Hmmm...if I recall from my history books, AT&T invented:
-The first Digital Computer
-Transistor
-UNIX, which is the foundation of MAC OS
-Cellular Networks
Seems Apple has also relied upon AT&T's accomplishments
I don't recall AT&T doing anything other than buying Unix System 5 Revision 4 (SVR4) which they promptly resold.
And by the way, what you call AT&T is simply one of the "Baby Bells", the regional subdivisions into which the original monopoly AT&T was broken up into. It simply changed its name from SBC to Cingular to AT&T, and by no means represents the AT&T of technological history (Bell Labs) that you are referring to...
To only their customers, the thing I like most about the apple environment is that I don't need a carrier, my kids iPod touches can access the app store and my future wifi only iPad can as well.
AT&T is a network provider. It would serve them positively if they remembered that and didn't try their "big me-little you" game on the consuming public. Since the user pooling data says, BY FAR, AT&T has the absolutely the WORST CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE OF ANY NETWORK PROVIDER - ON EARTH !!!
So AT&T (Also known by the old timers as SBC), SIT DOWN - SHUT UP - DELIVER WORTHWHILE BANDWIDTH. Otherwise, we don't need you.
The man is relapsing back to when Telcos dictated the Phone and what went on them.
I don't recall AT&T doing anything other than buying Unix System 5 Revision 4 (SVR4) which they promptly resold.
And by the way, what you call AT&T is simply one of the "Baby Bells", the regional subdivisions into which the original monopoly AT&T was broken up into. It simply changed its name from SBC to Cingular to AT&T, and by no means represents the AT&T of technological history (Bell Labs) that you are referring to...
And that's why AT&T Labs averages 3 patents issued per day?
Hmmm...if I recall from my history books, AT&T invented:
-The first Digital Computer
-Transistor
-UNIX, which is the foundation of MAC OS
-Cellular Networks
Seems Apple has also relied upon AT&T's accomplishments
Except for maybe the "Cellular Networks", I think you're referring to Bell Labs. Bell Telephone Lab was originally a partnership between Western Electric and ATT. ATT eventually merged with or bought out Western Electric and renamed it ATT Bell Labs. In the mid 90's, ATT Bell Labs was split off to form Lucent Technology. Lucent eventually merged with Alcatel and is now known as Alcatel-Lucent. Though the ATT now, consist of many of the "baby Bell's" that were split off from it during their breakup, the original ATT Bell Labs is not one of them.
And if I remember last, Apple did use some Lucent Technology components in their original Airport.
P.S. I glad to finally be able to use this info. I did a little research on Lucent Technology back in the early 2000's, when the stock was at $11.00, 80% from it's high. I thought it couldn't drop too much lower and it was a good time to buy. It's a good thing some AAPL more than made up for that mistake.
It's the same thing on the computer side. When I buy a Mac version of an app, that doesn't entitle me to the PC version for free. Why would smartphones be different?
f*k AT&T and f*k the carriers - Apple wrestled control from these draconian a-holes and now they want it back. They couldn't figure out how to run their business before so why should anyone cut them some slack now.
I like the idea of apps working across different platforms. This allows the consumer to change without having to pay for the same thing twice (Or more). Probably unrealistic to expect the various OS developers to be excited about such a concept. But, I could see app developers making such a promise - call it "insurance".
Another totally clueless poster. Only inefficient and crappy apps are cross platform the way you describe as they are not optimized for the specific OS. That's why there is even a different Mac versus PC version of MSFT office, so please get a clue before you post such ill informed "opinions". Further, with iOS apps you only purchase once and it can be downloaded to all your iOS devices on your account, and you can move them to your new iOS devices when you replace your old ones. That offers you tremendous flexibility and cost effectiveness.
I like the idea of apps working across different platforms. This allows the consumer to change without having to pay for the same thing twice (Or more). Probably unrealistic to expect the various OS developers to be excited about such a concept. But, I could see app developers making such a promise - call it "insurance".
And HOW exactly do you define "the same app"? Because to me, a Developer, a project with substancially different code is NOT the same App. What suh a thing would mean is simply the biggest platform would targeted, and that's it. Why should I work twice for the same price? Does a Doctor charge only once per illness, whatever the OS (sorry, the PATIENT) who bears it?
