Martin030908
Super Moderator
iPhone definitely opened the door for smartphone development. No question.
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
AT&T stops selling iPhones in NYC...
- Thread starter GadgetRick
- Start date
They Traded one Dictator for Another.....
GadgetRick
Member
I don't believe this is a commentary on the iPhone, rather, AT&T which is the very reason I never owned an iPhone.
Why is it newsworthy? Company stops selling the most popular smart phone in one of the world's largest cities? Yeah, I guess it's not newsworthy.
But seriously, it's newsworthy because of AT&T's inability to support the users they've got/are getting because of the iPhone.
imiller913
Member
+1 me too LOL
i think some ppl need to get a life and go back to school :icon_eek:
LordKastle
Member
Absolutely could not disagree more with the the following post, quoted beneath this.
Microsoft did not produce a phone, just an OS. Palm and BB are manufacturers. Under the control of the telecom provider? How is Apple not under the control if they are under agreement with AT&T? Google was rejected by Verizon when they wanted to bring the "Google Phone" to Verizon, hence no Nexus. Motorola developed the Droid and used the OS of Android. It has nothing to do with Apple paving the way. Blackberry, Palm, and Samsung are all on various carriers...Apple is only on one. How is Apple paving the way?
I respect Apple more than Google because they have one line of devices with their own OS. They are not like Google trying to promote the OS on various manufacturers AND THEN coming out with their own device. Even though Google's vision of their own "UNLOCKED" phone is a FAILURE [due to it only being on T-Mobile and only getting EDGE, not 3G speed on AT&T].....they better be careful in future generations of phones because the same manufacturers who are supporting their OS now will bail on them if they continue to try the same strategy.
Your logic is completely flawed. This response has nothing to do with the point of this thread but I just wanted to get this individual's facts straightened out.
Microsoft did not produce a phone, just an OS. Palm and BB are manufacturers. Under the control of the telecom provider? How is Apple not under the control if they are under agreement with AT&T? Google was rejected by Verizon when they wanted to bring the "Google Phone" to Verizon, hence no Nexus. Motorola developed the Droid and used the OS of Android. It has nothing to do with Apple paving the way. Blackberry, Palm, and Samsung are all on various carriers...Apple is only on one. How is Apple paving the way?
I respect Apple more than Google because they have one line of devices with their own OS. They are not like Google trying to promote the OS on various manufacturers AND THEN coming out with their own device. Even though Google's vision of their own "UNLOCKED" phone is a FAILURE [due to it only being on T-Mobile and only getting EDGE, not 3G speed on AT&T].....they better be careful in future generations of phones because the same manufacturers who are supporting their OS now will bail on them if they continue to try the same strategy.
Your logic is completely flawed. This response has nothing to do with the point of this thread but I just wanted to get this individual's facts straightened out.
Last edited:
^^Except for the Google bashing, I do agree with you here. Apple really didn't bridge any gap. However as much as it pains me to admit it, they did have a big part in reinvigorating the smartphone market on the consumer side of things. RIM shared the corporate side with WinMO and Palm for the most part.
Anyway like already stated, this thread has more to do with bashing At&t (for good reason) than the iPhone.
Anyway like already stated, this thread has more to do with bashing At&t (for good reason) than the iPhone.
Leonard Wong
Member
Phones have been under the scrutiny of telecom providers. Control of the devices is specifically round the feature set that is released with the phone, then modified as it configured to the providers select. My evidence for this is simple..
In the early days of smartphones, phones were capable of much more but were always feature limited by the providers.
Motorola E815 (not a smartphone, but certainly a milestone for wireless broadband)
one of the first EVDO capable phones. Tethering was certainly possible from the phone, but Verizon specifically disabled this feature from the phone because they didn't want it available to their customers.
Palm has made a very good (but limited) cell phone with the Treo 650. Let's take a look at the Bluetooth features that were available on the spec phone:
Bluetooth DUN
Bluetooth ObEx
These features were purposely removed from the Verizon versions of the phone and were easily available on the Sprint versions of the phone.
Next, the Blackberry 8830, again both released on both the Verizon and Sprint platforms. The Sprint version allowed free and open access to the GPS chip so that you can track your location on a google map. Verizon had the same feature set available, but wanted to charge a $5/month premium charge to get access to the GPS chip on the device.
Tell me now, why you don't think that the telecom providers limited their feature set?
Telecom providers have been very protective of their market space and understand that they get to control the phones that are available in their network. This certainly adds into their business model and has a direct impact on their revenue. They've never wanted a cell phone manufacturer or mobile OS platform to be able to control their market space. The iPhone has dramatically changed the market for more freedom between the phones and the providers.
I do strongly believe that Apple did pitch the iPhone to Verizon but Verizon didn't want to play by Apples rules, but AT&T was more willing to give Apple some legroom to play. But to play, Apple had to agree to a exclusive contract with AT&T and that's where we find ourselves today.
In the early days of smartphones, phones were capable of much more but were always feature limited by the providers.
Motorola E815 (not a smartphone, but certainly a milestone for wireless broadband)
one of the first EVDO capable phones. Tethering was certainly possible from the phone, but Verizon specifically disabled this feature from the phone because they didn't want it available to their customers.
Palm has made a very good (but limited) cell phone with the Treo 650. Let's take a look at the Bluetooth features that were available on the spec phone:
Bluetooth DUN
Bluetooth ObEx
These features were purposely removed from the Verizon versions of the phone and were easily available on the Sprint versions of the phone.
Next, the Blackberry 8830, again both released on both the Verizon and Sprint platforms. The Sprint version allowed free and open access to the GPS chip so that you can track your location on a google map. Verizon had the same feature set available, but wanted to charge a $5/month premium charge to get access to the GPS chip on the device.
Tell me now, why you don't think that the telecom providers limited their feature set?
Telecom providers have been very protective of their market space and understand that they get to control the phones that are available in their network. This certainly adds into their business model and has a direct impact on their revenue. They've never wanted a cell phone manufacturer or mobile OS platform to be able to control their market space. The iPhone has dramatically changed the market for more freedom between the phones and the providers.
I do strongly believe that Apple did pitch the iPhone to Verizon but Verizon didn't want to play by Apples rules, but AT&T was more willing to give Apple some legroom to play. But to play, Apple had to agree to a exclusive contract with AT&T and that's where we find ourselves today.
LordKastle
Member
No one denies that Verizon didn't cripple much of their previous phones by trying to manipulate what would be available and what would not. That being said, things have changed. That being said...the examples you provided shed no light to your original argument and you went on a tangent that was unrelated. People were crying about Verizon's stranglehold over the manipulation for a long time, this was nothing new. It was only a matter of time before the market decided it was time for the chains to be broken. There is only so much time you can hide the evolution of technology without being exposed.
Apple had nothing to do with paving the road for smartphones except for providing a high standard for the competition to play at.
Apple had nothing to do with paving the road for smartphones except for providing a high standard for the competition to play at.
Last edited:
Leonard Wong
Member
If I look at the definition of the idiom "pave the way": to make progress or development easier. I see this "higher standard" as a way to make sales progress easier.
We've spent countless years waiting for smartphones to really take off. Microsoft has release 7 versions of their platform and didn't penetrate into the majority of the consumer market. PalmOS has 7 mediocre attempts to make an OS and finally had some success with the 8th iteration with webOS. Blackberry was stuck as a corporate device image. It wasn't until the iPhone where the consumer experience for smartphones was really given a chance to shine. It is still the standard for messaging, but the progression from jog dial, to ball, to touch screen has been poor. Overall user experience on the BB still lacks.
Apple set the bar by making user experience key. But it continued to pave the road as it brought on a unified market place to purchase apps. As of today, Apple has also made the platform work across its entire hardware user base. I expect this to change, but with the way it is today original iPhone users have been able to install keep up with the latest versions of iPhone OS.
Turn-by-turn GPS isn't free because there's no business for it. The question comes down to maps and licensing. Who is going to pay for it? If I were Google/Microsoft there's no reason to provide free turn-by-turn voice directions on the iPhone because it promotes iPhone sales which puts money in their competitors pocket. Google is justify turn-by-turn directions because it promotes Android sales.
And I don't know of any providers who allow free tethering. I'm done with this conversation. My whole point to responding to this thread was to point out that AT&T and Apple aren't bad guys here. I honestly don't understand modern society's fascination with gossip rather than actual news. Oh well. Enjoyed the debate. Till we disagree again. :soapbox: