View Poll Results:

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0 0%
  1. surur's Avatar
    I think he's Steve Ballmer
    Ha!

    Anyway, the people who plan on getting the Iphone seem to be heavily under the influence of the RDF, believing for example you can do VOIP via javascript. Sigh.

    Surur
    06-14-2007 09:31 AM
  2. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    If only the phone was sold unlocked at the Apple store, and subsidized by ATT in their stores. Then you could overlook some things. But at $600 for a locked phone, I'm going to pretty much agree with the person who said they are mostly buying this as a status symbol. It's ridiculous to pay $600 for a LOCKED phone!! A few other times ATT pulled that stunt with smartphones, but most people were smart enough to buy unlocked elsewhere or get a contract to lower the price(unless they were really desperate or something). No such option this time!
    06-14-2007 09:56 AM
  3. marcol's Avatar
    If only the phone was sold unlocked at the Apple store, and subsidized by ATT in their stores.
    It's possible that's what we'll end up with in Europe, at least if this is true:

    'Apple might choose a retail-only strategy when it launches its iPhone in Europe, as operators are complaining about the firm's arrogant demands.

    "Operators consistently told us, not for attribution, of course, that they had spoken to Apple and found the company 'unbelievably arrogant', making demands that 'simply cannot be justified no matter how hot the product is'," Avi Greengart, a principal analyst at Current Analysis, wrote in an advisory on Monday.

    "Several [operators] were adamant that they will never offer the iPhone."'

    http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/...rators-grumble
    06-14-2007 10:48 AM
  4. marcol's Avatar
    Anyway, the people who plan on getting the Iphone seem to be heavily under the influence of the RDF, believing for example you can do VOIP via javascript.
    Perhaps Apple will add VoIP to the European iPhone, just to spite the operators
    06-14-2007 10:53 AM
  5. Malatesta's Avatar
    It's possible that's what we'll end up with in Europe, at least if this is true:

    'Apple might choose a retail-only strategy when it launches its iPhone in Europe, as operators are complaining about the firm's arrogant demands.

    "Operators consistently told us, not for attribution, of course, that they had spoken to Apple and found the company 'unbelievably arrogant', making demands that 'simply cannot be justified no matter how hot the product is'," Avi Greengart, a principal analyst at Current Analysis, wrote in an advisory on Monday.

    "Several [operators] were adamant that they will never offer the iPhone."'

    http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/...rators-grumble
    Interesting article but they overlook the part about how the iPhone also appears to require network authentication via it's Apple's own servers placed "deep within" the Operator's own network, similar to how BB and the Sidekick operate.

    I mean I guess they could completely modify the phone to ditch visual VM, other services and overall architecture of the iPhone system, also allowing unlocked phones to flood the market out of their control....but that really, really does not sound like Apple.
    06-14-2007 11:13 AM
  6. surur's Avatar
    I mean I guess they could completely modify the phone to ditch visual VM, other services and overall architecture of the iPhone system, also allowing unlocked phones to flood the market out of their control....but that really, really does not sound like Apple.
    Don't worry, its a a wide-screen iPod, a revolutionary phone, and a breakthrough Internet device! It doesn't need the operators at all!

    Actually Apple's strategy to refuse operator subsidies is a very interesting move, and maintains their independence from the operators. Because there is no subsidy there is no reason for some-one to prefer buying from a carrier vs buying from an Apple store. An unlocked Iphone is therefore (nearly) as good as a subsidized device, and Apple can threaten to sever their relationship with a carrier with hardly any loss of potential sales any time they want to.

    Its a very bold strategy, and one would have to see if it pays off or not.

    However - people who pay full price for a locked phone and STILL lock themselves into a two year contract are idiots.

    Surur
    06-14-2007 11:21 AM
  7. Jeff DLB's Avatar
    The way I see it, when an application is meant to access data that is the same for everyone--Google Maps, 411-style phone directory lookup, restaurant reviews, weather reports, etc.--a web app is fine in theory (in practice, it's only as good as the network, of course).

    However, as soon as you have inherently private or individualized data--passwords, grocery list, budget, inventory of books you own, etc--it is desirable for the app and the data to be local.

    I would like to have an iPhone, but I'm keeping my Treo until apps that are equivalent to SplashID and SmartList To Go are available.
    06-14-2007 11:32 AM
  8. marcol's Avatar
    Interesting article but they overlook the part about how the iPhone also appears to require network authentication via it's Apple's own servers placed "deep within" the Operator's own network, similar to how BB and the Sidekick operate.
    Is that authentication thing any more than rumour? Even if it is couldn't it simply be turned off (in firmware?)?

    I mean I guess they could completely modify the phone to ditch visual VM, other services and overall architecture of the iPhone system, also allowing unlocked phones to flood the market out of their control....but that really, really does not sound like Apple.
    I don't really buy it either. Even if the non-attributed comments really are from operator employees in a position to know, there's no indication of how many have actually refused to deal with Apple. There is a big different in the phrasing: 'operators consistently' said Apple was arrogant and 'several' said they'd never offer the iPhone. The first implies all operators, the second doesn't. As ever, I suspect that for all involved the bottom line will be the bottom line.
    06-14-2007 11:36 AM
  9. hova's Avatar
    I will get the iphone only if the Data plans are in the sprint price range and if they (AT&T) acquire a faster network like EVDO.
    06-14-2007 01:38 PM
  10. Certs's Avatar
    I will get the iphone only if the Data plans are in the sprint price range and if they (AT&T) acquire a faster network like EVDO.
    So you will not get an iPhone, for both reasons. Internet = 40-50 dollars/month, and EDGE = 1xRtt (when Ev-DO isn't available and you have that slow Internet connection)
    06-14-2007 02:26 PM
  11. oalvarez's Avatar
    hec, i buy all the new devices (to try) and i might just not buy this thing, even if i can return it!

    would rather buy a mac laptop @ $1k for the kids to use for school and fun.
    06-14-2007 03:44 PM
  12. Malatesta's Avatar
    Is that authentication thing any more than rumour? Even if it is couldn't it simply be turned off (in firmware?)?
    I think it is elevated to higher than rumor:

    There was an interesting revelation by Charles Dunstone, CEO of Carphone Warehouse, in the annual results webcast yesterday regarding the iPhone. That is, in order for the iPhone to function correctly there is a requirement for Apple (AAPL) servers to be placed deep in the operator's network.
    ...

    ...Also by building in effect a walled garden within GSM, Apple will keep a much tighter control on the operator network distribution model.

    This also guards against the standard European market tricks of unlocking and reflashing phone operating systems to get around operator device tie-ins.
    (source)

    I suppose we could say that it's just one CEO who is disgruntled with Apple, bad-mouthing them, but honestly the whole "server on the operators network" idea sounds very much something that Apple would want and do for control purposes: they can role out updates automatically, controll any 3rd party programs (?), limit connectivity e.g. no hacking and most importantly: block unlocking of devices to be sold and resold by non-Apple affiliates.

    Could it be turned off? Probably I mean anything is possible but that's like asking if you can turn off BB's BES system or prevent the Sidekick from connecting to Danger's servers. You could, but you're going to severly cripple the device.

    Remember this OS/device is like anti-linux: no hacking, no customization and you can't use it just on any GSM service.

    In turn, you get exactly what Apple promises the device can do and they deliver a consistent, stable user-experience. That's the trade-off.

    Now, like I said for the majority of those who want the iPhone, none of what I just wrote matters. They want the iPhone for what Apple is saying it can do, not what they imagine is possible. That's where WM devices sort of excel: if you can program it, you can do it. Will it be great e.g. using P2P on a WM handset? Probably not but you can at least try.
    06-14-2007 03:51 PM
  13. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    Don't worry, its a a wide-screen iPod, a revolutionary phone, and a breakthrough Internet device! It doesn't need the operators at all!

    Actually Apple's strategy to refuse operator subsidies is a very interesting move, and maintains their independence from the operators. Because there is no subsidy there is no reason for some-one to prefer buying from a carrier vs buying from an Apple store. An unlocked Iphone is therefore (nearly) as good as a subsidized device, and Apple can threaten to sever their relationship with a carrier with hardly any loss of potential sales any time they want to.

