
What they hate is themselves. They hate the fact that they settled, on something less than the iPhone.
That's the real issue here. We need to get lawmakers involved to make use all feel better. More importantly, we need them to protect us, from ourselves. That's freedom....
right......
The government already messed up in controlling this type of lock in. When wireless business was being established the government should have mandated that every carrier use the same technology. That above all else would allow users to easily switch carriers.
The government cannot force Apple to make a CDMA phone.
This is Silicon Valley we are talking about --- where if you can have 99 start-up busts and 1 start-up winner, you would still become a billionaire.
Governments DO pick the wrong technologies time to time. GSM was a lucky choice, WCDMA was a complete bust --- and the US ended up eclipsing Europe in 3G penetration. This is why every major spectrum license auction in Europe for the past 5 years has been technology neutral.
The Japanese government picked analog HDTV --- another major mistake (though can't really blame them because at the time when they pushed it, digital HDTV was totally unfeasible given CPU required). The Korean government mandated every cell phone in Korea needs the Korean only software api --- which is why they still don't have the iphone. The Chinese government mandates one of their mobile license to have their home-grown 3G technology --- it's vaporware so far.
GSM was a lucky choice, WCDMA was a complete bust
Would you mind explaining that further?
Would you mind explaining that further?
They designed WCDMA through committees trying to leave as many Qualcomm patents as possible --- some of which turned out to be really useful. The technology simply was not ready for prime time. All the 3G licenses in Europe had to revise their build-out requirements several times --- and still a few carriers missed the revised timelines.
It is a very telling thing that every major spectrum/license auction in Europe for the past 4-5 years has been technology neutral.