GV, like all Google products and services is a dual purpose trojan horse designed to a) undermine the platform it runs on or is accessed from and give Google greater control of information access, and b) give Google access to, and control of, personal and private information. As such, Apple stands to lose much more by having the iPhone platform turned into Android-light than AT&T does from text message losses.
This is all pretty obvious if you look objectively at what the three companies' businesses are all about, but pretty much everyone is allowing their feelings about the companies involved to cloud their judgment on this and related issues.
I agree Apple has something to lose, and maybe it's not as obvious as AT&T and the text messaging.
I can already sync my contacts with Google on the iPhone. If Apple is after my Contacts business they should start there. They've largely ignored the phone aspect of the phone and let others in already. Blocking GV makes Apple look confused.
If Apple wants me to use their phone functions instead of Googles they should come up with better services. Not deny me access to something that's better.
To the ISPs and wireless carriers, "Network Neutrality" is considered something devised by Satan to torture them. There are few things that they would hate more than network neutrality.
I'll never understand why people use the argument "well people can't even buy it where there's no coverage" , that's some bull, that's like complaining to the government that there's no place to drive your speed boat in the middle of the desert. i mean, come on people.
If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
And your very first point demolishes your own argument.
To be fair: it's not like Google Voice would be the first app that AT&T might want to see treated differently on the iPhone, despite it working just fine on other phones on their network.
See: air sharing, slingcast, tethering or even MMS.
That said, I think the most likely explanation is that Apple is negotiating with AT&T to create services very similar to what Google Voice offers and isn't wild about Google beating them to the punch.
E.g. If GV launches and then next year Apple announces a voicemail-to-email transcription and SMS synopsis feature, or number-redirect features, it would lend a great deal of additional weight to Apple's arguments about user/feature confusion.
I agree Apple has something to lose, and maybe it's not as obvious as AT&T and the text messaging.
I can already sync my contacts with Google on the iPhone. If Apple is after my Contacts business they should start there. They've largely ignored the phone aspect of the phone and let others in already. Blocking GV makes Apple look confused.
If Apple wants me to use their phone functions instead of Googles they should come up with better services. Not deny me access to something that's better.
I don't really think Apple is after your Contacts business per se (At least not in the way, and for the reasons, that Google is; their business model is not based on commoditizing personal information.) However, I completely agree with you that Apple should improve their software so that GV and other Google software are less appealing to consumers and make Apple's platforms less vulnerable to this particular type of attack.
However, it's much easier to carry out this sort of attack than defend against it. Much in the way that it's much easier for hackers to discover and exploit vulnerabilities than it is to find them all and plug them. As a platform vendor not interested in a dumbed-down Chrome-like experience, Apple has to tend a lot of pans on the fire at the same time. I expect the reason the third-party GV apps were originally approved is that no one at a high level actually looked in detail at what this actually did to the platform, but that the Google GV app probably caught the attention of higher ups who realized the danger it posed.
If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
This would be a horrible solution. If we required every cell phone maker to ensure that every phone is compatible with every carrier, prices would SKY ROCKET! No one would be able to afford one every few years.
Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?
Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years.
The easiest change there would be to require them to offer the unsubsidized plan rate to consumers. If hardware is unlocked and someone sees a 2-year subsidized plan rate next to the 'bring your own phone' rate, the market will take care of the rest.
How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!
The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.
note: Whitacre is the guy doing the GM commercials now. He brags that he doesn't know about cars, just like he bragged that he didn't use a computer or email at AT&T.
Ok, so we all agree that ATT is evil. By seriously, I don't see the issue with what you quoted? Why should ATT not make money off their investment in their infrastructure? I don't think he was suggesting that Google make payments to ATT, but that Google's customers pay for the bandwidth they use. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple makes a higher profit margin off that Mac you bought than ATT makes off the service they sell you. Does that make Apple evil, too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can? I bet once LTE comes out the telcos will just charge you $100 per month flat rate for the data and will let you run whatever you want
I think what will happen is you'll start seeing more tiered price plans from the carriers with different download caps and/or download speeds based on how much you pay. Just like they currently have for calling plans. Charging everyone a single flat rate means that the light users are essentially subsidizing the heavy user's bandwidth usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Because it's not in the public interest to allow the wireless carriers to use their position of control of a public resource to stifle competition and innovation. They're making plenty of money on the pipes, but, if they find it not profitable enough, they can always return their spectrum to the FCC. I doubt we see that happening even if strict wireless net neutrality is enforced for them.
I agree net neutrality is important from the standpoint that there shouldn't be discrimation based on type or source of data. But managing the load/bandwidth to optimize performance should be allowed. They should be allowed to ensure everyone as at least a minimum connection and not let a handful of heavy users degrade performance for everyone else. And if the heaviest of users want/need the infrastructure upgraded to support their habbits, then they should be willing to pay for it.
If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
1. you can kind of do this if manufacturers would make all phones with CDMA and GSM radios and the software. some blackberries have this and they are very expensive
2. that was already tried with the original iphone at launch and it was a dismal failure. it failed so bad that Apple/AT&T had to quickly work out a subsidy agreement because only a few of the most hardcore fanboys bought the iphone when it first came out. no one in their mind wanted to pay $600 for a cell phone
Why should ATT not make money off their investment in their infrastructure?
AT&T (and other communications service providers) should make money off their investment in their infrastructure. They should not make money by shaking down content providers for cash or by leveraging their control of the pipe into control of the content.
Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?
Of course the problem there is that the carrier is still going to charge you the same rate for service as they do for the person who got their phone subsidized.
One thing the carriers should be required to do is detail on every monthly statement which portion of your payment is going towards subsizing the phone you got and what is going towards your service. If I keep my phone past my two year contract, theoretically my monthly bill should go down because my subsidy has been fully recovered by the carrier. But it doesn't. Or if I buy a phone at full price, my monthly bill should reflect a lower rate due to not having to pay back the subsidy.
Of course the problem there is that the carrier is still going to charge you the same rate for service as they do for the person who got their phone subsidized.
One thing the carriers should be required to do is detail on every monthly statement which portion of your payment is going towards subsizing the phone you got and what is going towards your service. If I keep my phone past my two year contract, theoretically my monthly bill should go down because my subsidy has been fully recovered by the carrier. But it doesn't. Or if I buy a phone at full price, my monthly bill should reflect a lower rate due to not having to pay back the subsidy.
boost mobile is $50 a month for unlimited phone, text and web. of course you have to pay $350 for a "free" phone and it doesn't include features like a full web browser, exchange email and other things the iphone supports
boost mobile is $50 a month for unlimited phone, text and web. of course you have to pay $350 for a "free" phone and it doesn't include features like a full web browser, exchange email and other things the iphone supports
This is an overly simplistic argument. Assuming the major carriers were forced to change their billing/contractual practices, you haven't provided a foundation to show that they would likely adopt the same pricing structure as companies like Boost, who would be forced to adjust their own pricing policies in reaction as well. Just pointing to the way a company like Boost does business in the current environment doesn't indicate anything about the way they or other companies would do business in a different environment.
This is an overly simplistic argument. Assuming the major carriers were forced to change their billing/contractual practices, you haven't provided a foundation to show that they would likely adopt the same pricing structure as companies like Boost, who would be forced to adjust their own pricing policies in reaction as well. Just pointing to the way a company like Boost does business in the current environment doesn't indicate anything about the way they or other companies would do business in a different environment.
Boost offers a very limited selection of phones because they know which phone is estimated to use how much bandwidth per month so the price accordingly to pay for their bandwidth costs.
the reason AT&T and VZW cost more is to pay the phone subsidy and pay for the faster speeds and bandwidth of the phones they offer
Boost offers a very limited selection of phones because they know which phone is estimated to use how much bandwidth per month so the price accordingly to pay for their bandwidth costs.
the reason AT&T and VZW cost more is to pay the phone subsidy and pay for the faster speeds and bandwidth of the phones they offer
The reason that AT&T and Verizon cost what they do is because they don't compete on price (and barely on service). And Boost costs what it does because they've calculated how much cheaper they have to be, and no more, to optimize their revenue versus the major carriers.
The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.
Google and Microsoft both have vast Internet 2 grade networks to route traffic on. They bought up a lot of the dark fiber for pennies on the dollar when so many fiber companies went bankrupt trying to cash-in on the Dot-COM Bubble.
Now if I can just get Google to rescue Vonage with a slick "partnering" agreement and use that nice GOOG network.
Really the only solution here is going to be network retailers who buy network access from local-loop, trans-national, and global network providers. Three tiers: content providers, retailers, and network providers. Then we would have the ability to have the same level of competition that there is for appliances, furniture, etc. where the focus is on quality of service and service level agreements from supply-chain management.
The reason that AT&T and Verizon cost what they do is because they don't compete on price (and barely on service). And Boost costs what it does because they've calculated how much cheaper they have to be, and no more, to optimize their revenue versus the major carriers.
along with sprint it's an example of lower priced service. of course you get what you pay for.
If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
1. Except that effectively in any given place there are few companies providing service.
2. The change needed is to call that fee what it is, a loan. The company gives you a loan to buy the cell phone through them and you pay off the loan over the coarse of the contract. As such, when the balance is paid, the company should stop charging me for the phone. Of course, at the back end of this you will find manufacturers making a killing on new phone sales as a constant stream of revenue flows in off this policy. You can bet that they don't want the policy to change...because then people may stop upgrading...it would certainly slow the process.
Comments
There are many ways to send free text messages from an iPhone:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/0...and-operators/
GV, like all Google products and services is a dual purpose trojan horse designed to a) undermine the platform it runs on or is accessed from and give Google greater control of information access, and b) give Google access to, and control of, personal and private information. As such, Apple stands to lose much more by having the iPhone platform turned into Android-light than AT&T does from text message losses.
This is all pretty obvious if you look objectively at what the three companies' businesses are all about, but pretty much everyone is allowing their feelings about the companies involved to cloud their judgment on this and related issues.
I agree Apple has something to lose, and maybe it's not as obvious as AT&T and the text messaging.
I can already sync my contacts with Google on the iPhone. If Apple is after my Contacts business they should start there. They've largely ignored the phone aspect of the phone and let others in already. Blocking GV makes Apple look confused.
If Apple wants me to use their phone functions instead of Googles they should come up with better services. Not deny me access to something that's better.
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
And your very first point demolishes your own argument.
To be fair: it's not like Google Voice would be the first app that AT&T might want to see treated differently on the iPhone, despite it working just fine on other phones on their network.
See: air sharing, slingcast, tethering or even MMS.
That said, I think the most likely explanation is that Apple is negotiating with AT&T to create services very similar to what Google Voice offers and isn't wild about Google beating them to the punch.
E.g. If GV launches and then next year Apple announces a voicemail-to-email transcription and SMS synopsis feature, or number-redirect features, it would lend a great deal of additional weight to Apple's arguments about user/feature confusion.
I agree Apple has something to lose, and maybe it's not as obvious as AT&T and the text messaging.
I can already sync my contacts with Google on the iPhone. If Apple is after my Contacts business they should start there. They've largely ignored the phone aspect of the phone and let others in already. Blocking GV makes Apple look confused.
If Apple wants me to use their phone functions instead of Googles they should come up with better services. Not deny me access to something that's better.
I don't really think Apple is after your Contacts business per se (At least not in the way, and for the reasons, that Google is; their business model is not based on commoditizing personal information.) However, I completely agree with you that Apple should improve their software so that GV and other Google software are less appealing to consumers and make Apple's platforms less vulnerable to this particular type of attack.
However, it's much easier to carry out this sort of attack than defend against it. Much in the way that it's much easier for hackers to discover and exploit vulnerabilities than it is to find them all and plug them. As a platform vendor not interested in a dumbed-down Chrome-like experience, Apple has to tend a lot of pans on the fire at the same time. I expect the reason the third-party GV apps were originally approved is that no one at a high level actually looked in detail at what this actually did to the platform, but that the Google GV app probably caught the attention of higher ups who realized the danger it posed.
If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
This would be a horrible solution. If we required every cell phone maker to ensure that every phone is compatible with every carrier, prices would SKY ROCKET! No one would be able to afford one every few years.
Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?
Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years.
The easiest change there would be to require them to offer the unsubsidized plan rate to consumers. If hardware is unlocked and someone sees a 2-year subsidized plan rate next to the 'bring your own phone' rate, the market will take care of the rest.
Former SBC (now AT&T) CEO Ed Whitacre:
How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!
The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.
note: Whitacre is the guy doing the GM commercials now. He brags that he doesn't know about cars, just like he bragged that he didn't use a computer or email at AT&T.
Ok, so we all agree that ATT is evil. By seriously, I don't see the issue with what you quoted? Why should ATT not make money off their investment in their infrastructure? I don't think he was suggesting that Google make payments to ATT, but that Google's customers pay for the bandwidth they use. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple makes a higher profit margin off that Mac you bought than ATT makes off the service they sell you. Does that make Apple evil, too?
why should AT&T, VZW, T-Mo and Sprint continue to upgrade their networks if companies like Google can just sneak in and offer a cheaper service because they can? I bet once LTE comes out the telcos will just charge you $100 per month flat rate for the data and will let you run whatever you want
I think what will happen is you'll start seeing more tiered price plans from the carriers with different download caps and/or download speeds based on how much you pay. Just like they currently have for calling plans. Charging everyone a single flat rate means that the light users are essentially subsidizing the heavy user's bandwidth usage.
Because it's not in the public interest to allow the wireless carriers to use their position of control of a public resource to stifle competition and innovation. They're making plenty of money on the pipes, but, if they find it not profitable enough, they can always return their spectrum to the FCC. I doubt we see that happening even if strict wireless net neutrality is enforced for them.
I agree net neutrality is important from the standpoint that there shouldn't be discrimation based on type or source of data. But managing the load/bandwidth to optimize performance should be allowed. They should be allowed to ensure everyone as at least a minimum connection and not let a handful of heavy users degrade performance for everyone else. And if the heaviest of users want/need the infrastructure upgraded to support their habbits, then they should be willing to pay for it.
If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
1. you can kind of do this if manufacturers would make all phones with CDMA and GSM radios and the software. some blackberries have this and they are very expensive
2. that was already tried with the original iphone at launch and it was a dismal failure. it failed so bad that Apple/AT&T had to quickly work out a subsidy agreement because only a few of the most hardcore fanboys bought the iphone when it first came out. no one in their mind wanted to pay $600 for a cell phone
Why should ATT not make money off their investment in their infrastructure?
AT&T (and other communications service providers) should make money off their investment in their infrastructure. They should not make money by shaking down content providers for cash or by leveraging their control of the pipe into control of the content.
Also, you don't have to lock into a carrier....just buy the phone at list price. Ahhh.....you wouldn't like that would you?
Of course the problem there is that the carrier is still going to charge you the same rate for service as they do for the person who got their phone subsidized.
One thing the carriers should be required to do is detail on every monthly statement which portion of your payment is going towards subsizing the phone you got and what is going towards your service. If I keep my phone past my two year contract, theoretically my monthly bill should go down because my subsidy has been fully recovered by the carrier. But it doesn't. Or if I buy a phone at full price, my monthly bill should reflect a lower rate due to not having to pay back the subsidy.
Of course the problem there is that the carrier is still going to charge you the same rate for service as they do for the person who got their phone subsidized.
