×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Jobs Played Hardball In iPhone Birth

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the my-customer-dammit dept.

Communications 479

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Apple bucked the rules of the cellphone industry when creating the iPhone by wresting control away from normally powerful wireless carriers, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Only three executives at the carrier, which is now the wireless unit of AT&T Inc., got to see the iPhone before it was announced. Cingular agreed to leave its brand off the body of the phone. Upsetting some Cingular insiders, it also abandoned its usual insistence that phone makers carry its software for Web surfing, ringtones and other services... Mr. Jobs once referred to telecom operators as "orifices" that other companies, including phone makers, must go through to reach consumers. While meeting with Cingular and other wireless operators he often reminded them of his view, dismissing them as commodities and telling them that they would never understand the Web and entertainment industry the way Apple did, a person familiar with the talks says.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

479 comments

On a general level... (5, Interesting)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075332)

I'm really for anything that helps wrestle proprietary control settings away from the major carriers.

Re:On a general level... (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075396)

I'm really for anything that helps wrestle proprietary control settings away from the major carriers.

Yup, you can expect Apple to fairly license [ipodobserver.com] proprietary control settings in a reasonable and non discriminate manner and help level the playing field in the cell phone market!

Thanks Apple for giving us more choice!

Re:On a general level... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075814)

This should be "insightful." The parent is far more trolling than this comment.

Re:On a general level... (2, Insightful)

SultanCemil (722533) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075924)

You are 100% on target. The major carriers in the USA have gotten so incredibly bad it boggles the mind. I am now in Australia, and what a difference. Real competition! You can take your phone *with* you. Its a huge difference. Oh, and the phones tend to be better. Man, the FCC really needs to require unlocking of phones.

Re:On a general level... (5, Interesting)

mp3phish (747341) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076106)

While I normally do not like to praise Apple, this is one thing I commend them on. With all the proprietary gimmicks Apple tries to shove down customer's throats, they are not as bad as the gimmicky trash shoved down wireless carrier's throats. For this reason, I have to take Apple's side on this.

The wireless carriers in the US (and a few other regions) have been gouging the eyes out of customers simply because they have always been considered a premium service, thanks to the federal subsidy known as the universal service fund on landline phones. While the rest of the world commoditized their wireless telephone markets, the US wireless carriers turned them into crap shoot proprietary bullshit.

The iPhone (though I refuse to admit it is a good deal, or worth anything close to $500) is the first step in finally commoditizing wireless telephone service. Not allowing the carriers to screw up the phone's firmware is what companies like Nokia and Motorola should have done a decade ago. It is no wonder the wireless carriers are doing what they do, look at how easilly the FCC allowed SBC to buy out AT&T Wireless and then buy out AT&T long distance all in a 3 year period, consolidating almost every drop of the original baby bells.

Thank you Apple for your willingness to play Hardball. I am glad you can see through the corporate crap that is Cingular/AT&T/SBC. My only hope is that you can take the same approach to your own business model and look at yourself from an outsider's perspective, just as you have approached this problem with Cingular.

Re:On a general level... (0, Redundant)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076330)

Apple has always been about the user experience, even from the unpacking of a piece of hardware with their brand on it.

These carriers and Microsoft included are all about using their products and services.

Apples side of the diametric is that you use their services on their product versus using the product with the services that are included.

Re:On a general level... (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076114)

I'm sure a locked down phone that only runs Apple's software and is only available on Cingular, with Apple claiming that it's morally wrong to unlock a phone (such people are "bad guys") to run on other networks, is going to do that.

Anyone who thinks Apple is trying to do anything but shift power from one proprietary group to another is delusional.

Worse still, Cingular is one of the only two major GSM/UMTS carriers in the US. So it was one of the few that was truly open and non-proprietary, compared to the likes of Verizon.

I'm hoping some of Apple's innovations in the UI realm will make their way to competing phones, but right now the Apple phone itself is bad news from the point of view of opening up the industry. It represents everything that's bad about the US mobile phone industry, it's expensive, locked down, and treated by its maker as little more than a weapon to play in some insane power wars in which the end user will always be the victim.

Re:On a general level... (3, Insightful)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076368)

How about from the point of view of "using a phone"? Is it bad news from that point of view?

  I have to confess that I'm really only concerned with that point of view and don't really care all that much about whether the mobile phone industry is "opened up" in some fashion or another. As long as the service provided is acceptable (it is) at a price I feel is not out of line (it isn't) then that about covers it for me.

  From the very beginning all I wanted was a phone. I didn't care what games you could play on it or whether or not it could browse the internet or send text messages. I didn't give a shit if it had a calculator or a for that matter if it even saved numbers. I can remember numbers and I'm loath to give up the responsibility of doing so. I know so many otherwise intelligent people who can't remember more than one or two phone numbers now that they have an almost limitless address book in the palm of their hands. They save every number that comes their way but don't know any of them. I don't want to be one of those guys. For years I've bought a simple plan, used a free phone, and that was fine for me. Now Apple has made this really cool phone and for the first time I'm actually considering paying a butt-load of money to buy something much farther up the phone "food chain".

  And I'll be damned if all I really care about is whether or not it works as advertised. I don't give a shit if it runs Linux or can be unlocked to run on any network I might imagine running it on. I don't care. I just want it to work. It's a fucking phone not some flag to rally around or a battlefield to fight for our rights on. It's not a "weapon in some insane power war" either. It's just a phone.

Steve Jobs is WRONG! (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075338)

Mr. Jobs once referred to telecom operators as "orifices" that other companies, including phone makers, must go through to reach consumers.