Speaking at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain on Tuesday, Stephenson criticized companies like Apple and Google as restricting consumers.
"You purchase an app for one operating system, and if you want it on another device or platform, you have to buy it again," Stephenson said. "That's not how our customers expect to experience this environment."
I agree completely - just like I should be able to buy a phone from AT&T and use it on all networks - just as I should be able to use any other network's phone on AT&T. After all, restricting a phone to use on one network restricts consumers. When are you going to put your money where your mouth is and stop restricting consumers?
In addition, I think it's rather humorous that the market has done exactly the opposite of what Mr. Stephenson claims. Originally, Apple only offered html on the iPhone and did not offer native apps. If someone wanted to do something, they had to do it via html - which would work on ANY smart phone. Yet the market insisted on native apps - which are, by definition, non-portable. So the market has spoken - and Stephenson got it completely wrong.
It's the same thing on the computer side. When I buy a Mac version of an app, that doesn't entitle me to the PC version for free. Why would smartphones be different?
Well, though I agree 100% with you, I was more than happy to have the free version of Civilization V for the Mac when I purchased the Collector edition of the game for PC!
However given the price of the game, which is no 0.99$ App, I expected that
What many customers would really like is the ability to move from one carrier to another, using the same phone number, without having to pay all those hefty fines.
I agree with you, what a jack off..........perhaps ATT's ceo out to put his money where is mouth is and have interoperability between 3G devices and not charge for tethering! He certainly has no problem with charging a separate plan for each device even though we only need on data plan that we can use for all of our 3g devices! They truly are finally realizing that they are being limited back into their box and just being forced into bandwidth providers and nothing more!
What is this guy talking about? No one expects to use a PS3 game on a Wii or XBox. No one expects to use an iPhone app on an Android phone. He has never heard anyone complain about this. He's making up problems so he can feel better about being mad at Apple since they got the better end of the deal in their relationship together.
My most dislike for the CDMA iPhone, is not being able to search and talk at the same time. I fell in love with my first iPhone in 2007, when I realized it could do that. And I am still in love with my iPhone 4 with GSM radio.
The original EDGE-only iPhone couldn't do simultaneous voice and data.
That sounds like something AT&T wants... not consumers. We want good apps that work well. There used to be a platform-independent Java solution for mobile phones... it sucked. Why does he think we want to return to that.
However, I would love to see more Universal iOS apps... but that is a bit different.
Comments
Hmmm...if I recall from my history books, AT&T invented:
-The first Digital Computer
-Transistor
-UNIX, which is the foundation of MAC OS
-Cellular Networks
Seems Apple has also relied upon AT&T's accomplishments
I don't recall AT&T doing anything other than buying Unix System 5 Revision 4 (SVR4) which they promptly resold.
And by the way, what you call AT&T is simply one of the "Baby Bells", the regional subdivisions into which the original monopoly AT&T was broken up into. It simply changed its name from SBC to Cingular to AT&T, and by no means represents the AT&T of technological history (Bell Labs) that you are referring to...
AT&T is a network provider. It would serve them positively if they remembered that and didn't try their "big me-little you" game on the consuming public. Since the user pooling data says, BY FAR, AT&T has the absolutely the WORST CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE OF ANY NETWORK PROVIDER - ON EARTH !!!
So AT&T (Also known by the old timers as SBC), SIT DOWN - SHUT UP - DELIVER WORTHWHILE BANDWIDTH. Otherwise, we don't need you.
The man is relapsing back to when Telcos dictated the Phone and what went on them.
I don't recall AT&T doing anything other than buying Unix System 5 Revision 4 (SVR4) which they promptly resold.
And by the way, what you call AT&T is simply one of the "Baby Bells", the regional subdivisions into which the original monopoly AT&T was broken up into. It simply changed its name from SBC to Cingular to AT&T, and by no means represents the AT&T of technological history (Bell Labs) that you are referring to...
And that's why AT&T Labs averages 3 patents issued per day?
so very wac..
Hmmm...if I recall from my history books, AT&T invented:
-The first Digital Computer
-Transistor
-UNIX, which is the foundation of MAC OS
-Cellular Networks
Seems Apple has also relied upon AT&T's accomplishments
Except for maybe the "Cellular Networks", I think you're referring to Bell Labs. Bell Telephone Lab was originally a partnership between Western Electric and ATT. ATT eventually merged with or bought out Western Electric and renamed it ATT Bell Labs. In the mid 90's, ATT Bell Labs was split off to form Lucent Technology. Lucent eventually merged with Alcatel and is now known as Alcatel-Lucent. Though the ATT now, consist of many of the "baby Bell's" that were split off from it during their breakup, the original ATT Bell Labs is not one of them.
And if I remember last, Apple did use some Lucent Technology components in their original Airport.
P.S. I glad to finally be able to use this info. I did a little research on Lucent Technology back in the early 2000's, when the stock was at $11.00, 80% from it's high. I thought it couldn't drop too much lower and it was a good time to buy.
Actually Verizon's customer service is far worse. If we didn't have GSM networks we would be stuck with CDMA.
Correct..and CDMA doesn't work in most of the world
I like the idea of apps working across different platforms. This allows the consumer to change without having to pay for the same thing twice (Or more). Probably unrealistic to expect the various OS developers to be excited about such a concept. But, I could see app developers making such a promise - call it "insurance".
Another totally clueless poster. Only inefficient and crappy apps are cross platform the way you describe as they are not optimized for the specific OS. That's why there is even a different Mac versus PC version of MSFT office, so please get a clue before you post such ill informed "opinions". Further, with iOS apps you only purchase once and it can be downloaded to all your iOS devices on your account, and you can move them to your new iOS devices when you replace your old ones. That offers you tremendous flexibility and cost effectiveness.
I like the idea of apps working across different platforms. This allows the consumer to change without having to pay for the same thing twice (Or more). Probably unrealistic to expect the various OS developers to be excited about such a concept. But, I could see app developers making such a promise - call it "insurance".
And HOW exactly do you define "the same app"? Because to me, a Developer, a project with substancially different code is NOT the same App. What suh a thing would mean is simply the biggest platform would targeted, and that's it. Why should I work twice for the same price? Does a Doctor charge only once per illness, whatever the OS (sorry, the PATIENT) who bears it?
Speaking at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain on Tuesday, Stephenson criticized companies like Apple and Google as restricting consumers.
"You purchase an app for one operating system, and if you want it on another device or platform, you have to buy it again," Stephenson said. "That's not how our customers expect to experience this environment."
I agree completely - just like I should be able to buy a phone from AT&T and use it on all networks - just as I should be able to use any other network's phone on AT&T. After all, restricting a phone to use on one network restricts consumers. When are you going to put your money where your mouth is and stop restricting consumers?
In addition, I think it's rather humorous that the market has done exactly the opposite of what Mr. Stephenson claims. Originally, Apple only offered html on the iPhone and did not offer native apps. If someone wanted to do something, they had to do it via html - which would work on ANY smart phone. Yet the market insisted on native apps - which are, by definition, non-portable. So the market has spoken - and Stephenson got it completely wrong.
It's the same thing on the computer side. When I buy a Mac version of an app, that doesn't entitle me to the PC version for free. Why would smartphones be different?
Well, though I agree 100% with you, I was more than happy to have the free version of Civilization V for the Mac when I purchased the Collector edition of the game for PC!
However given the price of the game, which is no 0.99$ App, I expected that
Apple Ecosystems
What is this guy talking about? No one expects to use a PS3 game on a Wii or XBox. No one expects to use an iPhone app on an Android phone. He has never heard anyone complain about this. He's making up problems so he can feel better about being mad at Apple since they got the better end of the deal in their relationship together.
Well said. This is a good analogy.
My most dislike for the CDMA iPhone, is not being able to search and talk at the same time. I fell in love with my first iPhone in 2007, when I realized it could do that. And I am still in love with my iPhone 4 with GSM radio.
The original EDGE-only iPhone couldn't do simultaneous voice and data.
However, I would love to see more Universal iOS apps... but that is a bit different.