One thing the carriers should be required to do is detail on every monthly statement which portion of your payment is going towards subsizing the phone you got and what is going towards your service. If I keep my phone past my two year contract, theoretically my monthly bill should go down because my subsidy has been fully recovered by the carrier. But it doesn't. Or if I buy a phone at full price, my monthly bill should reflect a lower rate due to not having to pay back the subsidy.
boost mobile is $50 a month for unlimited phone, text and web. of course you have to pay $350 for a "free" phone and it doesn't include features like a full web browser, exchange email and other things the iphone supports
boost mobile is $50 a month for unlimited phone, text and web. of course you have to pay $350 for a "free" phone and it doesn't include features like a full web browser, exchange email and other things the iphone supports
This is an overly simplistic argument. Assuming the major carriers were forced to change their billing/contractual practices, you haven't provided a foundation to show that they would likely adopt the same pricing structure as companies like Boost, who would be forced to adjust their own pricing policies in reaction as well. Just pointing to the way a company like Boost does business in the current environment doesn't indicate anything about the way they or other companies would do business in a different environment.
This is an overly simplistic argument. Assuming the major carriers were forced to change their billing/contractual practices, you haven't provided a foundation to show that they would likely adopt the same pricing structure as companies like Boost, who would be forced to adjust their own pricing policies in reaction as well. Just pointing to the way a company like Boost does business in the current environment doesn't indicate anything about the way they or other companies would do business in a different environment.
Boost offers a very limited selection of phones because they know which phone is estimated to use how much bandwidth per month so the price accordingly to pay for their bandwidth costs.
the reason AT&T and VZW cost more is to pay the phone subsidy and pay for the faster speeds and bandwidth of the phones they offer
Boost offers a very limited selection of phones because they know which phone is estimated to use how much bandwidth per month so the price accordingly to pay for their bandwidth costs.
the reason AT&T and VZW cost more is to pay the phone subsidy and pay for the faster speeds and bandwidth of the phones they offer
The reason that AT&T and Verizon cost what they do is because they don't compete on price (and barely on service). And Boost costs what it does because they've calculated how much cheaper they have to be, and no more, to optimize their revenue versus the major carriers.
The market will find a way around AT&T eventually.
Google and Microsoft both have vast Internet 2 grade networks to route traffic on. They bought up a lot of the dark fiber for pennies on the dollar when so many fiber companies went bankrupt trying to cash-in on the Dot-COM Bubble.
Now if I can just get Google to rescue Vonage with a slick "partnering" agreement and use that nice GOOG network.
Really the only solution here is going to be network retailers who buy network access from local-loop, trans-national, and global network providers. Three tiers: content providers, retailers, and network providers. Then we would have the ability to have the same level of competition that there is for appliances, furniture, etc. where the focus is on quality of service and service level agreements from supply-chain management.
The reason that AT&T and Verizon cost what they do is because they don't compete on price (and barely on service). And Boost costs what it does because they've calculated how much cheaper they have to be, and no more, to optimize their revenue versus the major carriers.
along with sprint it's an example of lower priced service. of course you get what you pay for.
If the FCC was really interested in empowering the consumer and promoting competition, then they should require:
1. Hardware (cell phones, etc. ) should be unlocked and freely allowed to be taken from one carrier to another. If the carriers know that their customers can leave them at any time, it would make them provide better services. This would also keep more perfectly good cell phones out of the landfills.
2. Change the contract model that the carriers are currently using to something that doesn't lock the customer in for several years. I'm not sure what would be a viable replacement but I know several people that would like iPhones and can't (won't) break their contracts because of the severe fees associated with it.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
1. Except that effectively in any given place there are few companies providing service.
2. The change needed is to call that fee what it is, a loan. The company gives you a loan to buy the cell phone through them and you pay off the loan over the coarse of the contract. As such, when the balance is paid, the company should stop charging me for the phone. Of course, at the back end of this you will find manufacturers making a killing on new phone sales as a constant stream of revenue flows in off this policy. You can bet that they don't want the policy to change...because then people may stop upgrading...it would certainly slow the process.
The whole industry is a bit crooked.