So I gather that if you drive on the New York Thruway, for example, which you pay to do so, that you should be able to drive as fast as you want, on whatever type of vehicle you want, when you want, as long as you want, whatever you want, etc.?
In other words, you can disregard the rules of the road because you also paid for the vehicle?
Don't be goofy... I already stated illegal activity would still be illegal,.
HOWEVER!
I do NOT expect one speed limit for cars made by CompanyA and another speed limit for cars made by CompanyB (when both cars have demonstrated the ability to safely travel at said speed) and somehow I think you are going to try and explain to me why this is okay.
Something I haven't seen pop up in this thread at all, aren't there other smartphones available on AT&T that have this app, can use it and haven't had the app pulled or AT&T take action against them in any fashion?
On Saturday, AT&T indicated that it was aware of the implications but directly denied any involvement in the App Store approval process.
"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," company spokesman Brad Mays said. "We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."
What a mealy-mouthed evasion that was. Does anyone believe that the
agreement between AT&T and Apple does not require Apple to reject
applications which direct money away from AT&T on AT&T's behalf?
Do you know what a non sequitur is? Were you even trying to make sense? That's your argument, that life's a bitch? If you were smarter, you'd understand that argument can be applied to anything. I could apply it on my side. Let me do just that:
Whatever Apple & AT&T are doing behind the scenes with the app approval process, they've brought this scrutiny down upon themselves. Yeah, it IS real life. These two companies (one of which I adore) f'd around and got the Fed involved. THAT'S real life. It sucks and Apple & AT&T should have been smart enough to see this coming and avoid it. They didn't. Now the Fed is here. It takes awhile for them to come; it takes longer for them to leave. I remember Reagan's famous line "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
The nice thing is that involvement like this from the Fed is sometimes a warning that there's still time for you to do right. There are many very thoughtful articles being written right now about what's wrong with the App store. They all have a common theme. Are you gonna sling angry words around, with your eyes tightly closed, or are you gonna calm down and think that maybe these guys have a point.
(And as to your point that most people hate what they do for a living: you have the power to make changes in your life. And it doesn't have to be "bear it quietly" vs "leave and do something else quietly". When things are genuinely WRONG, you have the option to change them. Sheep only see 2 options. Men see the third. And just because someone bleats in an angry tone and make offensive non-sequiturs, that doesn't keep him from being counted among the sheep)
This is what capitalism is all about --- as software developers get frustrated (i.e. they can't get a bank loan to fund R&D on iphone projects because the banks fear that Apple's would summarily reject the app), they will migrate to other friendier platforms. That in turn will make Apple to change its policy.
Why should the feds get involved? AT&T is not the largest carrier in the US, and the iphone is not the largest smartphone provider in the US.
I'm with you. I truly do not understand the issue. This seems to be a fishing expedition to find some basis for a case against exclusive deals. Doesn't Palm have an exclusive deal with Sprint? Isn't that how all phones in the country are introduced? AT&T pays a great deal of money in subsidies to carry the iPhone and offer it at a low price to customers. Since when is that illegal? Who cares if everyone in America, or the world for that matter, can't get an iPhone? Why is that a crisis? What makes owning an iPhone a basic human right? AT&T does not serve everyone in America. So what! Dominos Pizza does not deliver to everyone in America. How did we get to be this entitled?
If GV is a killer feature and it is offered on other phones, is this not the competitive edge that other venders are looking for? Why can't the marketplace decide this one? Why should the government have the right to decide what apps are approved? Do we really want the government, of any country, telling Apple what apps they have to approve, or cell carriers what services they have to offer? I have a GV # and I would much rather be pissed at AT&T and Apple for denying me a service I want rather than having the government stepping in to micromanage the industry. This is worse than anti-competitive; this is anti-capitalism. Like it or not, this is America. We are a capitalist nation.
This shouldn't be happening. Apps that were approved got removed, without explanation. Developers poured blood, sweat and tears into these apps. I don't think it's too much to say that developers deserve guidelines that will help them understand which apps are going to be okay and which to avoid.
When I say "this shouldn't be happening", I mean that not only should the app rejection process not be happening like this, but Apple shouldn't be pissing off good developers like this. The developer stevenf who wrote that isn't an asshole, from what I can tell. He's a guy who really wants to write cool apps, but he's fed up with bad behavior on the part of Apple.
I am the first to applaud Apple when it does right. But we're not doing Apple any favors by defending them when they're behaving badly.
If Apple looked like it was trying to do the right thing (or was making changes in that direction) I'd be right with you, wanting the FCC to back off.
I thought this developer's response was to make his app free for jailbroken phones. Not exactly a business model in that, is there?
Maybe the FCC will force Apple to recognize that an iPhone buyer owns his iPhone so that he can install whatever software he pleases on his own property.
By denying the ownership of iPhones, and selecting what an owner can install on his iPhone, Apple violates both property law and anti-trust provisions, not to mention consumer protection laws and, possibly, FCC regulations.
Mmmm... not really. You probably "own" many products that you don't really own. You actually have agreed to a license to use the software on the iPhone. Doesn't mean you can change it and sell it back to someone else as your software.
3. This last point is simple. The market is working. People are complaining about Apple and AT&T and are voting with their dollars. Alternatives have sprung up and no one has tried to stop them. Everyone is trying to copy the best parts of what Apple did and change the bits they don't like. So far, no one has been particularly successful, but not because Apple or AT&T interfered. The market is working. Most tech journalists and podcasters I listen to on a regular basis spew nothing but vitriol at the iPhone. They are publicly complaining about coverage or app rejection or lack of a pet feature etc. Everyday, Apple is being dragged into court for some nonexistent infraction. Apple is getting a free ride from no one, including Apple fanboys. People are publicly leaving the iPhone and embracing alternatives. The drumbeat for a real iPhone competitor is louder than ever. The market is working. We do not need government intervention to stop legal business practices, even if they are distasteful; we need better competitors. If the market didn't work, there would have never been an iPhone sensation in the first place. The only way they are stifling competition of other phones and services is by being superior. That is change I can believe in.
Fantastic summary. Competition, not government interference is the real driver of invention.
I thought this developer's response was to make his app free for jailbroken phones. Not exactly a business model in that, is there?
Not only that, but he a few burned bridges along the way. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else's Google Voice app, but I doubt this guy's apps will ever be back in the app store. Too much of a drama queen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2
Our President should just get himself an iPhone if that's what he really wants and butt out of this.
Its widely known that the Prez carries a Crackberry.
They simply spread the payment period. You are still paying for the whole price of the device, but over a period of 2 years.
Its basically a loan...
Please tell me you don't have a degree in Finance/Accounting and are a CPA in the US because it might explain much on how this country's economy blew up with GW.
Please tell me you don't have a degree in Finance/Accounting and are a CPA in the US because it might explain much on how this country's economy blew up with GW.
Actually, I think he understands it very well. The subsidy for the iPhone is really in the cost of the plan that you select.
You should be angry that you keep paying for the phone after the 2 year contract.
Hey lkrupp, how about making a statement against government intervention by calling AT&T and asking them to assign you a new random number, rather than continuing to use the number you retained after leaving Verizon/Sprint/whatever. After all the ability to do so only happened AFTER government intervention (and was strongly opposed by the carriers). And since no one but salespeople want to get a hold of you in the first place, it will be no loss on your part!
Still waiting for ikrupp (or some other wingnut) to take up my offer and take a stand against government intervention of powerful corporations!
FCC ---- SHOULD BE --- going after far more than this ---- this is why the FCC sent a letter to Google asking how Google rejects apps submitted to the Android app store. It's biting Google back in the ass.
Ok. Great. No further discussion needed. Force all carriers and device producers to adhere to standrards of content decency ( no pron) that they set if they wan to and prevent them from limiting apps that use the data pipe in ways the carriers don't like- sling player, google voice, etc. I'm all for that.
"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," company spokesman Brad Mays said. "We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."
AT&T should get fined for this alone. It is a matter of public record that they were in fact responsible for the gimping of the Slingbox app & Skype,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
Too many in this thread are living in a utopian fantasy.
1. Apple is not the exclusive provider of the iPhone. AT&T is an partner and investor and has a legitimate claim to the iPhone. Apple is not a network carrier; they are a hardware manufacturer. The Mac is a totally different animal because it requires no network on which to operate. You are free to do with the hardware what you like, no subsidies, no restrictions. The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone. The carrier is the provider of the network and the services that run on it. Just because the hardware ships with the ability to view visual voicemail, surf the web, send MMS, sling TV, download movies, music, and apps, and make popcorn does not mean that the carrier has to allow those services on their network. If AT&T allows a service on one device that it invested in and not another, that is AT&T's choice. That is a business decision, not a violation of federal law. When a company offers a competitive service that can run on an AT&T subsidized phone, AT&T does not have to allow it on their device and service. They cannot do anything to stop the service, just stop it on their device at their discretion. It is available on other carriers and other phones, even phones from AT&T. That breaks no law of which I am aware. In fact, it is the essence of competition since you can vote with your dollars to support another carrier or buy another phone. Force Apple to have all the best services and features, and you lock out all competition from differentiating. What could be more anti-competitive than that?
You say "The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone". That's wrong. The original iPhone was unsubsidized and the only reason Apple signed an exclusive deal was that they wanted to maximize profits. They not only maximized profits but made a revolutionary deal. The idea is ridiculous because frankly all these phones are overpriced. A recent report says that Apple makes as much as 60% profit on the iPhone. That is a low estimate. The reason they why these companies subsidize the phone is to tie you into a longer contract at a higher price where they can make more money. The is no other tech product in the industry that has the kind of profit margins that cell phones do. It is a racket because generally the subsidized price should be the actual value.
Secondly, I don't believe that AT&T has the right to approve and reject apps which is why you see them tossing the blame in Apple's lap. I don't believe you know whether or not this is federal law unless you are federal prosecutor or handle these kind of cases against the government. You say that this is AT&T's device. It's not. It's the Apple iPhone. AT&T merely has the rights as the exclusive carrier. I don't know either. But I can see something is wrong here as with the majority of people. This is not forcing Apple to have feature, this is about anti-competitve practices. Also AT&T has very little say over how I may use my device as long as I'm doing nothing illegal. I signed an "unlimited" data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
2. Google does not make a cell phone and does not have a cellular network. They invest no money in subsidies and have no say as to what services a carrier must provide on a particular phone. At best, they are a software vendor. At best, they can write software for a particular device and hope that those who invest in that device will distribute that software and allow it to run on their service. If Google wants to make sure GV is available to all the people, they need to manufacture a phone, build out a cell network or make it a VOIP phone, become the service provider and all that entails, then compete with the cell phone industry on even footing. As long as their service requires someone else's network, data stream, approval, and devices, Google has no legal leg to stand on.
This has very little to do with Google. This product could have come from any company. As said before this is more about anti-competitive practices and less about Google Voice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer
3. This last point is simple. The market is working. People are complaining about Apple and AT&T and are voting with their dollars. Alternatives have sprung up and no one has tried to stop them. Everyone is trying to copy the best parts of what Apple did and change the bits they don't like. So far, no one has been particularly successful, but not because Apple or AT&T interfered. The market is working. Most tech journalists and podcasters I listen to on a regular basis spew nothing but vitriol at the iPhone. They are publicly complaining about coverage or app rejection or lack of a pet feature etc. Everyday, Apple is being dragged into court for some nonexistent infraction. Apple is getting a free ride from no one, including Apple fanboys. People are publicly leaving the iPhone and embracing alternatives. The drumbeat for a real iPhone competitor is louder than ever. The market is working. We do not need government intervention to stop legal business practices, even if they are distasteful; we need better competitors. If the market didn't work, there would have never been an iPhone sensation in the first place. The only way they are stifling competition of other phones and services is by being superior. That is change I can believe in.
The market is not working? How do you know?. It's been a few days. How can you possibly know that? They are complaining. That's it. People that may want to leave AT&T today cannot because they are in a contract which is what this whole investigation is revolving around. People have to pay $175 to end their contract which isn't an easy thing in a bad economy. Also I believe you still can't even use it with another carrier. I'm sure that Mike Arrington and the guy from Panic can afford to end their contracts but not the Average Joe. It is also funny that Average Joe probably paid what the phone is actually worth when he bought it, but just got tied into a 2 year contract.
Easy. Your statement says it all. You cannot afford the iPhone's monthly fees as you find it exorbitant and you dismiss it as over-hyped and over-priced. Did you see a previous survey on Appleinsider? Most people who own iPhones generate high incomes and have high affordability means. What makes you bash the iPhone?
I can afford a dozen iPhones easily, it's just not a good value or replacement for devices I currently own.
It doesn't fit into my rugged lifestyle neither; which a inexpensive, reliable, easy replaceable "just a phone" does the job a whole lot better.
I'll be glad if the FCC breaks up the carrier/Apple deals and demands openness of the iPhone, it might bring the price down enough to make them nearly disposable in nature, like my current phones.
If not, everyone will be screwed paying more than they should for many more years than necessary.
"...AT&T in the past has freely acknowledged that it doesn't want voice over IP apps like Skype, or TV-to-phone streaming apps like SlingPlayer Mobile, running on its 3G network due to bandwidth concerns."
More likely, the reason is that AT&T had revenue concerns. I am SO close to going back to my RAZR and canceling the iPhone data part of my plan. I could get some good beans for my slightly used 32 GB 3GS, judging by the eBay auctions.
Comments
So I gather that if you drive on the New York Thruway, for example, which you pay to do so, that you should be able to drive as fast as you want, on whatever type of vehicle you want, when you want, as long as you want, whatever you want, etc.?
In other words, you can disregard the rules of the road because you also paid for the vehicle?
Don't be goofy... I already stated illegal activity would still be illegal,.
HOWEVER!
I do NOT expect one speed limit for cars made by CompanyA and another speed limit for cars made by CompanyB (when both cars have demonstrated the ability to safely travel at said speed) and somehow I think you are going to try and explain to me why this is okay.
Dave
On Saturday, AT&T indicated that it was aware of the implications but directly denied any involvement in the App Store approval process.
"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," company spokesman Brad Mays said. "We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."
What a mealy-mouthed evasion that was. Does anyone believe that the
agreement between AT&T and Apple does not require Apple to reject
applications which direct money away from AT&T on AT&T's behalf?
Do you know what a non sequitur is? Were you even trying to make sense? That's your argument, that life's a bitch? If you were smarter, you'd understand that argument can be applied to anything. I could apply it on my side. Let me do just that:
Whatever Apple & AT&T are doing behind the scenes with the app approval process, they've brought this scrutiny down upon themselves. Yeah, it IS real life. These two companies (one of which I adore) f'd around and got the Fed involved. THAT'S real life. It sucks and Apple & AT&T should have been smart enough to see this coming and avoid it. They didn't. Now the Fed is here. It takes awhile for them to come; it takes longer for them to leave. I remember Reagan's famous line "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
The nice thing is that involvement like this from the Fed is sometimes a warning that there's still time for you to do right. There are many very thoughtful articles being written right now about what's wrong with the App store. They all have a common theme. Are you gonna sling angry words around, with your eyes tightly closed, or are you gonna calm down and think that maybe these guys have a point.
(And as to your point that most people hate what they do for a living: you have the power to make changes in your life. And it doesn't have to be "bear it quietly" vs "leave and do something else quietly". When things are genuinely WRONG, you have the option to change them. Sheep only see 2 options. Men see the third. And just because someone bleats in an angry tone and make offensive non-sequiturs, that doesn't keep him from being counted among the sheep)
This is what capitalism is all about --- as software developers get frustrated (i.e. they can't get a bank loan to fund R&D on iphone projects because the banks fear that Apple's would summarily reject the app), they will migrate to other friendier platforms. That in turn will make Apple to change its policy.
Why should the feds get involved? AT&T is not the largest carrier in the US, and the iphone is not the largest smartphone provider in the US.
I'm with you. I truly do not understand the issue. This seems to be a fishing expedition to find some basis for a case against exclusive deals. Doesn't Palm have an exclusive deal with Sprint? Isn't that how all phones in the country are introduced? AT&T pays a great deal of money in subsidies to carry the iPhone and offer it at a low price to customers. Since when is that illegal? Who cares if everyone in America, or the world for that matter, can't get an iPhone? Why is that a crisis? What makes owning an iPhone a basic human right? AT&T does not serve everyone in America. So what! Dominos Pizza does not deliver to everyone in America. How did we get to be this entitled?
If GV is a killer feature and it is offered on other phones, is this not the competitive edge that other venders are looking for? Why can't the marketplace decide this one? Why should the government have the right to decide what apps are approved? Do we really want the government, of any country, telling Apple what apps they have to approve, or cell carriers what services they have to offer? I have a GV # and I would much rather be pissed at AT&T and Apple for denying me a service I want rather than having the government stepping in to micromanage the industry. This is worse than anti-competitive; this is anti-capitalism. Like it or not, this is America. We are a capitalist nation.
Great response.
That's not it at all. Read this, for instance.
This shouldn't be happening. Apps that were approved got removed, without explanation. Developers poured blood, sweat and tears into these apps. I don't think it's too much to say that developers deserve guidelines that will help them understand which apps are going to be okay and which to avoid.
When I say "this shouldn't be happening", I mean that not only should the app rejection process not be happening like this, but Apple shouldn't be pissing off good developers like this. The developer stevenf who wrote that isn't an asshole, from what I can tell. He's a guy who really wants to write cool apps, but he's fed up with bad behavior on the part of Apple.
I am the first to applaud Apple when it does right. But we're not doing Apple any favors by defending them when they're behaving badly.
If Apple looked like it was trying to do the right thing (or was making changes in that direction) I'd be right with you, wanting the FCC to back off.
I thought this developer's response was to make his app free for jailbroken phones. Not exactly a business model in that, is there?
Maybe the FCC will force Apple to recognize that an iPhone buyer owns his iPhone so that he can install whatever software he pleases on his own property.
By denying the ownership of iPhones, and selecting what an owner can install on his iPhone, Apple violates both property law and anti-trust provisions, not to mention consumer protection laws and, possibly, FCC regulations.
Mmmm... not really. You probably "own" many products that you don't really own. You actually have agreed to a license to use the software on the iPhone. Doesn't mean you can change it and sell it back to someone else as your software.
ATNT is a monopoly.
Apple is not IMO.
at&t hasn't been a "monopoly" since 1984. Even then, they were scary big but not really a monopoly in the pure sense of the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_Divestiture
3. This last point is simple. The market is working. People are complaining about Apple and AT&T and are voting with their dollars. Alternatives have sprung up and no one has tried to stop them. Everyone is trying to copy the best parts of what Apple did and change the bits they don't like. So far, no one has been particularly successful, but not because Apple or AT&T interfered. The market is working. Most tech journalists and podcasters I listen to on a regular basis spew nothing but vitriol at the iPhone. They are publicly complaining about coverage or app rejection or lack of a pet feature etc. Everyday, Apple is being dragged into court for some nonexistent infraction. Apple is getting a free ride from no one, including Apple fanboys. People are publicly leaving the iPhone and embracing alternatives. The drumbeat for a real iPhone competitor is louder than ever. The market is working. We do not need government intervention to stop legal business practices, even if they are distasteful; we need better competitors. If the market didn't work, there would have never been an iPhone sensation in the first place. The only way they are stifling competition of other phones and services is by being superior. That is change I can believe in.
Fantastic summary. Competition, not government interference is the real driver of invention.
I thought this developer's response was to make his app free for jailbroken phones. Not exactly a business model in that, is there?
Not only that, but he a few burned bridges along the way. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else's Google Voice app, but I doubt this guy's apps will ever be back in the app store. Too much of a drama queen.
Our President should just get himself an iPhone if that's what he really wants and butt out of this.
Its widely known that the Prez carries a Crackberry.
They don't subsidize it...
They simply spread the payment period. You are still paying for the whole price of the device, but over a period of 2 years.
Its basically a loan...
Please tell me you don't have a degree in Finance/Accounting and are a CPA in the US because it might explain much on how this country's economy blew up with GW.
Please tell me you don't have a degree in Finance/Accounting and are a CPA in the US because it might explain much on how this country's economy blew up with GW.
Actually, I think he understands it very well. The subsidy for the iPhone is really in the cost of the plan that you select.
You should be angry that you keep paying for the phone after the 2 year contract.
Hey lkrupp, how about making a statement against government intervention by calling AT&T and asking them to assign you a new random number, rather than continuing to use the number you retained after leaving Verizon/Sprint/whatever. After all the ability to do so only happened AFTER government intervention (and was strongly opposed by the carriers). And since no one but salespeople want to get a hold of you in the first place, it will be no loss on your part!
Still waiting for ikrupp (or some other wingnut) to take up my offer and take a stand against government intervention of powerful corporations!
FCC ---- SHOULD BE --- going after far more than this ---- this is why the FCC sent a letter to Google asking how Google rejects apps submitted to the Android app store. It's biting Google back in the ass.
Ok. Great. No further discussion needed. Force all carriers and device producers to adhere to standrards of content decency ( no pron) that they set if they wan to and prevent them from limiting apps that use the data pipe in ways the carriers don't like- sling player, google voice, etc. I'm all for that.
AT&T should get fined for this alone. It is a matter of public record that they were in fact responsible for the gimping of the Slingbox app & Skype,
Too many in this thread are living in a utopian fantasy.
1. Apple is not the exclusive provider of the iPhone. AT&T is an partner and investor and has a legitimate claim to the iPhone. Apple is not a network carrier; they are a hardware manufacturer. The Mac is a totally different animal because it requires no network on which to operate. You are free to do with the hardware what you like, no subsidies, no restrictions. The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone. The carrier is the provider of the network and the services that run on it. Just because the hardware ships with the ability to view visual voicemail, surf the web, send MMS, sling TV, download movies, music, and apps, and make popcorn does not mean that the carrier has to allow those services on their network. If AT&T allows a service on one device that it invested in and not another, that is AT&T's choice. That is a business decision, not a violation of federal law. When a company offers a competitive service that can run on an AT&T subsidized phone, AT&T does not have to allow it on their device and service. They cannot do anything to stop the service, just stop it on their device at their discretion. It is available on other carriers and other phones, even phones from AT&T. That breaks no law of which I am aware. In fact, it is the essence of competition since you can vote with your dollars to support another carrier or buy another phone. Force Apple to have all the best services and features, and you lock out all competition from differentiating. What could be more anti-competitive than that?
You say "The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone". That's wrong. The original iPhone was unsubsidized and the only reason Apple signed an exclusive deal was that they wanted to maximize profits. They not only maximized profits but made a revolutionary deal. The idea is ridiculous because frankly all these phones are overpriced. A recent report says that Apple makes as much as 60% profit on the iPhone. That is a low estimate. The reason they why these companies subsidize the phone is to tie you into a longer contract at a higher price where they can make more money. The is no other tech product in the industry that has the kind of profit margins that cell phones do. It is a racket because generally the subsidized price should be the actual value.
Secondly, I don't believe that AT&T has the right to approve and reject apps which is why you see them tossing the blame in Apple's lap. I don't believe you know whether or not this is federal law unless you are federal prosecutor or handle these kind of cases against the government. You say that this is AT&T's device. It's not. It's the Apple iPhone. AT&T merely has the rights as the exclusive carrier. I don't know either. But I can see something is wrong here as with the majority of people. This is not forcing Apple to have feature, this is about anti-competitve practices. Also AT&T has very little say over how I may use my device as long as I'm doing nothing illegal. I signed an "unlimited" data.
2. Google does not make a cell phone and does not have a cellular network. They invest no money in subsidies and have no say as to what services a carrier must provide on a particular phone. At best, they are a software vendor. At best, they can write software for a particular device and hope that those who invest in that device will distribute that software and allow it to run on their service. If Google wants to make sure GV is available to all the people, they need to manufacture a phone, build out a cell network or make it a VOIP phone, become the service provider and all that entails, then compete with the cell phone industry on even footing. As long as their service requires someone else's network, data stream, approval, and devices, Google has no legal leg to stand on.
This has very little to do with Google. This product could have come from any company. As said before this is more about anti-competitive practices and less about Google Voice.
3. This last point is simple. The market is working. People are complaining about Apple and AT&T and are voting with their dollars. Alternatives have sprung up and no one has tried to stop them. Everyone is trying to copy the best parts of what Apple did and change the bits they don't like. So far, no one has been particularly successful, but not because Apple or AT&T interfered. The market is working. Most tech journalists and podcasters I listen to on a regular basis spew nothing but vitriol at the iPhone. They are publicly complaining about coverage or app rejection or lack of a pet feature etc. Everyday, Apple is being dragged into court for some nonexistent infraction. Apple is getting a free ride from no one, including Apple fanboys. People are publicly leaving the iPhone and embracing alternatives. The drumbeat for a real iPhone competitor is louder than ever. The market is working. We do not need government intervention to stop legal business practices, even if they are distasteful; we need better competitors. If the market didn't work, there would have never been an iPhone sensation in the first place. The only way they are stifling competition of other phones and services is by being superior. That is change I can believe in.
The market is not working? How do you know?. It's been a few days. How can you possibly know that? They are complaining. That's it. People that may want to leave AT&T today cannot because they are in a contract which is what this whole investigation is revolving around. People have to pay $175 to end their contract which isn't an easy thing in a bad economy. Also I believe you still can't even use it with another carrier. I'm sure that Mike Arrington and the guy from Panic can afford to end their contracts but not the Average Joe. It is also funny that Average Joe probably paid what the phone is actually worth when he bought it, but just got tied into a 2 year contract.
Easy. Your statement says it all. You cannot afford the iPhone's monthly fees as you find it exorbitant and you dismiss it as over-hyped and over-priced. Did you see a previous survey on Appleinsider? Most people who own iPhones generate high incomes and have high affordability means. What makes you bash the iPhone?
I can afford a dozen iPhones easily, it's just not a good value or replacement for devices I currently own.
It doesn't fit into my rugged lifestyle neither; which a inexpensive, reliable, easy replaceable "just a phone" does the job a whole lot better.
I'll be glad if the FCC breaks up the carrier/Apple deals and demands openness of the iPhone, it might bring the price down enough to make them nearly disposable in nature, like my current phones.
If not, everyone will be screwed paying more than they should for many more years than necessary.
More likely, the reason is that AT&T had revenue concerns. I am SO close to going back to my RAZR and canceling the iPhone data part of my plan. I could get some good beans for my slightly used 32 GB 3GS, judging by the eBay auctions.