Incorrect. The consumers are the orifices in the telco / phone maker / customer relationship. Everyone gets to screw them.

Anyway, let's hope the iPhone enjoys more success than the last Apple/Cingular deal mentioned in the article:

But the Motorola ROKR, released in the fall of 2005 and carried exclusively by Cingular, was a huge disappointment for Apple executives. .

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1, Flamebait)

avalys (221114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075390)

If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services.

When people complain about , I always wonder - why are you buying their products if you hate them so much?

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (0, Redundant)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075436)

If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services.

One word: Monopoly [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075530)

I've lived 26 years without a cell phone and I don't intend to get one. Most people do not need a cell phone.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075732)

Likely that's true however you do not know if the original poster is one of the people you speak of who don't really "need" a cell phone or not. There are a significant number of people in this world who need a cell phone for reasons other than causing auto accidents and annoying others in their immediate vicinity.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (2, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075798)

Case in point: I was firmly in the "no cell phone" camp until about 4 years ago when I started my own business. When I was a wage slave, the cell phone would have been an intrusion on my private time and I was wise to avoid it. Now that I'm not, it gives me the freedom to leave the office and yet remain available if something comes up. I'd be a fool not to have it now.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (4, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075886)

Most people are of average or lesser intelligence. Most people make far less than the median income. Hell, most people live and die within walking distance of where they were born. But even in third world ghettos, cell phone usage is exploding.

Your Ludditism and lack of influence are no basis for generalizations about the needs of people who buy cell phones.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1, Informative)

DavidShor (928926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076012)

tiny nitpick, by definition, 50% of people make less than median income. I think you are confusing median with average.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1)

pdclarry (175918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075464)

If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services.
True, if they can do without a cell phone. All cell phone operators screw their customers, so you either choose the least offensive screwer or you don't get a phone. Apple, while not pristine, is less of a screwer than most other high tech companies.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075754)

Try having them replace a part outside of warranty; it's not exactly a 'petroleum jelly' experience, if you catch my meaning... And, no, I don't throw away and buy new whenever the warranty is up.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075834)

Do you mean replace something out of warranty for free or for pay? I could see you complaining if they refused to make a repair that you were willing to pay for, but you know, when something is out of warranty why would you expect it to be fixed free? Not meaning to flame you if are the former, and meaning to flame you if the latter.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075932)

-meaning to pay. That is to say, I know how much it costs for labor and parts to replace or fix something, and I've found Apple to require a great deal more than what I think is fair. Of course Apple isn't the only company that does this to people, but it's still a reason why I don't consider them some kind of 'savior' for the mobile phone world.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075766)

Because they all suck, just in different ways. They are a necessary evil however because people still want to have a cell phone.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075966)

If the 'consumers' feel they're being screwed by the cell phone operators, they don't need to purchase their services.

Damn right. I'll just carry my laptop around and look for an open Wifi access point so I can use Skype. Way to stick it to the man.

Why not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18076100)

You actually do have them a bit worried. For the moment it is "Too hard" for the average person, but so were cell phones 15 or so years back.

You might also want to consider Skype over an "all you can eat" data connection, especially if you make a lot of calls. Quite likely your terms and conditions forbid that, but if they get sticky a VPN client will stop them seeing what you are up to.

Yeah, the cell phone business as we know it is doomed. It is only a matter of time.

Re:Steve Jobs is WRONG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18076030)

Mr. Jobs once referred to telecom operators as "orifices" that other companies, including phone makers, must go through to reach consumers.

Incorrect.
Actually, Mr. Jobs is perfectly correct on this one. An asshole is an orifice.

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075340)

Jobs, hard, ball, ....there should be a joke in there somewhere....

Before we over analyze this.... (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075352)

Remember than no iphones have been sold yet. The analysis needs to wait until some sales figures are available.

Hardball??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075368)

My god! When will the innovation at Apple stop? Ever? And how long until everyone else in the business world copies Apple and starts playing 'hardball' too?

At least we Apple users can still be smug and remind everyone that Apple invented playing 'hardball'!

Nah, they copied Microsoft (1, Offtopic)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075434)

At least we Apple users can still be smug and remind everyone that Apple invented playing 'hardball'!

What, throwing chairs isn't hardball?

Re:Nah, they copied Microsoft (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075480)

Wait... I thought the throwing chairs episode didn't actually work out.

But you might be write, given how they copied... and made it better.

Still Two-Faced (5, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075398)

...if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card, and APPLE would provide simple, regional, downloadable settings (for carrier-based web proxies, etc.)

Apple doesn't have to sell them through Cingular (AT&T) or anyone else.

Bucking the system...my shiny metal ass.

Re:Still Two-Faced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075538)

You're saying GSM, which means that you, like me, are European. You have no idea what kind of technological dark age exists here in the US. Basically, here you just pick up whatever someone has packaged for you, and that's it. No questions, no options, no rights. If you stray off the beaten path, you're suddenly swimming upstream, and you run into all kinds of trouble.

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076346)

You're saying GSM, which means that you, like me, are European. You have no idea what kind of technological dark age exists here in the US.
You've got it backwards. GSM isn't technologically superior to CDMA. The advantage of the European networks is that they're all interoperable because of government mandates... but if those governments had waited a few years and mandated CDMA instead of GSM, you'd be even better off than you are now.

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075556)

You are so right...I was high with anticipation when I first heard of it. When I started looking into it I found it to be crippled. I have a hard time with lock in. I have a hard time with supplier imposed limits. The iPhone is broken and it's not even released yet.

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075608)

No the iPhone simply only works as its supposed to because AT&T (Cing) let them do what the others didnt.

Once it sells like hotcakes you will see the rest of the GSM market bend over backwards to change their systems to allow for the iPhone to work right.

Its not a distribution issue, its a service issue. Apple wanted it one way and they where the only company to say ok, and even there I bet you they kicked and screemed.

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075874)

What is it you think won't work on another GSM network? I know of one thing - the visual voicemail feature, which requires the operator's involvement. Maybe that'll catch on, but it's a fairly small thing. Got anything else?

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076260)

im sure as hell there is going to be a huge deal with the broadband access (as in no extra plan) TFA basically spelled that one out there that its likely the only thing that will be charged for access is a normal minutes service plan with web being free. And I am sure there are other bells and whistles we havent seen yet.

Re:Still Two-Faced (3, Informative)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075714)

Locked-in? Yes. Crippled? Well, that's just FUD.

How exactly do you expect Jobs to convince a cell phone company to alter a fundamental feature of its network (voice mail) to support an iPhone-only killer feature (Visual Voice Mail)? In this world you have to give in order to receive. It's why he's a billionaire and you're posting lies on Slashdot.

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075994)

Locked-in? Yes. Crippled? Well, that's just FUD.
Locked-in == Crippled.
I think you have been badly redirected from FreedomIsForTerrorists.gov
We are on slashdot, a friendly community that value stuff like OpenSource, DRM-Free, Free porn and generally free everything.

It's why he's a billionaire and you're posting lies on Slashdot.
Ah! so you knew ??
Oh you must be a troll, sorry, keep up the good work.

Re:Still Two-Faced (3, Insightful)

Tancred (3904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076112)

Visual voicemail a killer feature? You're the first person I've seen get excited about it.

Getting a cut of monthly revenues...now that's the kind of thing that makes a guy a billionaire.

(And in reference to your sig, most atheists I know don't get angry about religion until it's used against them.)

Ignores carrier upgrades (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075596)

.if Apple meant it, the phones would be 100% unbranded and unlocked, they'd take any GSM provider's card....

And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network.

What Apple gets by partnering is concessions in network development they would never get if they stood along against all other phone companies. That is the value that Apple brings to the table, making complex things easier and stuff like network improvements to handle random access voice mail are part and parcel of that. If the iPhone were just like any other MVNO phone, it would lose a lot of potential for true innovation in phone development.

What will be really interesting to see is how the open Linux phones proceed, or if they run into roadblocks.

Re:Ignores carrier upgrades (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076192)

And then Apple would not be able to provide features like visual voice mail which require changes to the carrier network.

Of course Apple can support it on an unlocked phone.

Believe it or not, there are many de-facto standards in the mobile phone industry. One of the most famous is the voice mail icon. GSM doesn't really standardize it. There are multiple ways to implement it. Most cellphones support most ways of implementing the VM icon. On some, if you buy an unlocked phone, you have to configure a hack or two to get it to work with some networks (I had to use a SEEM editor with my Motorola V635 to get voicemail icons working on T-Mobile USA.)

Making an unlocked phone doesn't mean being forced to limit yourself to the documented features of GSM. You can implement whatever the hell you want, and let the carriers decide what they're going to implement.

I'm fed up of hearing this bullshit argument. As if "Visual Voicemail" is worth the pain of locked phones in the first place. I'm not seeing how it's so "must have" that I'd be willing to buy a phone for $500 I'd have to throw away when I switch carrier.

Re:Still Two-Faced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075644)

Just wait until Apple gets a foothold and has some leverage in the market. When Cingular needs Apple more than Apple needs Cingular, I bet Apple will move toward an unlocked phone to expand their market.

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

Angelwrath (125723) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075686)

Oh please... sell an unbranded product? How many cell phone manufacturers do this? Get real.

As for Apple and GSM - their decision to go US-first represents how poorly they understand the cell phone market. Europe and Asia represent a far larger and more sophisticated market for the iPhone, so the decision to start it in the US was short-sighted and will lead to a less successful product.

Re:Still Two-Faced (0, Troll)

paedobear (808689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075988)

Have you considered the idea they knew that such a huge, expensive, closed device that looks like it will make a shit phone (and will be AWFUL for SMS) wouldn't do well in Europe/Asia without momentum? (It was so obvious it would fail in Japan they've not even paid lip service to the idea of launching it there)

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075756)

Don't forget the lack of third party software. Why doesn't Jobs understand that hardware is merely an orifice to stick software?

And the idea that Apple has so much clout is laughable. The carriers will sell whatever Nokia gives them. Apple is just the first willing to accept the risk and expense of reimplementing voicemail, which is why they had no choice but to start with a single carrier.

why they sell through Cingular (1)

MikeMo (521697) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075782)

It's been stated pretty clearly: implementing some of the things Apple wanted is a lot of work for the carrier. I think the "visual voice mail" is one of the bigger ones. Someone has to pay that freight, and a good way to do that is to offer a time-limited lock-in to the carrier, allowing them to recoup their investment and make a profit as well. Verizon turned Apple down, so we get Cingular.

Re:Still Two-Faced (4, Insightful)

brarrr (99867) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075828)

Dude. Chill. Nothing in the press or from Apple indicates that the phones will be locked or that they won't work with another GSM provider's card. That said, the features co-developed (ie visual voicemail) will only work w/ Cingular unless is some standard is determined and enabled by other GSM carriers & apple supports it. Only selling through Cingular? Makes sense to me if they want to have the co-developed features and still prevent leaks. Have to give to get, and they gave exclusivity to cingular. I'm sure Jobs would prefer for it to be sold directly by apple but then they'd be just another cell phone manufacturer that may or may not work. The tight integration is the whole apple hallmark thing. It did buck the system, in a way. Just not the way *you* want. I'd rather have the features work as advertised vs the crap that happens now with every phone I've ever had & differing carrier implementation...

Re:Still Two-Faced (2, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076208)

Apple has said publicly that the phones will be locked, and indeed has described people who unlock phones as "bad guys".

Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator. Reply to: Re:Still Two-Faced

Re:Still Two-Faced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075906)

And how many huge product launches with entrenched monopolies have you done? None?

When you get this big you have to make some compromises, and Apple has to do this little exclusive carrier tango for the next 2 years to break into the market.

Re:Still Two-Faced (1)

geekboybt (866398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076108)

This is true. However, if it were the case that the phones were 100% unlocked, a small sequence of events couldn't have happened: 1) Jobs & co decide they want new features that require carrier support, such as visual voicemail. 2) Jobs & co know their phone will sell just for that single Apple character being on it, so they go to telco X (Cingular this time, whoever else would fit as well) and say "Hey, I'll make you a deal, you help us develop these features and give us more control over the whole process, and we'll make it exclusive to you." 3) Cingular reps, drooling, "SOLD!" If the phones weren't locked to Cingular, or if they were available without any sort of service/contract, the special features like visual voicemail woudln't be possible, and they wouldn't have the control they wanted. It's just another bargaining chip.

Good guys bad guys? (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075430)

I guess the tone would indicate we are supposed to demonize Jobs for wanting control of his product rather than letting the Telecoms dictate what he could build. Point he was talking about a tiny market share so none of them had a gun to their heads. Cingular decided to play ball but they could have said no. Microsoft could have just as easily come in and said we're throwing ten billion at this the first year and expect in three years to have 10% to 25% of the market share. Play ball or we'll run you out of business. Asking for conditions to make a deal is called negoiations. Neither party was required to say yes and the final deal was mutually benificial. Where's the harm?

Re:Good guys bad guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075692)

Point he was talking about a tiny market share so none of them had a gun to their heads.
The question isn't market domination - it's market shaping.

In some industries, like cell phone handsets and computer hardware, 5% of the market is huge because there are so many competitors.

Other industries, like the MP3 marketplace, is unbalanced with a clear market leader. Obviously, Apple is able to use it's momentum in the MP3 market, to the point where Microsoft is having a very hard time making the grade.

Now the wild card in the handset market is Apple. Apple has proven their abilities in the MP3 market, and partnered with Cingular, the largest cell phone service provider in the US. Verizon, on the other hand, has decided to continue with their current handset business model, which they find extremely profitable - at the expense of offering cutting edge technologies to their customers.

Obviously, Cingular and Apple are the risk takers here. It is a high profile move, and the market will decide over the next 3-5 years if it was a good move. In the end, this will be good for Verizon customers, as Verizon customers will not let Verizon get any further behind on handset tech.

"wresting control away?" really? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075462)

IIRC the messages at launch placed cingular as THE monopoly carrier for these phones, with no other options.

You have to sign multiyear contracts to boot.

I think they maintain not only control, but an iron grip on these phones.

Re:"wresting control away?" really? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075856)

Well, there is now a DMCA exemption to unlock your cell phone to connect to another carrier (assuming you have an open account with said carrier). Not having an iPhone myself (I like cell phones that let me talk to people, and not much else), I don't know the answer to this question: How long before another carrier reverse engineers whatever service is being provided, so that you can buy an iPhone and subscribe to another carrier's service?

Re:"wresting control away?" really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18076158)

You are perhaps from Europe somewhere, and are thus unaware as to how the open American cellular marketplace operates, so let me enlighten you:

$0.10/ text message
$0.99/ qvga-resolution "walpaper"
$1.99 per 20 sec "ringtone", each
$2.00 per 500 kB data transfer

all this on a basic voice plan at $40/month x 24 month +activation fee +cancellation fee +credit reporting fee +tax fee +NSA wiretap fee

In this regard, whatever Jobs offers is lightyears away of the competition. (oh yeah, and shut the hell up about how you get "Free Long Distance!!!11!!1" when you pay up $79.00 x 12 per year)

Power (1)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075482)

Love the telco's or hate them, Jobs only "got away" with his demands purely because he has a rock solid "PR" product which will certainly sell by the litre. Regardless if the product is a stinker it will sell well, because its Apple.

If anybody has half a brain they will stay away from this product for at least 1 revision - like most products, especially Apple.
And yes I own lots of expensive Apple gear.

It seems the Americans are getting screwed still on the contract, so Jobs didn't get all he wanted. The product launches back in Australia next year but it seems Telstra don't want a bar of it, will be interesting to see if it sells without a contract, I'd say it changes are high it won't.

Re:Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075710)

It's worth clarifying for anyone who may have read the parent the wrong way: the reason someone should stay away from a generation 1 Apple product is not because of contracts, or lock in, or unenlightened behavior, it's because first generation Apple products tend to be a bit buggy. Things are usually pretty solid if you wait three to six months before picking one up. (And yes, I've also purchased rather a lot of Apple equipment over the years, and repaired several thousand units on top of the several dozen I've purchased.)

Changing subject back to the iPhone, it looks like it does very well what it was intended to do. I think it's a mistake to try to prevent people from installing 3rd party software on it. I hope someone finds a work around pretty quickly because, although it looks like an entirely fine phone & photo album, there's a hell of lot more I'd like to do with something in that form factor. Maybe Apple could at least provide a way to install widget-like (if you're a Windows Vista user, "widget" = "gadget") webkit based Javascript programs...hell, there isn't much reason it couldn't run most widgets directly. That would be a reasonable first step because it would give me a way to do 9/10 of the things I'd like to do, without sending Cingular in to catatonic shock at the prospect of people installing VoIP applications to use at a free wireless access point...which does scare the big wireless carriers witless.

Re:Power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075954)

I'm going to stay away from the iPhone for at least a few revisions, because the current one is ugly as sin. When the price comes down, it is made available for more carriers, and they figure out how to make it look like a phone I might look into it.

Reality Disortion Field spreading (-1, Flamebait)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075490)

It is quite funny to see everybody disorting their reality over iPhone. :) Really.

First of all the handset is quite medicore given its specs - as for now and it is even not released yet. So you have a *promise* of medicore device, *promise* of it being revolutionary (sorry I do not belive *promises*). It does not even do 3G. I know in US it is not much of a problem but here in Europe 3G is happening right now and don't even think about Asia. So we have *promised* phone (not real) that looks nice, is *promised* to be revolutionary, costs fucking lot of money and is medicore. :) Now how revolutionary is that? I know this is first version and so on - but why *promise* first version that *is* medicore?

Secondly iSteve told something stupid like selling one million devices in a year while right now Sony has sold 20 million pieces of just one model (W810). And this is just Sony.

So for me it is obvious that iPhone does not mean anything to cellphone market - really. A designers toy but nothing that can shake the market in *any* way. At least in its current *promised* (as opposed to real) form.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (3, Insightful)

bwalling (195998) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075568)

Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like. Apple are the masters of the UI, and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI. 3G or not 3G, I'd like to have a phone that doesn't suck to use. At this point, I'd toss out all the current crap and go back to my Nokia 6160 - it did what I needed and stayed out of the way. While I like getting email, Blackberry and Windows have a long way to go before they get away from sucking. I hope Apple's UI is a step forward. I could give a crap which 'G' my phone uses, so long as I like using my phone.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (2, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075682)

Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like. Apple are the masters of the UI, and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI.

I'll second that motion. The most common features I need are gazillion menus down in my Motorola phone. People keep talking about how iphone "lacks features", but feature O.D. is a Microsoft trait, not an Apple one. If you want quantities of features, regardless of how easy it is to use them, then Apple products are probably not for you.
       

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (0)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075694)

> Obviously, we'll all have to wait until it's released to see what it's like.

So till it happens I will happly use my current smartphone, and then another, and then another... Speaking by myself I don't see *any* reason for me to want the iPhone.

> Apple are the masters of the UI,

I use Macs daily. Please don't BS me.

> and most phones/smartphones I've had have really lousy UI.

But you *belive* iPhone will have better?

> 3G or not 3G, I'd like to have a phone that doesn't suck
> to use.

Today I did like lots of videocalls. I think it is very nice to see the other person while talking. Now can you do this with iPhone? Of course you can't since:

1. It does not do 3G.
2. It does not exist on market.

So how we can *even* speak about 1 million (opposed to hundreds of millions of phones sold annually) some retarded phones that do not even exist revoluionizing cellphone market? Now this is disortion.

Steve does get it with some devices but he totally misses it when it comes to a phone. I don't need my phone to be iPhoto or iTunes. My phone is fucking communication device. So first of all I need it to do all current stuff (like calls, videocalls, data transfer) robustly - iPhone does not do that. Secondly I want it to be easy to use and I don't really have problem with using my Nokia. Seriously.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (1)

bwalling (195998) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075774)

I use Macs daily. Please don't BS me.
IMO, it beats Windows & Linux pretty easily. Also, compare iTunes/iPod to the rest of that market. The rest of that market is a joke, and for the most part, phones suck. The last phone I liked had a black & white interface and it didn't do anything more than make phone calls (the 6160). The rest of the phones have just been a mess. I've tried both Treos and Blackberries, and they make things too hard (yes, I can figure them out, but it should be easy - quit making things so annoying).

Today I did like lots of videocalls. I think it is very nice to see the other person while talking.

I'd prefer the person on the other end not know that I'm taking a dump while talking to them!

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075922)

IMO, it beats Windows & Linux pretty easily.
Like you said, this is your opinion and nothing more. I, and lots of other people, respectfully disagree.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (2, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075768)

Yeah I agree, I'm on my third motorola flip-top and while each new version does get slimmer and smaller, it seems there's always compromises. E.g., on my newest one, its too easy for the quick buttons on the side to change the ringer type while the phone is in my pocket. Not to mention the fact that T-mobile puts their "download ringtones" links first in the sounds menu and there's no way to delete them... It annoys me because the phone has bluetooth so I just upload my own mp3s; I'm not buy any of their crap.

If anybody can fix the UI disaster, its Apple. Sure it won't be perfect, but my guess is that it will be an improvement (if you want to pay for it). This whole situation reminds me of the way Apple dealt with the music companies, and we all know the DRM is a mixed bag, but it sure beats the competition for most people.

Strangely enough, I'm a bit proponent of the "do one thing and do it well philosophy", but after seeing the keynote, I am impressed. A good UI makes the extra features useful, a bad one makes them annoying.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (5, Interesting)

avalys (221114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075742)

Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.

That is what will sell the iPhone. For every geek who looks at the iPhone and says "Bah! My free-as-in-speech, open-source, ugly orange phone with the stupid name (OpenMoko) will do all that and more! The iPhone is crap!", there will be 100 normal users who try it out and say "Goddamn, this phone is so much easier to use than the POS I have now. I'm buying one."

I am by no means technically illiterate - I'm a computer science major at MIT. But I have long since lost my patience for fighting with badly-designed, badly-engineered, badly-implemented consumer electronics. I will be buying an iPhone when it comes out, because like all of Apple's recent products, it will 'Just Work'.

It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices. As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (0)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075948)

Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.


Well, a 'good' user interface is very subjective, and even OSX has many carry over design flaws that were good in the 80s but are quite outdated today, yet Apple still sells the concepts as 'easy' or the 'best'. Take the Menu bar, and how many users just don't get the 'multi-application' usage concept because the flipping bar confuses them, so they close and flip between applications.

You also seem to have left out Windows Mobile in your list of companies that you seem to think don't know how to make a user interface. People can hate Windows concepts and MS, sure, but MS spends a lot of money with real people to ensure their crap is easy to use.

Oh, and Windows Mobile has been around for quite a while now, and with 6.0 pushes the envelope of mobile usage and connectivity far beyond anything Apple has promised for the iPhone.

It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices. As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately

It is people like you that forget the rest of us have been using Windows Mobile and even Motorola 'user interfaces' on our phones for SEVERAL years, playing our music, using our bluetooth, playing our movies, and also accessing the internet at near DSL speeds, with the latter being something the iPhone can't even do.

If you are a CS major at MIT, then my faith in the next generation has been destroyed.

If Apple is the God of user interfaces, then why do they continue to copy good ideas and try to promote them as their own, you know like the iPod?

If Apple is the God of user interfaces and that is what you see as them doing well, why don't they actually create a new user interface paradigm, yet the new concepts for UI come from the OSS world and even MS. Remember this the next time you drag and drop text in a document, MS did it first.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (1, Insightful)

wanorris (473323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076250)

like all of Apple's recent products, it will 'Just Work'.

You mean like the ROKR? Apple fans are always quick to disavow that one as though Apple had never touched it.

It will be a hybrid iPod/cell phone/PDA with no sacrifices in functionality, compared to carrying around three separate devices.

Wouldn't a lack of 3G be a sacrifice in functionality?

As Jobs mentioned in his keynote, the price is still cheaper than buying a smartphone and iPod Nano separately.

Well, you can buy a Pocket PC phone for $2-300 and drop in an SD card to hold music and movies, so I'm not sure what a Nano would bring to the party.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076358)

Have you ever heard of something called a 'user interface'? Apple knows how to build a good one, and Motorola, LG, Nokia, and the rest of them do not.
Actually, LG interfaces are pretty good. I've owned two LG phones and I'm getting another in a couple weeks. No complaints.

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (4, Informative)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075772)

It does not even do 3G. I know in US it is not much of a problem but here in Europe 3G is happening right now and don't even think about Asia.
Well, Europe doesn't even get a chance to try it out until the end of 2007, and Jobs has already stated in front of thousands of people that a 3G version is coming. So.... what's your complaint again?

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075848)

That's *all* very *interesting*, *Sir*

Re:Reality Disortion Field spreading (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076204)

How nice your comment will look in 2-3 years when iPhone would prove very popular, maybe it will be just as funny as "no bluetoth, less space then a Nomad... lame"

Apple wants to screw us instead (1, Interesting)

_merlin (160982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075546)

I'm a Mac user, and I'll say it straight up: Apple only wants to stop the carriers from screwing customers with the iPhone so that Apple can screw customers harder with it instead. So it doesn't have AT&T ringtone, messaging, and pr0n software. You're locked in with Apple software instead. They've already confirmed that you can't install your own apps. The phones are network locked, too, so I don't see how they're stopping the carriers from screwing customers, anyway.

A carrier doesn't screw you too badly. I have a Hutch3 branded Nokia 6280. It was a lot cheaper than the unbranded version. It's network locked and has branded firmware and has a Hutch3 logo on the case. However, it can be unlocked and have the firmware replaced. Hutch3 will do this for me for free one year after I bought the phone. Also, I can install any Java MIDP application I write or download.

The iPhone will be a joke until:

  • You can install your own apps on it
  • It supports UMTS/HSDPA 3G
  • It supports live video calls
  • It supports MMS

Re:Apple wants to screw us instead (1)

JPMaximilian (948958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075564)

As I recall Apple said that they don't want to bring down cingular's network because Joe Enduser installed a custom application. I don't understand why that would be an issue personally.

Re:Apple wants to screw us instead (2, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075700)

As I recall Apple said that they don't want to bring down cingular's network because Joe Enduser installed a custom application. I don't understand why that would be an issue personally.

That's just Apple FUD. I have never had an app bring down any of my Java MIDP handsets (NEC e606, NEC e616, Sony Ericsson Z800i, Nokia 6280). The systems are designed very carefully to avoid the possibility of apps bringing down the RF stack or screwing with basic phone functionality. Maybe the iPhone OS is just poorly designed and it's easy for bad apps to bring down the phone.

I'm fairly interested in how this turns out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075570)

I used to work at Motorola and saw how much the handset makers really bend over backwards and do whatever the cell phone carriers want. I couldn't understand it. I thought that they should have been selling unlocked phones off their website, but they were too afraid to do so. Their employees-only section of the online store had unlocked phones every once in a while, but they usually disappeared quickly.

I am encouraged by Nokia's flagship stores in the US. The phones you buy there are unlocked, but nobody is advertising this fact - not even Nokia. It's like an open secret or something. Apple's insistence on selling this independent of Cingular is a step in the right direction even though the phones are still locked. If this works out well, some of the big guys might start demanding these contract terms and then, hopefully, they will start selling them unlocked and tell the carriers to screw off if they don't like it. I think the key is Apple doing all the hard work convincing the American public to buy phones for full retail price.

On another note, I saw the Motorola iPod phone while it was still a secret. Motorola tests their phones by giving them to employees that put their name into a hat and agree to write up a daily report for a couple months. You then use it as your main daily phone. The iPod phone was developed at a Motorola facility in a whole other city from us and we had very limited contact with those devs. All the secrecy involved made it seem, to us, that Apple was forcing Motorola to use that phone platform as a test platform to throw off anyone that managed to catch a glimpse of the phone when the testers used it in public. It was highly unusual to be "testing" a phone platform that had been on sale for a year. And at the same time there were other people testing the Moto SLVR and those people had been told that the phone hardware was designed with the iTunes software in mind (if I remember correctly, iPod phone version 2 was on the SLVR platform but was pretty much stillborn due to the poor showing of version 1).

All in all, everyone I knew that had any sort of knowledge was puzzled by the way Motorola acted and chalked it up to Apple running the dev show. I really think that Apple intentionally crippled the phone from the start, but I have no proof or anything. Perhaps Jobs wanted to get us back for all the pain we caused Apple when our CEO forgot that we also had a semiconductor business.

iPhone (3, Funny)

BGatesFan (1065072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075680)

The iPhone is a joke until it runs Windows Vista Mobile Premium, with Aero enabled holographic projector with 3D holo-conferencing. I'll hold out for the dellPhone.

I knew it! (2, Funny)

CrimsonScythe (876496) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075698)

Steve Jobs really is a badass! I played hardball once in high school; broke my leg, three ribs, and four fingers. I hope the engineers weren't too severly hurt...

Part of the problem here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075702)

Steve Jobs has clearly established his pattern over the last couple of decades:

Marketing.

He plays fast and loose with the truth, and establishes a cult of personality surrounding extravagant claims which are largely repeated parrot-fashion by his groupies. Even people who like his style talk about the Reality Distortion Field (as if it's a good thing, no less).

I have a mac. I run OS X. I've administered many macs, both pre-X and post-X. I've also widely used windows, linux, xBSD and many commercial unices (some of which you may not know of). It's just not that damn special.

I also have worked quite a lot in the telco industry. While the industry leaders are usually a bunch of crooked backscratchers, the engineering side of the industry works under threat of substantial fines if they get it wrong, and high standards for success. If your solution isn't five nines, it isn't a solution. Steve Jobbie (for those of you who understand Glaswegian) can posture all he likes, and protest about the ignorance of others concerning the web, but when it actually came time to bring his own vision of technology to the forefront, what was it?

A slick front end on top of an OS model which was outmoded by the mid-eighties.

Underwhelmed doesn't begin to describe my reaction. The telco rajahs may be corrupt fatcats, and should probably be forced to remove consumer lock-in if you think that monopolies are a bad thing, but mister close-the-code telling the Baby Bells, who know plenty about how to interoperate on the strength of existing standards, that they don't understand the web is such pitifully weak flimflam that I can only blame them for falling for his snakecharmer act.

If Steve Jobs came to me tomorrow, in person, complete with jeans and turtleneck, and told me that he had the hundred-dollar solution to all my future computing needs, I would demand to see it in writing, with a very hefty penalty clause written in. The only reason that I think Cingular bothered to cooperate with him was the hope that they might get a little marketing zip, and the knowledge that they have lots of other handsets to sell.

Apple and Sony are looking more and more alike: overpriced producers of crippled but marketable crap for those who know no better.

P.S. I think that a fair explanation of Steve Jobs's frantically hysterical assaults on the market is competition with Bill the Gates. He wants to be a bigger liar, and better marketer. It's like the clash of the titans. They make the last four US presidents look like honest men.

Re:Part of the problem here (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075764)

A slick front end on top of an OS model which was outmoded by the mid-eighties.

One could say the same about Unix derivatives. New == Good is a fallacy.

P.S. I think that a fair explanation of Steve Jobs's frantically hysterical assaults on the market is competition with Bill the Gates. He wants to be a bigger liar, and better marketer. It's like the clash of the titans. They make the last four US presidents look like honest men.

Better to have 2 aholes who compete against each other than one ahole with a monopoly. They will each tend to catch each other's lies.
         

Re:Part of the problem here (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075836)

One could say the same about Unix derivatives. New == Good is a fallacy.
I thought he was talking about Unix derivatives. OS X being the slick new interface.

Here we go again (0, Redundant)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075730)

Cue the endless stream of orifice jokes... now!

Re:Here we go again (2, Funny)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076122)

There's nothing funny about it. Jobs was simply pointing out a hole in their business plan. Cingular was flexing its ring muscle and Jobs rectified the situation. Although I think he was being too anal about removing the logo, market penetration is key. He wants this product to succeed not only in the US, but in Europe and across the entire Pacific rim.

What does Apple get? (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075808)

I'd been wondering exactly what Apple got out of the deal. The only previous item I'd heard was the visual voicemail. And I don't consider the marketing and retail channel to be big gains for Apple against the exclusivity limitation they're giving AT&T. But monthly revenue sharing could make sense for Apple. I would guess that Jobs made it clear they could go operator-less if they didn't get a good deal.

Re:What does Apple get? (1)

torrentami (853516) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075962)

Let's not forget that Apple created iTunes so they could sell iPods. The network, service, etc... is just a necessary part of selling these devices.

Re:What does Apple get? (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076230)

My point is that the operator is not needed to sell the devices. Apple has the marketing and retail power to do it on their own. Motorola, Nokia and Samsung do not.

Looking forward to no more crappy software (4, Interesting)

LinuxInDallas (73952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075844)

I am looking forward to trying the iPhone. In particular I'm looking formward to being free of the god-awful software that comes with most phones.

Just this weekend I decided to check an ebay auction on my samsung phone. I noticed that Sprint offers a "ebay premium" program for download. Guess what? It's FIVE dollars a month. WHAT? I already pay for internet access on my phone, why should I pay another dime to get a better view of my ebay account? If the phones came with capable browsers then this nickel and diming wouldn't be possible because the phone would have desktop-similar browsing capability. I think the iPhone is going to go a long way to helping consumers.

lawyers at dawn (2, Insightful)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075850)

And now the countdown starts on the two other phones cited in the WSJ article. It didn't fly under my radar the "boy have we patented it" line at the expo - and for those who want the recast, on the (free) download at iTunes of the keynote - at 1:30 (remaining) comes the clarifier of over 200 patents filed on the iPhone.

Looking at the slightest cause for a lawsuit - "trade dress" it seems the other manufacturers are playing with fire already.

For a fan of corporate porn (me), it's going to be fun watching the legal fallout from the clones (remember all the imac clones that emachine tried to sell within a year - that's absolutely nothing compared to the design theft that happens in cellphones all the time). The LG and the Samsung weren't mentioned to have touch-screen but - boy - the LG is really looking to open it's legal doors in "creating consumer confusion from trade dress" bigtime.

Anyone want to place bets on when the first lawsuits from Apple start? I'm guessing August by the latest.

innovation (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18075938)

It seems to me the difference is competition and the benefits of competition. Apple has been forced to innovate and pass the benefits and savings onto the customers. OTOH, the old AT&T justifiable charged customer for innovative service, but never seemed to pass savings onto the customer, and always seemed to be more concerned with charging for the privilege to make a call rather than charging for service rendered. For instance, even though addtional phones in a house incurred no additional load on the line, AT&T wanted the consumer to pay for the privilege to have a second phone, and I do not mean a second phone line.

We see the same thing here. Instead of just treating data like voice, and charging a fix amount for fixed amount of data, the phone companies want to further monitized data, not in any way that beneficial to the customer, but merely to generate additional revenue, often at the expense of the customer. It is like MS, forcing everyone to MSN just for the privilege of using a browser that is already paid for through the acquisition of the OS.

But Apple is really doing no different. Safari and iTunes is a brand that Apple needs to build, and if the mobile standard is Safari, then that will be a great feather in the Apple hat, and a great defeat for MS. The thing is, that this is healthy competition. Just like the AT&T breakup let us have more than one phone in our house, and brought long distance rate to criminally low levels, something like this, along with carry along phone numbers, could allow to buy phones, and then choose a carrier. Wow.

You can Expect Apple Education Orders to fall. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075980)

After Steve Job's open attack against the teacher's union [dfw.com] ,
you can expect Apple education orders to dry up very quickly.

Not to mention a Linux built PC classroom lab would cost half what an iMac lab would cost,
and cost much less than a Windows 'Vista Ready' classroom filled with Vista Ultimate top-of-the-line machines.

Open Source is the way to go for public education,
any Non-Open source software is a waste of public education funds.

The iPhone is typical Apple, big on flashy, big price tag,
and outdone by a dozen Asian companies in less than 3 months. Meh.
Cell Phone land is different than computer land, Apple will need a new model
every 6 months just to keep up with what the competition will be producing.

Attacking the teachers' union, one of Apple's largest customers. Brilliant!

Big talk coming from a guy who never ran a school.

Jobs should open his own school, if he thinks he can do better.
Deliver results, not excuses.

Steve - Put up, or Shut up.

so if the companies are orifices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18075984)

So, if the cell phone carriers are orifices, then the iPhone must be the phallus. Then what does that makes the consumer, the ovaries...or perhaps the eggs? Also, what thing or things represents spooge in all of this?

Oh, sounds great... (0)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076018)

So after the industry realizes the iPhone doesn't do anything that hasn't been done for years on other phones, and people realize they can't even develop for it, the new marketing hype is that Jobs has made it great because of the deal he made with Cingular?

This sums up how I feel about it...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37 710 [theinquirer.net]

The iPhone just gets better and better via the Marketing machine, maybe someday Apple will get back to actually creating something 'new', right now their best 'new' thing is an OS based on 1989 Next concepts. And the UI paradigm from the 1989 Next still outclasses OSX.

So I guess Apple is radical and innovative if you date everything back 18 years.

Food for Thought (1)

Bellum Aeternus (891584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076038)

Apple decided to not take cash directly from Cingular, hence the lack of a Cingular logo on the phone. The phone is locked, so Apple has don't nothing for consumer. Yes, you should be able to get an iPhone out of contract and that means a cheaper monthly for the consumer (in theory). Is Apple the good guy? Not really.

Telstra (Australia) was recently on record ... (1)

RonGHolmes (574268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18076340)

saying they don't think the iPhone is that great and probably won't sell that well. I think this is perhaps the Telstra exec being a little miffed at being treated differently and taking the fight public. I'll bet someone like Vodafone or Three will be the exclusive carrier in Australia. They can see the value of products like the iphone in getting more subscribers away from Telstra.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...