    Its a very bold strategy, and one would have to see if it pays off or not.

    However - people who pay full price for a locked phone and STILL lock themselves into a two year contract are idiots.

    Surur
    But in Europe, how is this going to play out? $600 for a locked phone???
    06-14-2007 05:01 PM
  14. oalvarez's Avatar
    again, for either a first time consumer/new user, or one who is in the marketplace for a new phone and new ipod, $600 may not be too much to ask. further, commodity prices are not fixed....prices could change in time.
    06-14-2007 05:43 PM
  15. IsLNdbOi's Avatar
    Doesn't the iPhone lack any MMS capabilities as well?
    06-15-2007 12:12 AM
  16. MerQ's Avatar
    iPhone = Fashion phone

    It's just a new toy to be seen with. It was obsolete in so many ways when they announced it 6 months ago. As the flagship phone for the new AT&T it should have 3G, and be able to do MMS and IM. I also heard a rumor that they removed Google Maps so that AT&T can sell you TeleNav. If that's true I hope it flops but I know it won't. People will buy it no matter despite the overpricing of it. I will stick with my Treo 755p for now though.

    *I'm not a Apple hater but I know a ripoff when I see it.
    06-15-2007 12:50 AM
  17. oalvarez's Avatar
    Treo = garbage can.....a brick that so many want to rid themselves of...they've been throwing them away for some time now

    stop justifying and start realizing
    06-15-2007 01:26 AM
  18. MerQ's Avatar
    Why some may want an updated form factor the Treo still does thing that the iPhone doesn't do at half the price. For a business phone the iPhone doesn't fit the bill for what they've shown so far. The Treo isn't perfect, no phone is, but it's certainly capable. FWIW I already have a iPod (4GB Nano) so I don't need another one for now.
    06-15-2007 02:22 AM
  19. marcol's Avatar
    I think it is elevated to higher than rumor:

    (source)
    Thanks for the link. I'll give you that Apple placing servers deep in the operators network has a little substance, but the rest, including anything about authentication, may be just speculation by one commentator. Here's a more extensive version of what you quoted (emphasis is mine):

    There was an interesting revelation by Charles Dunstone, CEO of Carphone Warehouse, in the annual results webcast yesterday regarding the iPhone. That is, in order for the iPhone to function correctly there is a requirement for Apple (AAPL) servers to be placed deep in the operator's network.

    My personal guess is that these will be used for authentication and email services rather than doing any clever music or video content distribution. Music and Video distribution may come later with future models upgrading to HSPA capabilities. I think this is quite a clever move by Apple, because network services will justify a share of the ongoing revenues in much the same way as Blackberry has justified a share of the ongoing messaging revenues with the operators acting as collection agents. Also by building in effect a walled garden within GSM, Apple will keep a much tighter control on the operator network distribution model.

    This also guards against the standard European market tricks of unlocking and reflashing phone operating systems to get around operator device tie-ins. If Apple has a non-GSM, non-standard way of authenticating the device then operators will be much more comfortable in subsidizing the handset sale price than the equivalent Nokia (NOK), SonyEricsson (ERIC), Samsung or Motorola (MOT) devices.
    It's poorly written and not clear whether the 'This also guards against the standard European market tricks' bit is something from Charles Dunstone or is also part of the commentators 'personal guess'. That said, the only bit clearly attributed to Dunstone is 'in order for the iPhone to function correctly there is a requirement for Apple (AAPL) servers to be placed deep in the operator's network'. Presuming that the severs really are there, couldn't the functions that require them be anything from (just) visual voice mail all the way through to authentication?

    Sorry if I appear nit-picky about this, but if the iPhone really will have a non-standard way of authentication, that seems pretty significant and may have significant consequences. Networks in the UK are generally pretty good at unlocking devices at the end of a contract (even if you terminate early) but as I understand it from a quick look at web site of the regulatory body (Ofcom) they're not legally obliged to do that. It would be nice to know if the power to unlock is to be ceded to Apple.
    06-15-2007 04:58 AM
44 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD