PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Demands of Vodafone




MacRumors
Jul 6, 2007, 02:02 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Guardian.co.uk reports (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2119921,00.html) that the reason Vodafone decided not to partner with Apple for the UK iPhone launch is due to Apple's demands.
Apple is understood to be demanding that its European mobile phone partners hand over a significant proportion of revenues generated by the iPhone and restrict the content that users can access.
O2 is rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/04/apple-to-partner-with-o2-for-iphone-uk-orange-in-france/) to have won the deal, though no contract has been signed yet.

Apples unconventional contract terms also led to Verizon's rejection (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/29/verizon-rejected-iphone-deal-due-to-apples-terms/) of the iPhone deal. Apple ended up partnering with AT&T and reportedly has some form of revenue sharing (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/07/atandt-branding-iphone-and-revenue-sharing/) for monthly iPhone contracts.



Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/06/apples-demands-of-vodafone/)



ppc_michael
Jul 6, 2007, 02:06 PM
Well we've all heard that one before...

aricher
Jul 6, 2007, 02:11 PM
Somebody at Vodafone crunched the hard numbers and found something was fishy - long term it could be a bad decision though.

princealfie
Jul 6, 2007, 02:12 PM
Vodafone is going to be losing big time. I expect them to get fried because of this.

DakotaGuy
Jul 6, 2007, 02:13 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

TheChillPill
Jul 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
I'm curious about this content restriction though - I can't recall seeing it mentioned in relation to the AT&T deal.

calculus
Jul 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
Somebody at Vodafone crunched the hard numbers and found something was fishy - long term it could be a bad decision though.

My 'contact at vodafone' told me today that it's still not decided and the O2 story is a Carphone Warehouse spoiler.

D 5
Jul 6, 2007, 02:14 PM
He said she said all over again. blah blah blah... next :D

marco114
Jul 6, 2007, 02:17 PM
Apple comes to them with an offer. If it doesn't make business sense, then it's not worth it. Obviously AT&T was hurting for customers and was willing to "pay" for them upfront.

I hate when vendors demand that I change my business rules to accommodate them, especially when the "them" isn't even a proven player in the market.

Verizon is already a major cell phone player and to adjust your entire business model for one company just isn't really smart. It costs a lot of extra dough to make that happen. If you think about it, Apple has basically bypassed AT&T completely on this deal. If tomorrow Apple wasn't happy with AT&T, they could change the activation process to another provider in a snap.

That's why it makes the cellphone companies nervous.

superleccy
Jul 6, 2007, 02:20 PM
Apple is understood to be demanding that its European mobile phone partners hand over a significant proportion of revenues generated by the iPhone and restrict the content that users can access.

Restrict content? What content? In the US, is any content restricted?

Perhaps it means Vodafone's Vodafone Live! service, which is only accessible via the Vodafone network, and in my experience charges you a very high premium for very poor quality content. I can see why Apple would want to restrict that, and I could see why Vodafone would go off to sulk in a corner.

It's Vodafone's loss.

SL

steve_hill4
Jul 6, 2007, 02:20 PM
I'm curious about this content restriction though - I can't recall seeing it mentioned in relation to the AT&T deal.

Probably European only. We always get screwed over compared to our American and Japanese cousins.

princealfie
Jul 6, 2007, 02:21 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

that's because the iphone is a mac! It's better than my Powerbook G3 :)

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 6, 2007, 02:25 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

yea man you're just going to have to deal with the awesome iphone(which is a mobile mac) stories... When you actually get to own an iphone, maybe you'll appreciate them more and stop naysaying.

guzhogi
Jul 6, 2007, 02:26 PM
Sorry if this is a stupid question but what does "restrict their content" mean?

Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

Probably. Just remember the 1st rule of mass media: give the people what they want. And apparently, most people want news on the iPhone. Or maybe Macrumors thinks everyone wants more info on the iPhone since that's the only thing out there. Time to try something new!

DakotaGuy
Jul 6, 2007, 02:29 PM
that's because the iphone is a mac! It's better than my Powerbook G3 :)


The iPhone is a phone...a portable communications device. I don't consider it a computer, at least not in same way a Mac is a computer. If you need a portable device to go with you, the iPhone is great. Honestly though, who would prefer to surf the net or do anything on the iPhone over like say a 20" iMac while sitting in your house??? Screen size alone will prevent the iPhone from being a full featured computer.

yea man you're just going to have to deal with the awesome iphone(which is a mobile mac) stories... When you actually get to own an iphone, maybe you'll appreciate them more and stop naysaying.

Sadly some of us in the United States will never see an iPhone because of it being tied to only one carrier who does not do business in all 50 states.

Dagless
Jul 6, 2007, 02:31 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

I'm sick of it too, but what Mac news? It's a dry season as Apple worked on their iPhone, and are probably working on updates/patches right now.

iPhone news will dwindle. iPod news does too. Just waiting for the next big thing.

csimmons
Jul 6, 2007, 02:34 PM
Restrict content? What content? In the US, is any content restricted?

Perhaps it means Vodafone's Vodafone Live! service, which is only accessible via the Vodafone network, and in my experience charges you a very high premium for very poor quality content. I can see why Apple would want to restrict that, and I could see why Vodafone would go off to sulk in a corner.

It's Vodafone's loss.

SL

"Restrict content" probably means that Apple didn't want Vodafone's interface branding, and didn't want Vodafone Live! software on the iPhone. Anyone who has ever used Vodafone Live! knows that it seriously sucks. If such was the case, then bravo to Apple for not caving in.

If the rumor is true that the exclusive carrier for Germany is T-Mobile, it would be very interesting to see how the relationship will play out, since Telekom also owns Musicload, the second largest online music portal behind iTunes...

mmzplanet
Jul 6, 2007, 02:34 PM
that's because the iphone is a mac! It's better than my Powerbook G3 :)

A powerbook G3 can do a lot more than an iPhone. Just because a phone can make calls, it does not suddenly become better than any full Macintosh.

I don't blame Vodaphone or Verizon for not wanting to cave in to Apple. I agree with OS and hardware lock-in because it makes things more stable. However, what Apple is doing with AT&T is like trying to make Macs only connect to the internet with one ISP.

Much Ado
Jul 6, 2007, 02:35 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

Care to offer a rumor to do with Macs then?

Don't post if you don't like the thread, as this is called trolling.

aristobrat
Jul 6, 2007, 02:36 PM
Honestly though, who would prefer to surf the net or do anything on the iPhone over like say a 20" iMac while sitting in your house??? Screen size alone will prevent the iPhone from being a full featured computer.

Sadly some of us in the United States will never see an iPhone because of it being tied to only one carrier who does not do business in all 50 states.
For those of us who get stuck in places outside of our houses (read: in line at the post office, etc), the iPhone's the next best thing. :)

I'm not aware of any carrier that offers service in all 50 states. It's too bad that Apple's blown away how business is done to the point that they can easily just work with all carriers.

Could you imagine Verizon carrying a phone that they weren't allowed to put their stupid red GUI all over? That'd go over like a fart in church.

Project
Jul 6, 2007, 02:37 PM
The iPhone is quite clearly a computer made by Apple. It has every business to be here.

dukeblue91
Jul 6, 2007, 02:37 PM
If you think about it, Apple has basically bypassed AT&T completely on this deal. If tomorrow Apple wasn't happy with AT&T, they could change the activation process to another provider in a snap.

That's why it makes the cellphone companies nervous.

No they can't just walk away, they have a contract they have to go by.
AT&T made a very good calculated move because if this turns out to be a bust Apple will be holding the bag, and for AT&T it will be just another vendor and phone that just didn't work out.

twoodcc
Jul 6, 2007, 02:38 PM
i'm sure apple will get their way

kcroy
Jul 6, 2007, 02:38 PM
Vodafone is going to be losing big time. I expect them to get fried because of this.

I'm sure MacRumors will keep us updated on all things Apple. The iPhone is a huge release right now. Like you, I'm interested in Macs too. I guess there just aren't any rumors right now. I'm anxious for that new iMac that SJ referenced. How did he describe it...?

bigmc6000
Jul 6, 2007, 02:39 PM
Apple comes to them with an offer. If it doesn't make business sense, then it's not worth it. Obviously AT&T was hurting for customers and was willing to "pay" for them upfront.

I hate when vendors demand that I change my business rules to accommodate them, especially when the "them" isn't even a proven player in the market.

Verizon is already a major cell phone player and to adjust your entire business model for one company just isn't really smart. It costs a lot of extra dough to make that happen. If you think about it, Apple has basically bypassed AT&T completely on this deal. If tomorrow Apple wasn't happy with AT&T, they could change the activation process to another provider in a snap.

That's why it makes the cellphone companies nervous.

I'm really, REALLY doubting that AT&T was hurting that bad for customers. Before the iPhone was even announced they were out pacing all the other guys in terms of new subscribers and have been the largest network for a while now. What's more likely is that AT&T realized that the cell phone market is becoming extremely saturated and the # of people out there that want a cell phone but don't have one is evaporating very quickly (in the US at least) and they saw a way to get a bunch of people to switch. This is what the industry is going - they are going after the switchers (that should sound pretty familiar to people on this board ;) ).

AT&T might have bent to some of Apple's demands but they know they are gonna end up in the black, easily, in the long run. They got 10's of thousands (if not more) to switch carriers just for 1 phone - that's a feat in and of itself and they know whatever concessions they made to Apple they are gonna get more money because of all those switchers.

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 6, 2007, 02:40 PM
A powerbook G3 can do a lot more than an iPhone. Just because a phone can make calls, it does not suddenly become better than any full Macintosh.

I don't blame Vodaphone or Verizon for not wanting to cave in to Apple. I agree with OS and hardware lock-in because it makes things more stable. However, what Apple is doing with AT&T is like trying to make Macs only connect to the internet with one ISP.

hey news flash, if i want an LG chocolate... i go to vzn, LG doesnt sell it to att or sprint or tmobile.. if i want a T-mobile Dash (HTC Dash), i go to tmobile, because HTC didnt want to sell to anyone else... If i wanted an iPhone, which i did and purchased, then i go to At&t for my carrier. This is nothing new, its just that many people fail to realize this is standard practice. The Razr was a cingular only device for 1.5 years, so lets not all get our panties in a bunch here... (I'm a guy, so i guess we say boxers in a bunch)

F.D.
Jul 6, 2007, 02:44 PM
Vodafone is going to be losing big time. I expect them to get fried because of this.

What exactly is this comment meant to mean? Are you suggesting that Vodafone is going to be filing for insolvency any time soon because of their decision to not pursue selling it?

I think the iPhone will be big, and it deserves to be. But anyone who thinks that the financial future of companies the size of Vodaphone rest in the balance of it really do need to come back down to Planet Earth.

jayducharme
Jul 6, 2007, 02:44 PM
Honestly though, who would prefer to surf the net or do anything on the iPhone over like say a 20" iMac while sitting in your house??? Screen size alone will prevent the iPhone from being a full featured computer.

Well, at least until they implant a wireless chip in your optic nerve that will make all screens obsolete. :D

DakotaGuy
Jul 6, 2007, 02:44 PM
Care to offer a rumor to do with Macs then?

Don't post if you don't like the thread, as this is called trolling.

I am just disappointed there isn't any news on the Macs and it seems like the iPhone is taking over Apple as much as all the news sites focused on it. I just hope that Apple doesn't forget it's computer hardware over time because to be honest the PC building business is not a growing business. The fact now is that Apple could outsource all of it's computer engineering to any PC builder out there...just keep a small design staff on hand to make sure Apple products look like Apple products and then could focus on new growing markets. It would not suprise me at all if this happens someday. Contract a company like Dell to build special Apple branded hardware that runs the Mac OS.

You can't even buy an iPhone where I live so I guess I would like to hear about some of the other products as well. Oh I suppose I could move to a more populated metro area, but I love wide open spaces and nature. I guess I wouldn't trade clean fresh air and the beauty of open grass fields and trees for a man made techology device anyhow.

mmzplanet
Jul 6, 2007, 02:45 PM
No they can't just walk away, they have a contract they have to go by.
AT&T made a very good calculated move because if this turns out to be a bust Apple will be holding the bag, and for AT&T it will be just another vendor and phone that just didn't work out.

So far in this contract AT&T has failed as far as I'm concerned. The iPhone needs AT&T more than AT&T needs the iPhone. EDGE (at least from the news i've seen)has gone out once already.

AT&T is the iPhones weakest link. If AT&T fails..... apple is screwed because they don't have another provider to bail out to. They should have gone with more than one company. Then at least if one screws up, only a portion of your buyers get hosed...not all of them.

mmzplanet
Jul 6, 2007, 02:47 PM
hey news flash, if i want an LG chocolate... i go to vzn, LG doesnt sell it to att or sprint or tmobile.. if i want a T-mobile Dash (HTC Dash), i go to tmobile, because HTC didnt want to sell to anyone else... If i wanted an iPhone, which i did and purchased, then i go to At&t for my carrier. This is nothing new, its just that many people fail to realize this is standard practice. The Razr was a cingular only device for 1.5 years, so lets not all get our panties in a bunch here... (I'm a guy, so i guess we say boxers in a bunch)

i'll give you that..... but 5 years?!?!?! Thats crazy, something this high profile should have had more than one carrier to fall on.

lazyrighteye
Jul 6, 2007, 02:48 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

The iPhone is a Mac.
Just really, really small. ;)

ywshang
Jul 6, 2007, 02:50 PM
I hate when vendors demand that I change my business rules to accommodate them, especially when the "them" isn't even a proven player in the market.

If it's just a business decision, why do you "hate" it? You just weight the gains and lose.

Verizon is already a major cell phone player and to adjust your entire business model for one company just isn't really smart. It costs a lot of extra dough to make that happen.

I don't see why they must adjust their "entire" business model. AT&T is still selling its other phones under whatever business model it was before. It only requires them to branch out a new avenue and I don't see why it's bad except for some initial investment.

If you think about it, Apple has basically bypassed AT&T completely on this deal. If tomorrow Apple wasn't happy with AT&T, they could change the activation process to another provider in a snap.

Wrong again. It won't happen tomorrow. Apple and AT&T signed an exclusive deal. Meaning it's a binding contract for a certain period of time. Maybe Apple will do so five years later, but by that time AT&T might decide not to partner with Apple as well.

neiltc13
Jul 6, 2007, 02:50 PM
O2 is rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/04/apple-to-partner-with-o2-for-iphone-uk-orange-in-france/) to have won the deal, though no contract has been signed yet.

O2 is rumoured, so where does the authority to say "no contract has been signed yet" come from? Surely the only time we will know is when the release details are revealed.

scu
Jul 6, 2007, 02:51 PM
This is big news.

If true, this would further confirm that AT&T is indeed sharing revenue from subscribers with Apple.

So lets do a little math. If Apple get $5 a month from upgrade subscribers and $10 a month from new subscribers, we could see some serious profits for Apple.

At an average of $7.50 a month from each iPhone user Apple is making 100% profit on top of the iPhone profit.

If in 3 year apple can sell up to 30 million phones that would add to $225,000,000 in new monthly revenue just from the iPhone.

That would equate to $2.7 Billion every year and growing depending on terms of the contract.

I predicted how hot the iPhone will be when the stock was trading at $90 a share back in December.
when this puppy comes out look for AAPL to go past $150.:D

These things will sell like hot cakes. I know plenty of people who would dump their blackberries for a phone like this.


Apple stock is still cheap today at 132 given this revenue sharing agreement which I was not aware of back in Dec.

MacBoobsPro
Jul 6, 2007, 02:55 PM
Vodafone live? Pft... have you guys seen it?

EVERYTHING costs extra. You pay for the connection and anything on it costs extra. Wallpapers? 2. Ringtones 2. Games? 5. Its slow, delivers nothing and you may as well hire your own reporter to get news items for you, it would be cheaper.

Moving to Vodafone was the biggest mistake I ever made. I was on T-Mobile before and it was great. They called me every year to to ask if I wanted a new phone because my contract was up and also to offer me cheaper alternatives on my contract.

DakotaGuy
Jul 6, 2007, 02:56 PM
AT&T is the iPhones weakest link. If AT&T fails..... apple is screwed because they don't have another provider to bail out to. They should have gone with more than one company. Then at least if one screws up, only a portion of your buyers get hosed...not all of them.

I agree with this as well. Every other phone maker supplies phones for every cell phone provider. I know the whole deal about Apple's 5 year contract, but honestly Apple will get hurt by this limitation. If Apple supplied both AT&T and T Mobile and later built a CDMA version to supply Verizon, Sprint and Alltel Apple really would take over the market. Being locked to one company is not the best situation. There is no reason why there can't be a GSM version and a CDMA version of this phone. The only thing preventing this from being the next iPod is the carrier that is tied to it. 5 years is a long time!

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 6, 2007, 02:58 PM
i'll give you that..... but 5 years?!?!?! Thats crazy, something this high profile should have had more than one carrier to fall on.

This is big news.

If true, this would further confirm that AT&T is indeed sharing revenue from subscribers with Apple.

So lets do a little math. If Apple get $5 a month from upgrade subscribers and $10 a month from new subscribers, we could see some serious profits for Apple.

At an average of $7.50 a month from each iPhone user Apple is making 100% profit on top of the iPhone profit.

If in 3 year apple can sell up to 30 million phones that would add to $225,000,000 in new monthly revenue just from the iPhone.

That would equate to $2.7 Billion every year and growing depending on terms of the contract.

I predicted how hot the iPhone will be when the stock was trading at $90 a share back in December.



Apple stock is still cheap today at 132 given this revenue sharing agreement which I was not aware of back in Dec.

goood call on the phone man

hotinplaya
Jul 6, 2007, 02:59 PM
Verizon made a huge mistake!, and you know they are worried, the CEO put out a FUD memo titled "iWhatever" prior to the iPhone launch

Bet he is gone by October 15th, right about when the quarter numbers out

princealfie
Jul 6, 2007, 03:03 PM
Verizon made a huge mistake!, and you know they are worried, the CEO put out a FUD memo titled "iWhatever" prior to the iPhone launch

Bet he is gone by October 15th, right about when the quarter numbers out

Should we start a party baby? :)

Rojo
Jul 6, 2007, 03:07 PM
I am just disappointed there isn't any news on the Macs and it seems like the iPhone is taking over Apple as much as all the news sites focused on it.

I can understand your disappointment with not much Mac news lately. But it's not like there IS Mac news out there, and Macrumors is just deciding to not talk about it, and publishes just iPhone news instead. MR posts whatever Apple-related news is available at the time. Only a week ago, Apple released a much-hyped device that even people griping about it will admit is "game-changing" in its field. Remember: IT'S JUST A WEEK OLD. So of COURSE there are a lot of stories about it right now. Eventually it will die down. Eventually there will be other Mac news. Just be patient.

Apple hasn't given up on it's other products, simply because the iPhone was released last week. But there are also not going to make any major announcements of other stuff for at least a few weeks, in order to keep the spotlight on the iPhone for now. That's just plain and simple common sense.

For now, just don't read any iPhone news -- it's just going to continue to frustrate you.

addicted44
Jul 6, 2007, 03:14 PM
What exactly is this comment meant to mean? Are you suggesting that Vodafone is going to be filing for insolvency any time soon because of their decision to not pursue selling it?
While it is ridiculous to suggest that the company would go bankrupt, there is no denying that if the iphone is a success, and causes subscribers to change carriers, Vodafone's shareholders are gonna be pretty mad that they turned it down. I can assure you that if the iphone lives up to its potential, at least a few heads will roll at Vodaphone.

nagromme
Jul 6, 2007, 03:16 PM
That doesn't sound like the kind of info we're likely to hear--reliably--from insider negotiations.

But we CAN surmise that Apple demands quite a LOT from iPhone carriers:

* Altering their system to accommodate online activation

* Collaborating to make visual voicemail happen

* Allowing the iPhone's WiFi and BT features to go uncrippled

* Abandoning the subsidy model

* Creating new service plans just for iPhone - plans on the cheap end

* Giving up a lot of their usual control over the whole process, from marketing to customer service

* Giving Apple a cut of the service revenue (if that rumor is true) - however large or small

* Risking a relationship that gives a new player a lot of power in their industry (iTunes all over again?)


Given all that, it's easy to imagine a provider being reluctant--and demanding a lot in return (like an exclusive deal).

scu
Jul 6, 2007, 03:17 PM
goood call on the phone man

Lets do a little more math.

The Halo affect from the iPod took about 4 years to kick into high gear. Today Apple is selling 60% of their computers in their stores to new customers. The iPod was partially responsible for this huge number.

Not everyone listens to music but everyone is on the phone and the net. Once the mass public sees how incredible the iPhone really is, they will have no problem switching to AT&T just to get the iPhone. In three years it might come down in price which will open it up to more conservative budgets. Rumor has it that it will start selling in Best Buy stores soon. Once the Windows Mail program is support watch for hundreds of thousands of Blackberries switchers.

After 3 years and sells of 30 million + iPhones watch for a tidal wave of Windows switchers who just got a big dose of the Mac OS via their iPhones.

Folks this product is huge. Its impacts on AT & T and Apple will truly be felt in 5 years from now.

ajhill
Jul 6, 2007, 03:19 PM
Just how much money is Apple getting from each monthly contract? The ATT rateplan on my iPhone is pretty much what it was before I switched. How much of their monthly profit was ATT willing (or arm twisted into) to "share" with Apple each month?

Let's see Apple makes $300 on each phone AND they get a cut each month from now on? Cool

princealfie
Jul 6, 2007, 03:19 PM
While it is ridiculous to suggest that the company would go bankrupt, there is no denying that if the iphone is a success, and causes subscribers to change carriers, Vodafone's shareholders are gonna be pretty mad that they turned it down. I can assure you that if the iphone lives up to its potential, at least a few heads will roll at Vodaphone.

And remember that Vodafone is Verizon's carrier in the UK.

Aaargh!
Jul 6, 2007, 03:20 PM
hey news flash, if i want an LG chocolate... i go to vzn, LG doesnt sell it to att or sprint or tmobile.. if i want a T-mobile Dash (HTC Dash), i go to tmobile, because HTC didnt want to sell to anyone else... If i wanted an iPhone, which i did and purchased, then i go to At&t for my carrier. This is nothing new, its just that many people fail to realize this is standard practice.
That may be so in the US, but in Europe it certainly is not, it's even illegal in certain countries. You either get a phone with a contract (usually at discount); whatever phone you want with whatever provider you'd like, or you buy the phone yourself and get a SIM-only plan from whatever provider you'd like (which usually is cheaper)

People will not accept otherwise.

ddarko
Jul 6, 2007, 03:21 PM
Come on, folks, can we be a little more skeptical? Mere days after reports appears in prominent financial publications that Vodafone has lost the opportunity to distribution the iPhone either across Europe or in Britain, an article pops up in the Guardian saying that Vodafone didn't lose the iPhone, it rejected it! Why? Because Apple was making onerous financial terms plus it was demanding VODAFONE RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF ITS USERS! Restrict its users! Quelle horreur! Vodafone wouldn't abide by such an affront!

Can't you guys see this article is an obvious plant job from people inside Vodafone to cover for losing the iPhone? "No, we didn't lose it, we turned it down. And we turned it down because we care about our customers!" I'm sure Apple is making many unusual, maybe even unprecedented demands from the carriers and maybe they don't in fact work for the business model of the phone companies. If so, they are free to turn it down and if I were one of their shareholders, I'd expect them to. However, this particular article in the Guardian is an laughably amateurish attempt to turn lemons into lemonade on the part of anonymous Vodafone insiders. It's too bad the Guardian played the stooge, I respect the paper.

Donnacha
Jul 6, 2007, 03:22 PM
Haven't had time to read this thread properly BUT I did read this Guardian article earlier today and, don't know if anyone has already mentioned this but, although I like their politics, the Guardian is notoriously sloppy when it comes to getting the facts right.

As such, when they talk about Vodafone complaining that Apple want to restrict the information they provide, what this actually means is that the reporter didn't bother to question the Vodafone PR properly. What Vodafone are, of course, finding hard to stomach is Apple's insistence that they can no longer restrict their customers' access to the Web at large in order to force inferior, expensive Vodafone offerings on them.

Note, too, the Guardian's sloppiness in saying that the 8GB iphone is $499, something that most non-journalists would have spotted as a mistake and, yet, this "Communications Editor", his Editor and the Guardian proof-readers all failed to spot it.

As I say, sloppy.

csimmons
Jul 6, 2007, 03:23 PM
A powerbook G3 can do a lot more than an iPhone. Just because a phone can make calls, it does not suddenly become better than any full Macintosh.

I don't blame Vodaphone or Verizon for not wanting to cave in to Apple. I agree with OS and hardware lock-in because it makes things more stable. However, what Apple is doing with AT&T is like trying to make Macs only connect to the internet with one ISP.

So, you see Apple's attempt to assure the value of the iPhone (not allow it to become a disposable item like the RAZR was not even 6 months after it was released) over time and not allow the carriers to dictate how the phone is designed and developed through branding and subsidizing it to death as a bad thing?

It's OK for phone manufacturers to "cave in" to the cell phone carriers, since that's the status quo, but it's not OK for the cell phone carriers to "cave in" to the phone manufacturers, is that what you're saying?

:eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

gnasher729
Jul 6, 2007, 03:25 PM
I'm really, REALLY doubting that AT&T was hurting that bad for customers. Before the iPhone was even announced they were out pacing all the other guys in terms of new subscribers and have been the largest network for a while now. What's more likely is that AT&T realized that the cell phone market is becoming extremely saturated and the # of people out there that want a cell phone but don't have one is evaporating very quickly (in the US at least) and they saw a way to get a bunch of people to switch. This is what the industry is going - they are going after the switchers (that should sound pretty familiar to people on this board ;) ).

Assuming that 700,000 iPhones have been sold, say 400,000 to existing customers (probably increasing their plan by $20 on the average) and 300,000 to switchers ($60 per month), that along makes it $26 million per month, that's $624 million over 24 month. Not bad for a week of sales.

nbs2
Jul 6, 2007, 03:26 PM
AT&T might have bent to some of Apple's demands but they know they are gonna end up in the black, easily, in the long run. They got 10's of thousands (if not more) to switch carriers just for 1 phone - that's a feat in and of itself and they know whatever concessions they made to Apple they are gonna get more money because of all those switchers.

I think you are short-changing ATT here. Now, most people aren't going to switch carriers mid-contract just to get an iPhone. Also, I think it is safe to say that most folks that don't like cell phones, and don't currently have on, didn't bother to get an iPhone. So, you have to figure that no more than 15% of the activations were from switchers (either in or out of contract with another carrier). That's (reportedly) an easy, and conservative, 150,000 new contracts.

slffl
Jul 6, 2007, 03:28 PM
These mobile carriers are so stupid. So instead of making $30 billion, they would only be making $15 billion. Why turn down profit for your company? Stupid corporate egos.

JPark
Jul 6, 2007, 03:28 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

The iPhone is an entirely new product so of course it's going to get the majority of the attention. If there was any mac-worthy news right now, I'm sure they'd still tell us about it. Or at least I think they would. Hmm...

SilentPanda
Jul 6, 2007, 03:29 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

Stop whining. Not just you but all the other people that post this junk. The site was named MacRumors back when Macs were about all Apple made. People that come here are interested in all things Apple including iPhones, iPods, and iUmbrellas. Maybe you'd be happier if the site was called AppleRumors? Hey I have an idea... why don't you go to AppleRumors.com (http://www.applerumors.com)instead of MacRumors.com. Then you'll know they're covering Apple as a whole instead of just Macs. At this point MacRumors is also a "brand". Changing the site name would be silly but the content has evolved appropriately.

If there are no rumors about Macs to post, none can be posted. Arn and Co aren't hiding any rumors behind the scenes to be posted later. So you're not missing out on Mac stuff. But hey there is stuff about Apple to be posted!

Go find another site... seriously. Or make your own.

GreasyWeasel
Jul 6, 2007, 03:29 PM
hey news flash, if i want an LG chocolate... i go to vzn, LG doesnt sell it to att or sprint or tmobile.. if i want a T-mobile Dash (HTC Dash), i go to tmobile, because HTC didnt want to sell to anyone else... If i wanted an iPhone, which i did and purchased, then i go to At&t for my carrier. This is nothing new, its just that many people fail to realize this is standard practice. The Razr was a cingular only device for 1.5 years, so lets not all get our panties in a bunch here... (I'm a guy, so i guess we say boxers in a bunch)

Not entirely true, you could also go and buy any of those phones, unlocked, direct from the manufacturers for their full, unsubsidised cost. Now I don't mind that and am happy to pay full price for a phone I want because I won't be tied into a artificially high priced, long term contract. In fact that's exactly what I've done with my HTC S620 (better known as the T-mobile Dash). I don't mind paying the full price for the iPhone but I don't expect something I pay full price for to be locked to a specific mobile carrier.

In my opinion it would be a much better system if mobile carriers didn't supply phones and only provided the mobile service. That way I'd be free to buy whichever phone I wanted and decide who I want to provide my mobile service based on the best deal/customer service. My ISP doesn't provide my computer and hide the cost of it in my broadband bills and lock it so I can't access the internet via any other providers. Why do we accept this situation for mobile phones?

Much Ado
Jul 6, 2007, 03:32 PM
I am just disappointed there isn't any news on the Macs and it seems like the iPhone is taking over Apple as much as all the news sites focused on it.

Sure, and that's a fair complaint. We've all thought about it since they dropped 'computer' from the name (to varying degrees of alarm/calm). Just don't bash MR for reporting on Apple's current baby when it is the only thing worthy of attention at the moment :)

After all, i think we can all agree that Leopard wasn't delayed until October simply because it 'wasn't ready': Apple knows about hype, and how to stagger product launches to take advantage of it. The glut of iPhone news at the moment is part of that, and Leopard fever will doubtless take over come October (we hope).

jholzner
Jul 6, 2007, 03:32 PM
Apple comes to them with an offer. If it doesn't make business sense, then it's not worth it. Obviously AT&T was hurting for customers and was willing to "pay" for them upfront.

I hate when vendors demand that I change my business rules to accommodate them, especially when the "them" isn't even a proven player in the market.

Verizon is already a major cell phone player and to adjust your entire business model for one company just isn't really smart. It costs a lot of extra dough to make that happen. If you think about it, Apple has basically bypassed AT&T completely on this deal. If tomorrow Apple wasn't happy with AT&T, they could change the activation process to another provider in a snap.

That's why it makes the cellphone companies nervous.

Yep, and then Apple would get their a** sued off for breach of contract. It's an exlusive contract with ATT. Apple can't just switch. Oh, and ATT is a retailer for the iphone so they are making money on each one they sell. They don't do that with other phones.

12thgear
Jul 6, 2007, 03:33 PM
I'd love to see more freedom of choice here. Tying phones to contracts just seems so needlessly anti-consumer.

Are phones more expensive in Europe in general and are less often subsidized? Also, what's a SIM-only plan?

That may be so in the US, but in Europe it certainly is not, it's even illegal in certain countries. You either get a phone with a contract (usually at discount); whatever phone you want with whatever provider you'd like, or you buy the phone yourself and get a SIM-only plan from whatever provider you'd like (which usually is cheaper)

People will not accept otherwise.

Jefe
Jul 6, 2007, 03:35 PM
This is big news.

At an average of $7.50 a month from each iPhone user Apple is making 100% profit on top of the iPhone profit.


Who knows what the actual percentage Apple negotiated is, but if this guess is correct, it would equal $180 per iphone user over the 2-year contract. Since AT&T wasn't required to eat up the cost of a phone subsidy as it does with most other phones, I think Apple is somewhat entitled to this. they are basically saying, we have created a device that is so desireable that people will buy it without subsidy. So this way, apple gets rewarded for more people buying the iPhone. It's probably a break even for the carrier.

heisetax
Jul 6, 2007, 03:39 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.


I agree with you. But remember if we eliminate the iPhone rumors we should also include the iPod ones as well as the Apple TV ones. Get rid of all of those we would only have ones for the Intel Mac Pro, Intel Mac Book Pro, Intel Mac Book, Intel iMac, Intel Mac Mini, Mac OS X & other Mac hardware & software once a year or less often. At any other times we'd know that the rumors are only, "we wish this would happen now" items. This would leave us with only a new post about every other week or less often.

We have to choose whether we want knew rumors enmass as we have now, eliminate the non-Mac ones & keep the hope fors to give us a few each week or go with reality & have to wait a week or two between each new post. I'd go for the second option so that we'd at least have something to read while we're waiting th year to 2 years for even a minor change ora 6-9 month delayed OS update.

Bill the TaxMan

Lancetx
Jul 6, 2007, 03:42 PM
One of these days these clueless wireless companies will figure out that Apple is the one carrying the hammer in this thing and not them. Particularly when they see just how much money that AT&T, T-Mobile and O2 are going to make off of the iPhone. Just like with the music labels, their world is changing, and they can either hop on with Apple for the ride, or get left behind in the dust.

Porchland
Jul 6, 2007, 03:42 PM
Apple comes to them with an offer. If it doesn't make business sense, then it's not worth it. Obviously AT&T was hurting for customers and was willing to "pay" for them upfront.


Absolutely. Companies loss-lead all the time to drive up their market share or their traffic for other products. AT&T is a new (actually old/new) brand that needed some excitement to boost its launch, give it some brand equity and boost its U.S. market share. AT&T doesn't necessarily have to make a ton of money on each iPhone subscriber for this deal to make sense.

One of these days these clueless wireless companies will figure out that Apple is the one carrying the hammer in this thing and not them. Particularly when they see just how much money that AT&T, T-Mobile and O2 are going to make off of the iPhone. Just like with the music labels, their world is changing, and they can either hop on with Apple for the ride, or get left behind in the dust.

Apple is in the phone business for the longterm. When I first heard that AT&T's exclusivity was five years (instead of the usual one year for a high-profile new phone), I thought they were unnecessarily limiting their market for too long. But the more I look at it, Apple has set up a renegotiation where it will hold all the cards.

Five years from now (according to Apple's business plan, at least), the iPhone will be a juggernaut, AT&T will be the leading U.S. mobile carrier, and Apple will be able to choose between naming its price to maintain the exclusivity or going to the other carriers to increase its market share.

GreasyWeasel
Jul 6, 2007, 03:42 PM
I'd love to see more freedom of choice here. Tying phones to contracts just seems so needlessly anti-consumer.

Are phones more expensive in Europe in general and are less often subsidized? Also, what's a SIM-only plan?

As a general rule its usually the free phone with tied in contract for 12 or more recently 18 months. I believe this is wrong and choose the second option myself because I don't mind paying for a non-crippled version of the phone (which I will take care of) and don't want to be tied into an expensive long term contract. Some providers have even started giving away free ipods or games consoles as well as phones in order to get people to sign up to expensive long term contracts.

The problem is, the majority of the general public now actually believe phones are free and therefore expect this to be the case. I simply don't understand how they don't realise they are being ripped off because of their inflated months bills.

GreasyWeasel
Jul 6, 2007, 03:47 PM
what's a SIM-only plan?

A sim-only plan is just a sim card from the mobile provider to put in your own phone. They are generally cheaper because they aren't having to subsidise a "free" mobile phone and they don't require you to sign up for long contracts.

peharri
Jul 6, 2007, 03:48 PM
I'd love to see more freedom of choice here. Tying phones to contracts just seems so needlessly anti-consumer.

Are phones more expensive in Europe in general and are less often subsidized? Also, what's a SIM-only plan?

A SIM-only plan is a plan where you don't buy a phone at all from the carrier, just a SIM card. You then plug it into a phone you already have (or buy separately, unsubsidized.)

US carriers don't generally encourage their customers to buy phones direct from the manufacturers, but the GSM carriers (T-Mobile and AT&T) both have no problems with it (as well they wouldn't, given they don't have to subsidize the phone then.) IS-95 carriers like Sprint PCS and Verizon tend to be a little weirder on the whole "You mean a customer bought his own phone?" thing.

Either way, US operators don't reward customers for purchasing unsubsidized equipment. For people like me, who do it anyway, the advantages are the phones haven't been crippled by the carrier, and roaming in an area not covered by a roaming agreement is just a matter of using a prepaid SIM from a carrier that actually covers the area. (I'm a T-Mobile customer, but some areas around have Cingular coverage only, and for some reason T-Mobile users can only use some Cingular towers, not all of them. So I carry a PAYG GoPhone card for situations where I need that.)

On a separate note, I really disbelieve all the nonsense that Apple is trying to foist a consumer-friendly contractless regime on the carriers, and this initial lock-in is just a way to get a foot in the door. Apple's exclusivity with AT&T is for five years. That's a long time to be standing at the door.

Truth be told, I think Apple just wants the expense of the phone to be part of its appeal. It's something special, something that costs a little bit more, but is "worth it". They know they'll never gain a majority market share, but they can ensure the iPhone is perceived to be more valuable, and that the money will come in for many years, as the iPod's sales slowly decline against an onslaught of slowly more credible MP3 playing phones.

Stella
Jul 6, 2007, 03:48 PM
<deleted>

defeated
Jul 6, 2007, 03:50 PM
I say it as I see it
"unconventional"="greedy"

panamajack
Jul 6, 2007, 03:50 PM
That may be so in the US, but in Europe it certainly is not, it's even illegal in certain countries. You either get a phone with a contract (usually at discount); whatever phone you want with whatever provider you'd like, or you buy the phone yourself and get a SIM-only plan from whatever provider you'd like (which usually is cheaper)

People will not accept otherwise.

Well ... people seemed eager to accept shortcomings like AT&T's crappy network and EDGE in order to get their hands on this device. Don't underestimate the power of consumer lust !

Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't Europe nearly entirely GSM ? Would this fact play into how the iPhone can be made exclusive ? It certainly makes hacking an unlocked copy much more relevant than in North America, with CDMA and GSM still battling it out.

bigmc6000
Jul 6, 2007, 03:52 PM
I think you are short-changing ATT here. Now, most people aren't going to switch carriers mid-contract just to get an iPhone. Also, I think it is safe to say that most folks that don't like cell phones, and don't currently have on, didn't bother to get an iPhone. So, you have to figure that no more than 15% of the activations were from switchers (either in or out of contract with another carrier). That's (reportedly) an easy, and conservative, 150,000 new contracts.

By switcher I didn't mean to imply people breaking their contract. There were tons of people whose contracts have expired in the last 3 months or so and just waited for the iPhone. Now of course we're talking about people who have the dough for a 500/600 dollar phone. These people are the Holy Grail of cell phone companies. People who will give up their corporate discounts (assuming they have one) to have the phone.

But by switcher I simply mean a person whose last phone was with someone other than AT&T - combine that with all the increase dough they are getting from AT&T users who are now paying 20+ more a month just to have it...

codo
Jul 6, 2007, 03:52 PM
Are phones more expensive in Europe in general and are less often subsidized? Also, what's a SIM-only plan?

Phones are more expensive, yes, if you buy them without a contract. Everything is more expensive in the EU though, thats just the way it is.

SIM-Only = Pay as you go. Purchase your phone, top up your credit, but have no contractual agreement with the provider. This type of system is extremely common and popular in Europe. > e.g. http://shop.orange.co.uk/shop/payasyougo

But with contact plans, phones are usually heavily subsidised, practically free with many contracts. e.g. http://shop.orange.co.uk/shop/show/handsets/pay_monthly/all/all

Fletch2
Jul 6, 2007, 03:55 PM
What's more likely is that AT&T realized that the cell phone market is becoming extremely saturated and the # of people out there that want a cell phone but don't have one is evaporating very quickly (in the US at least) and they saw a way to get a bunch of people to switch.

Basic cell phone voice service is rapidly becoming a commodity market, the cost differences between operators will soon not be a selection criterior for subscribers because there will be no difference. For their revenue to grow operators need to be able to offer new services that customers will be willing to pay for. The problem is that the current cell phones are still essentially phones, they are built around providing basic phone services and not value added content. To be able to develop new products and services to sell the operators need a more capable handset, one that deals with thing like video and rich content. The iPhone is that class of device.

Once you have a large enough subscriber base with more capable handsets you can start rolling out new revenue generating services. That is why grabbing a big market share for your first new generation handset is important, it means you will be ahead of your competitors offering services that use the new devices.

heisetax
Jul 6, 2007, 03:55 PM
that's because the iphone is a mac! It's better than my Powerbook G3 :)


You say that the iPhone is better than your Mac. That would mean that an appliance is greater than a computer. An appliance needs outside items (that must be paid for on an ongoing basis) while your computer is a stand alone item that can be used with no additional chages if you so choose.

An iPhone is only the beginning. With it's cost yu culd purchase a new Intel MacBook Pro ever 2 years. We could call it a new Intel MacBook Pro every two, or would we get sued because we used someone elses ads.

My old 17" PowerBook is paid for & can be used anywhere I want to operate it at no additional charge. Can yur iPhone render a 10 GB image in PhotoShop? Can it do everything that my $100 Palm can do. Is it really anything other than a glorified wireless iPod nano. Even Apple gave me my iPod nano free with a purchase of an Intel Mac.

I'm for eliminating or separating th iPhone & iPod from the MacRumors site. Make a separate iPhone - iPod rumors website. They all could be one common wite with an easy to choose branch to the one(s) we each want. Everyone here is not waiting for the next great iPhone or cell phone carier decision.

Actually if your iPhone is better than yur G3 PowerBook, your PowerBook must be dead & needed to be recycled.

Bill the Taxman

scu
Jul 6, 2007, 03:55 PM
I think you are short-changing ATT here. Now, most people aren't going to switch carriers mid-contract just to get an iPhone. Also, I think it is safe to say that most folks that don't like cell phones, and don't currently have on, didn't bother to get an iPhone. So, you have to figure that no more than 15% of the activations were from switchers (either in or out of contract with another carrier). That's (reportedly) an easy, and conservative, 150,000 new contracts.

Actually on Monday a report came out that showed 35% of iPhone activations was from new people to AT&T

So if the numbers are correct and Apple sold 1 million phones in the first week, that would mean 350,000 new subscribers to AT&T. That number will increase as people wait for their contracts to end with present carriers and more iPhone are sold.

Multimedia
Jul 6, 2007, 03:56 PM
Not ! :eek: :rolleyes: :(

defeated
Jul 6, 2007, 03:57 PM
Not ! :eek: :rolleyes: :(

seven deadly sins :cool: :cool:

sblasl
Jul 6, 2007, 04:00 PM
Time to "Think Different":cool:

The iPhone is a phone...a portable communications device. I don't consider it a computer, at least not in same way a Mac is a computer.

Earendil
Jul 6, 2007, 04:06 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

There are, last I checked, 365 days in a year. I check Mac Rumors at least 7 times a week. There are not 365 Macintosh Computer rumors or news.

Just ask yourself this,
is iPhone news keeping MacRumors from posting other news?
Is iPhone news so numerous that Macintosh news is getting buried?

Perhaps you think that Arn is cheating us somehow and glossing over computer related news, but I'm doubtful of that. And your news reading habits probably differ from mine, but I really don't have any problem scrolling down to catch news I care about it, be it Desktop, Laptop, iPod, iPhone, or the next big thing from Apple.

That said, we have 7 bootable Macs at home, and the iPhone is faster than 3 of them :eek:
And it displays more colors than two of them ;)
And is capable of surfing the internet, unlike one of them... :o

~Earendil

Avicdar
Jul 6, 2007, 04:07 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

This place has really been 'applenewsandrumours.com' for quite some time. Anything Apple does, or anything done by other companies somehow relating to iPods, Macs, OSX or Apple related technology makes it to the site.

If this site were limited to just rumours about the Mac, there would be maybe one new story on average every two weeks.

RealMcCoy
Jul 6, 2007, 04:12 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

TRUE THAT !!! Why isnt MacRumors installing a seperate platform for that. iPhone is coll and all ... but it is just a gagdet (hopefully with a lot of impact tho) and should be "rumored" in a seperate section of its own !

egdiroh
Jul 6, 2007, 04:14 PM
The iPhone is a phone...a portable communications device. I don't consider it a computer, at least not in same way a Mac is a computer. If you need a portable device to go with you, the iPhone is great. Honestly though, who would prefer to surf the net or do anything on the iPhone over like say a 20" iMac while sitting in your house??? Screen size alone will prevent the iPhone from being a full featured computer.


What OS does it run? MAC OS X. What is something that runs Mac OS X? a mac! Or does the Xserve also not count as a mac because it's not branded as such?

nja247
Jul 6, 2007, 04:17 PM
that's because the iphone is a mac! It's better than my Powerbook G3 :)

Time for a new Mac.

powerbuddy
Jul 6, 2007, 04:20 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

I second this. Arn or whoever is reading this post, please post more Mac rumors (living up to the domain name). The iPhone is a piece of telecommunication instrument which doesn't resonate with the general ownership of this site. A lot of people who have made a firm decision of not purchasing a iPhone / and those of who have are really sick and tired and reading about *yet another European company pissed by Apple*. WHO THE ******* CARES!?!?!? The iPhone has became a Paris Hilton of Mac rumors sites. Please.........:mad: :o :rolleyes: :apple: :D

Nermal
Jul 6, 2007, 04:23 PM
I second this. Arn or whoever is reading this post, please post more Mac rumors (living up to the domain name).

What do you propose we do? Pluck some out of thin air? If nothing is being posted about Macs, it's because there is no Mac news to post.

Please keep the remainder of this thread on topic, or if you have an issue please use the Site and Forum Feedback area.

sblasl
Jul 6, 2007, 04:29 PM
People have to remember that AT&T had to upgrade/change their system to accommodate the "Visual VoiceMail", the interaction with Apple's system to recognize the "Activation", & the enhancement good or bad of the EDGE network. This had to cost a tremendous amount of money and most likely they needed a long term commitment from Apple to make that happen.

I don't know if they needed a 5 year commitment, that seems a bit long based on some of the hypothetical calculations that have been made in this thread.

blueskybyway
Jul 6, 2007, 04:29 PM
The iPhone is a phone...a portable communications device. I don't consider it a computer, at least not in same way a Mac is a computer. If you need a portable device to go with you, the iPhone is great. Honestly though, who would prefer to surf the net or do anything on the iPhone over like say a 20" iMac while sitting in your house??? Screen size alone will prevent the iPhone from being a full featured computer.

Personally, I want to spend less time on the computer when I'm at home with my family. I bought the iPhone so I can keep up with events when I'm on a cardio machine at the gym, like I'm doing now while listening to iTunes and replying to this post, or waiting in the lobby of someone's office.
As you said, if you need a handheld, the iPhone is great.

It will not replace my large LCD at home, but it's a mighty fine extension of it.

nja247
Jul 6, 2007, 04:30 PM
But with contact plans, phones are usually heavily subsidised, practically free with many contracts. e.g. http://shop.orange.co.uk/shop/show/handsets/pay_monthly/all/all

Like O2 offering the LG Prada phone for only 20 with a contract.

sushi
Jul 6, 2007, 04:31 PM
Probably European only. We always get screwed over compared to our American and Japanese cousins.
Seems that way.

Someday I would hope things will be a little more world wide verses country specific -- or at least be more standardized like NTSC/PAL for televisions has been.

P.S. I like your location "Moonchild!" :)

DakotaGuy
Jul 6, 2007, 04:34 PM
Sure, and that's a fair complaint. We've all thought about it since they dropped 'computer' from the name (to varying degrees of alarm/calm). Just don't bash MR for reporting on Apple's current baby when it is the only thing worthy of attention at the moment :)


I guess I didn't really mean to bash MR...I was actually bashing Apple. Steve is so glossy eyed over his iPhone I honestly think everything else has been forgotten or pushed back.

Where is the new iMac? I'd sure like to buy one of those. How about a new design for the MacPro? The outside design of the MacPro is getting a bit long in the tooth. I guess when Apple went Intel I expected things to move a lot faster then they did in the PPC days, but revision times have actually gotten longer. Granted more improvements between revisions, but development in general has slowed on the Mac line over the past year or so. The same can be said about the iPod line.

I think the fact that 10.5 was pushed back BECAUSE of the iPhone says a lot. I wonder how many other projects are getting pushed back? What is the percentage of Apple engineers dedicated to the iPhone right now? I bet it is very high.

I guess the fact is that I am starting to see something that no one would ever admit around here. It started with the iPod and the Intel switch was the big turning point. I am glad that we have nice fast Intel hardware now, but honestly why does Apple even build their own PC hardware anymore? I can see the day of contracted engineering and building upon us. I can see Apple exit the actual computer hardware business (other then re-branding and re-styling) and focus on software and consumer entertainment products.


Ok...anyhow sorry for getting people off topic...I just wanted to clarify I DID NOT mean to bash MR or the people that run it.
Back to the iPhone topic...

BlackLilyNinja
Jul 6, 2007, 04:42 PM
the only thing i see there is apple wanted to restrict content/service


there will need to be many changes to the service and content of the iPhone experience b4 i get one.

manu chao
Jul 6, 2007, 05:01 PM
Not entirely true, you could also go and buy any of those phones, unlocked, direct from the manufacturers for their full, unsubsidised cost.

Essentially, the mobile phone operators are in the business of consumer credit.

Aaargh!
Jul 6, 2007, 05:07 PM
SIM-Only = Pay as you go. Purchase your phone, top up your credit, but have no contractual agreement with the provider. This type of system is extremely common and popular in Europe. > e.g. http://shop.orange.co.uk/shop/payasyougo
No, SIM-only is not pay-as-you-go. PAYG is called "pre-paid" over here.

A SIM-only plan means exactly that, you only get a SIM-card and no phone.

The SIM is what actually identifies you to the network. Your phone number and plan are tied to the SIM, it also stores the phonebook. So if you get a new phone, you just put in your current SIM and done. Or if you get a new plan, you can get a SIM-only plan and just put the new SIM in your old phone.

Usually, the SIM-only plan is a lot cheaper because the phone company doesn't have to sponsor a new phone. (E.g. 9 euro/month for 300 minutes)

Aaargh!
Jul 6, 2007, 05:13 PM
Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't Europe nearly entirely GSM ?

Yes it is.

Would this fact play into how the iPhone can be made exclusive ? It certainly makes hacking an unlocked copy much more relevant than in North America, with CDMA and GSM still battling it out.
I wonder if it's even legal to make it exclusive. AFAIK it's illegal for the main function of product A to depend on also buying product B (instead of similar product C or D).

If for example, you sell a car that will only fit the factory stereo, it's not a problem (the stereo is not the main functionality of the car) but if it required you to also only buy gas from them or it wouldn't run, that would be illegal. It's basically anti-competitive.

superleccy
Jul 6, 2007, 06:04 PM
And remember that Vodafone is Verizon's carrier in the UK.

Not exactly.

[TRIVA]Vodafone Group, which is (nominally) UK-based, has a 45% stake in Verizon. Verizon, in turn, has an approx 20%ish stake in Vodafone Italy.[/TRIVIA]

Whilst the other countries in the Vodafone group try to at least give the impression they are working "as one", Vodafone generally seem to let Verizon do what it wants.

SL

shamino
Jul 6, 2007, 06:05 PM
The revenue sharing rumor is interesting.

On the one hand, I think it's crazy. Just as crazy as Universal wanting a cut of iPod sales. Apple makes the phone. They don't provide the network, so why should they be entitled to any part of that monthly service fee.

On the other hand, the iPhone is unique. This specific device is probably pulling through a LOT of new AT&T contracts that would not have been signed otherwise, so there is justification to argue that Apple is responsible for AT&T getting much of that new revenue stream.

This was probably AT&T's concession in exchange for being the exclusive iPhone carrier in the US. Otherwise, that exclusive contract wouldn't offer any real benefit to Apple. And once the iPhone ceases to be an exclusive product, there won't be any justification for revenue-sharing, since it will no longer draw customers to one carrier.
Wrong again. It won't happen tomorrow. Apple and AT&T signed an exclusive deal. Meaning it's a binding contract for a certain period of time. ...
Of course, there may be hidden outs. I'd be surprised if Apple didn't write some in. As it turns out, the iPhone appears to be as successful as expected, but I can't believe that Apple would allow themselves to be tied to a boat-anchor, if it would have flopped (or if AT&T screws up and kills it in the future.)

That exclusive contract may be for this specific model iPhone - allowing Apple to sell version 2 elsewhere. Or there may be other loopholes.

Of course, without actually seeing the contact, this is all speculation. But I can't believe Apple would ever sign a potential suicide pact.
* Allowing the iPhone's WiFi and BT features to go uncrippled
Well, not as crippled as carriers usually provide. But Apple's BT isn't complete either. OBEX file transfer is absent. The only way to get content into the iPhone is by syncing via iTunes and a USB cable. And the only way to get photos out is to e-mail them.
* Creating new service plans just for iPhone - plans on the cheap end
I don't think the plan is all that new. The iPhone plans are about the same price as a traditional AT&T voice plan plus their standard smartphone unlimited data plan (which is $20).
What OS does it run? MAC OS X. What is something that runs Mac OS X? a mac! Or does the Xserve also not count as a mac because it's not branded as such?
Well, Apple's advertising only says "OS X", they don't use the word "Mac" in that phrase.

Several reports (including stack traces from app-panic bug reports) show that it is running a Darwin kernel, with some of the Mac-standard frameworks, but there are several frameworks that Macs don't have, and it is missing several frameworks that Macs do have.

An iPhone has a different processor, different file system (which is not user-accessible), different I/O devices, and almost certainly has a very different system-board architecture. On the software side, there is no Finder, no Dock, no Spotlight, no way to install your own software, etc. As nice as the iPhone is, I would never call it a Mac.

This is very different from an Apple-TV, which has been shown to run full-blown Mac OS using a Mac-standard hardware architecture (although with a CPU much slower than any shipped in devices sold as Macs.)

shamino
Jul 6, 2007, 06:10 PM
I wonder if it's even legal to make it exclusive. AFAIK it's illegal for the main function of product A to depend on also buying product B (instead of similar product C or D).
When tying a product to another product, you may be right.

But it's different when tying a product to a service.

For instance, there's nothing that requires XM Radio receivers to be compatible with the Sirius broadcasts or vice versa.

And cell carriers in the US have been selling locked phones (and refusing to unlock them) for years. If there was any illegality here, I'm certain there would've been plenty of widely-published lawsuits by now.

superleccy
Jul 6, 2007, 06:29 PM
The revenue sharing rumor is interesting.

The revenue share is, in effect, a handset subsidy in disguise.

It's the network that pays for handset subsidies. But the network recoups that money by making the contracts more expensive than they'd otherwise need to be.

With the iPhone, there is no subsidy, but the contracts are no cheaper either - so the network ends up with an extra chunk of money, which it gives to Apple in the form of revenue share.

If Apple didn't get that revenue share, then they'd probably need to slap an extra few hundred dollars on the price of the iPhone to recoup their R&D & setup costs.

So you see, in a way, the iPhone is subsidised. It's just that the model in innovative and different - what would you expect from Apple?

SL

netdoc66
Jul 6, 2007, 06:43 PM
Apple dropped the word computer from their corporate ID because they wanted to be your digital lifestyle provider. It's "i" everything these days so to the nerds that just want to hear about the latest motherboard performance numbers, those days are over my friends. The masses want sexy easy to use stuff to enhance their lives. They don't care about these things we call computer specs but they do want sexy computers. The masses create page views for Macrumors. Macrumors makes money in the process and Arn can buy a few more Mac products here and there:D . I don't think it's going to revert to the way it used to be. That wouldn't be progress would it? Be happy for Arn and support the growth of his site or find a site that talks about the specs of them new shiny imacs and nothing else. Whining about these things is annoying to read through in these threads. Make a thread that doesn't interupt the site maybe? Call it "Macrumors post news about everything mac Waaaahhhh!":apple:

princealfie
Jul 6, 2007, 06:45 PM
Well guys guys guys you really need to remember that the iPhone runs Mac OS X. Also the iPhone will push more people to switch to Mac and especially the laptops and desktops. So for all those people wanting to split this forum into two parts ought to be quartered and drawn for their suggestion, considering that they have forgotten that the iPhone will spread the halo effect.

Mathieu Basiat
Jul 6, 2007, 06:50 PM
The iPhone is a phone...a portable communications device. I don't consider it a computer, at least not in same way a Mac is a computer. If you need a portable device to go with you, the iPhone is great. Honestly though, who would prefer to surf the net or do anything on the iPhone over like say a 20" iMac while sitting in your house??? Screen size alone will prevent the iPhone from being a full featured computer.

for now, imagine plugging in a monitor, bluetooth KB and mouse

the ipod, now, the iphone is the computer, as i have said since 2002, well on appleinsider anyway.

RnSK
Jul 6, 2007, 06:51 PM
The iPhone is a Mac.
Just really, really small. ;)

it isn't. It really really isn't :)

RnSK
Jul 6, 2007, 06:53 PM
What OS does it run? MAC OS X. What is something that runs Mac OS X? a mac!

the iPhone does NOT RUN Mac OS X.

Sheesh.

steve_hill4
Jul 6, 2007, 07:06 PM
The iPhone is a Mac.
Just really, really small. ;)

Steve Almighty calls it an iPod.

iPods have never been classed as Macs, unless the rumours are true and the new iPod does run on OSX.

RnSK
Jul 6, 2007, 07:16 PM
Steve Almighty calls it an iPod.

iPods have never been classed as Macs, unless the rumours are true and the new iPod does run on OSX.

..to a *very intentional* marketing slight of hand my man :)

Follow along to learn a bit:

What "Almighy Steve" said, and what all of apple marketing says is...

"iPhone runs Oh-Es-Ten."

Not Mac OS X, as people assume...and this was NOT a "shortcut" or colloquialism...but a very, VERY nice mental trick.

the iPhone runs an ARM variant of darwin, with some ported and reworked *core frameworks* (just like you saw in the slide...more mental floss).

In your *mind* since you've seen all of this as part of Mac OS X slides, you made the leap that apple wanted you to...but apple has NEVER said the phone runs Mac OS X.

It doesn't. What it *actually runs* is something they are calling (and this is what made me really tip my hat to the sheer deviousness of it all) "OS X v1.0".

The apps on the phone *are not cocoa apps*...they are in reality enhanced widgets.

Everything you see on the screen that isn't text is a png. everything. the UIKit is a bundle of ready to use elements...in png format. Its not cocoa.

The More You Know™...

defeated
Jul 6, 2007, 07:19 PM
What OS does it run? MAC OS X. What is something that runs Mac OS X? a mac! Or does the Xserve also not count as a mac because it's not branded as such?
actually, iPhone does behave like a mac, because

It has far less available 3rd party apps compare to other PDAs. :)

mmzplanet
Jul 6, 2007, 07:42 PM
So, you see Apple's attempt to assure the value of the iPhone (not allow it to become a disposable item like the RAZR was not even 6 months after it was released) over time and not allow the carriers to dictate how the phone is designed and developed through branding and subsidizing it to death as a bad thing?

It's OK for phone manufacturers to "cave in" to the cell phone carriers, since that's the status quo, but it's not OK for the cell phone carriers to "cave in" to the phone manufacturers, is that what you're saying?

:eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

Did I say that? No one should be caving in to anyone. If apple wants that much more money, raise the price of the phone. My biggest issue with this is that I like the iPhone. But I find AT&T horrible.

All this Vodaphone and Verizon comparing.... Vodaphone owns 45% of Verizon Wireless. Verizon is the other 55%. It used to be 60% Vodaphone until recently. So it should be no surprise that Vodaphone is acting the same way Verizon Wireless did.

mmzplanet
Jul 6, 2007, 07:50 PM
I just thought of something.....

This 2 year contract you have with AT&T is bogus. If they have a 5 year exclusive.. then every iPhone buyer is really in a 5 year contract. Unless you want to partially brick your iPhone after 2 years.

That really sucks.

defeated
Jul 6, 2007, 08:00 PM
I just thought of something.....

This 2 year contract you have with AT&T is bogus. If they have a 5 year exclusive.. then every iPhone buyer is really in a 5 year contract. Unless you want to partially brick your iPhone after 2 years.

That really sucks.

I thought after two years, you can still use it as iPod and normal PDA? or not?

mmzplanet
Jul 6, 2007, 09:15 PM
I thought after two years, you can still use it as iPod and normal PDA? or not?

You can... which is why I said partially brick.

Donnacha
Jul 6, 2007, 09:31 PM
Guys ... think!

What happens when any phone contract ends?

That's right, the company has to unlock the phone for you.

This means that you will, quite legally, be able to use it with any service you want and you can bet your life that ALL the carriers, desperate to reclaim some of their lost millions of customers, will be offering juicy deals and, of course, will have sorted out all the back-end functionality necessary to ensure all the special features work.

The deal gives AT&T exclusive rights to sell the initial 2yr plans, that's all.

This was the whole point of entering into an exclusive "divide and conquer" deal with just one telco in each market: to shake the Hell out of things and utterly smash the stranglehold the telcos have had over mobile communication.

The end result will be people buying new iPhones whenever they want and buying simple, commodity-priced connectivity from whoever offers the best deal.

min_t
Jul 6, 2007, 09:33 PM
Is this place going to become iphonerumors.com or telecomrumors.com? It seems like Macs are becoming a forgotten item around here.

Apple computer -->Apple. Apple is not only about computers anymore.
Macs, iPods, iPhones, and eventually :apple: tv.
Apple just wants us to have our digital info available wherever we are.
Is that so bad.

imacdaddy
Jul 6, 2007, 10:41 PM
I'm on Vodafone, and hopefully Vodafone will push harder to win the bid to be the exclusive carrier here in Hong Kong.

rob@robburns.co
Jul 6, 2007, 11:41 PM
So far in this contract AT&T has failed as far as I'm concerned. The iPhone needs AT&T more than AT&T needs the iPhone. EDGE (at least from the news i've seen)has gone out once already.

AT&T is the iPhones weakest link. If AT&T fails..... apple is screwed because they don't have another provider to bail out to. They should have gone with more than one company. Then at least if one screws up, only a portion of your buyers get hosed...not all of them.

A five year contract can also specify performance requirements with out clauses. That is AT&T may be required to meet certain demands such as increase their national presence and enhance their Edge networks. The contract could (most likely would) include requirements for AT&T to maintain their network in certain measurable ways. Apple can walk if AT&T fails them.

I would imagine that Apple may even be able to releases a full-fledged WiFi ipod/phone/internet device independent of AT&T (unless At&T thought of adding that exclusion to the contract).

rob@robburns.co
Jul 6, 2007, 11:43 PM
Just how much money is Apple getting from each monthly contract? The ATT rateplan on my iPhone is pretty much what it was before I switched. How much of their monthly profit was ATT willing (or arm twisted into) to "share" with Apple each month?

Let's see Apple makes $300 on each phone AND they get a cut each month from now on? Cool


I can't find the quote right now, but Jobs has said Apple is not getting anything from AT&T in terms of monthly subscription fees. Apple may be getting subsidy from AT&T for each iPhone sold. AT&T also probably made commitments to expand their national coverage.and improve their Edge network. BUT AT&T IS NOT PAYING APPLE ANY PORTION OF SUBSCRIBER FEES.

rob@robburns.co
Jul 6, 2007, 11:45 PM
Come on, folks, can we be a little more skeptical? Mere days after reports appears in prominent financial publications that Vodafone has lost the opportunity to distribution the iPhone either across Europe or in Britain, an article pops up in the Guardian saying that Vodafone didn't lose the iPhone, it rejected it! Why? Because Apple was making onerous financial terms plus it was demanding VODAFONE RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF ITS USERS! Restrict its users! Quelle horreur! Vodafone wouldn't abide by such an affront!

Can't you guys see this article is an obvious plant job from people inside Vodafone to cover for losing the iPhone? "No, we didn't lose it, we turned it down. And we turned it down because we care about our customers!" I'm sure Apple is making many unusual, maybe even unprecedented demands from the carriers and maybe they don't in fact work for the business model of the phone companies. If so, they are free to turn it down and if I were one of their shareholders, I'd expect them to. However, this particular article in the Guardian is an laughably amateurish attempt to turn lemons into lemonade on the part of anonymous Vodafone insiders. It's too bad the Guardian played the stooge, I respect the paper.

Totally true. Its like loosing a bidding war and then claiming you weren't interested anyway. Obviously you wouldn't have bid if you weren't interested. And as others have pointed out Vodaphone, like Verizon also has this idea that it will make money not by providing voice and data service, but by selling their customers all sorts of useless content they don't want.

rob@robburns.co
Jul 6, 2007, 11:49 PM
People have to remember that AT&T had to upgrade/change their system to accommodate the "Visual VoiceMail", the interaction with Apple's system to recognize the "Activation", & the enhancement good or bad of the EDGE network. This had to cost a tremendous amount of money and most likely they needed a long term commitment from Apple to make that happen.

I don't think adding visual voice mail could be that much work. Apple likely used an open standard or a variant on an open standard. AT&T may not be allowed (by contract) to provide this service to other phones. Though I imagine we'll see it from other carriers (or maybe a sad copy of it).

I don't know if they needed a 5 year commitment, that seems a bit long based on some of the hypothetical calculations that have been made in this thread.

The five year length may be contingent on performance on both sides. Its an indication that they want to work together, but they most likely both have out clauses if the other doesn't meet performance requirements.

aLoC
Jul 7, 2007, 12:00 AM
I guess Apple wants some of the subscription money to cover the various web services they run for the phone. It's not about the underlying network, all that money belongs to the telco.

bbcxx
Jul 7, 2007, 12:11 AM
What is this other then greed? :apple:

rob@robburns.co
Jul 7, 2007, 12:21 AM
The revenue sharing rumor is interesting.

And it has been denied by Apple. No revenue sharing on subscriptions.

On the one hand, I think it's crazy. Just as crazy as Universal wanting a cut of iPod sales. Apple makes the phone. They don't provide the network, so why should they be entitled to any part of that monthly service fee.

That's really up to the parties of a contract. Why would you get to dictate the terms of an agreement between two others? And again, Apple is not getting any part of the monthly service.

On the other hand, the iPhone is unique. This specific device is probably pulling through a LOT of new AT&T contracts that would not have been signed otherwise, so there is justification to argue that Apple is responsible for AT&T getting much of that new revenue stream.

AT&T is expecting 1.5 million new subscribers in 2007 due to six months of the iPhone (see http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2007/06/25/here-comes-the-iphone-coverage-deluge/). Keep in mind that they're costs are largely fixed (or on a fixed schedule). Its really all about how many subscribers you can get.

I don't think the plan is all that new. The iPhone plans are about the same price as a traditional AT&T voice plan plus their standard smartphone unlimited data plan (which is $20).

Agreed. The only thing that may have been up for bargaining is whether AT&T would peg the iPhone as a PDA ($40/month data), or a full-fledged computer ($60/month data). Apple probably pushed for the smart-phone rate.

Well, Apple's advertising only says "OS X", they don't use the word "Mac" in that phrase. Several reports (including stack traces from app-panic bug reports) show that it is running a Darwin kernel, with some of the Mac-standard frameworks, but there are several frameworks that Macs don't have, and it is missing several frameworks that Macs do have.

A Darwin OS based OS with Quartz graphics. Whether we call it "Mac OS X" or "OS X" its basically the same OS that we all colloquially refer to as "Mac OS X". The intel macs are missing Classic. Does that make them not Mac OS X anymore?

An iPhone has a different processor, different file system (which is not user-accessible), different I/O devices, and almost certainly has a very different system-board architecture. On the software side, there is no Finder, no Dock, no Spotlight, no way to install your own software, etc. As nice as the iPhone is, I would never call it a Mac.

Mac OS X runs on several processors already, that can't make it not Mac OS X. On the filesystem, what do you base that on. I've heard nothing about anyone even attempting to mount this with the terminal as a disk. It could be HFS+ for all we know. There's no Finer on AppleTV either.

This is very different from an Apple-TV, which has been shown to run full-blown Mac OS using a Mac-standard hardware architecture (although with a CPU much slower than any shipped in devices sold as Macs.)

I don't see it as that different. AppleTV probably has no Java. It probably has no Flash plugin. How can the hardware matter. Isn't the point of universal binary development and the Darwin kernel that the entire OS and ll the software is abstracted from the hardware architecture?

rob@robburns.co
Jul 7, 2007, 12:30 AM
... the iPhone runs an ARM variant of darwin, with some ported and reworked *core frameworks* (just like you saw in the slide...more mental floss).

In your *mind* since you've seen all of this as part of Mac OS X slides, you made the leap that apple wanted you to...but apple has NEVER said the phone runs Mac OS X.

It doesn't. What it *actually runs* is something they are calling (and this is what made me really tip my hat to the sheer deviousness of it all) "OS X v1.0".

The apps on the phone *are not cocoa apps*...they are in reality enhanced widgets.

As I already said: a Darwin OS base OS running Quartz graphics with many of Apple's Core* and *Core frameworks. What else is this to us except Mac OS X. Apple may want to drop the "Mac" from the name, but for most of us, that's the marketing move. We don't care whether its called "Mac OS X" or "OS X". It Darwin based runnning Quartz window server and event manager with Quartz2D/CoreGraphics. What particular API are there are probably not that big of a concern to must users. As for the widgets thing, a few of those apps are clearly widgets. The phone app, google maps, and the SMS app are not.

Everything you see on the screen that isn't text is a png. everything. the UIKit is a bundle of ready to use elements...in png format. Its not cocoa.

This means nothing. The format of graphics in an app says nothing. And png is a fine first-class image format supported on Mac OS X. It wouldn't be a bad thing if most of the graphics you saw on Mac OS X were also pngs.

RnSK
Jul 7, 2007, 12:44 AM
As I already said: a Darwin OS base OS running Quartz graphics with many of Apple's Core* and *Core frameworks. What else is this to us except Mac OS X. Apple may want to drop the "Mac" from the name, but for most of us, that's the marketing move. We don't care whether its called "Mac OS X" or "OS X". It Darwin based runnning Quartz window server and event manager with Quartz2D/CoreGraphics. What particular API are there are probably not that big of a concern to must users. As for the widgets thing, a few of those apps are clearly widgets. The phone app, google maps, and the SMS app are not.


OK, armchair developer...let me put it this way, and rudely:

You are 100% ****ing wrong.

Every single app on the phone is a widget. Every...single...app.

The phone "app", google maps, and the SMS "app" are in fact, beefed up widgets, right down to the main/defualt window being a static background image named "Default.png"...but 'whuteva'...

Quartz isn't a "window manager"...ugh.


This means nothing. The format of graphics in an app says nothing. And png is a fine first-class image format supported on Mac OS X. It wouldn't be a bad thing if most of the graphics you saw on Mac OS X were also pngs.

Ok...do you...know...how Dashboard...works?

Nevermind.

You are 100% correct (chuckle)...the iPhone runs "MacOS X" and the iPhone apps are real appkit/cocoa desktop class apps...the fact that you know, this assertion of yours has nothing to do with reality is irrelevant :)

Keep on truckin' soldier :rolleyes:

The phone does not run mac os x. You will not be able to "port" mac apps; it doesn't run mac os x.

As someone that actually writes software for mac os x, its much more than a semantic difference...unless you consider widgets mac os x apps.

j763
Jul 7, 2007, 02:01 AM
A powerbook G3 can do a lot more than an iPhone. Just because a phone can make calls, it does not suddenly become better than any full Macintosh.

I don't blame Vodaphone or Verizon for not wanting to cave in to Apple. I agree with OS and hardware lock-in because it makes things more stable. However, what Apple is doing with AT&T is like trying to make Macs only connect to the internet with one ISP.

Above is the most sensible post I've read on MacRumors.com over the last five and a half years. Seriously. Sincere thanks, mmzplanet.

Signal Man
Jul 7, 2007, 02:37 AM
I think it was Vodafone who didn't sign the Beatles wasn't it?

rob@robburns.co
Jul 7, 2007, 03:47 AM
As someone that actually writes software for mac os x, its much more than a semantic difference...unless you consider widgets mac os x apps.

You mean, you're not a developer, but you play one on macrumors. I think if you were a developer then you would know what a window server is and how the name of Mac OS X's is the Quartz window server (it is also an event server which I referred to as an "event manager", not a "window manager" though I would imagine either one a real developer would understand what I was talking about). Several apps are clearly not widgets. They are either Appkit apps or they are Appkit like apps like Safari on Windows. Which reminds me, do you actually think that Safari on iPhone is a widget?!?!?

stephenc92
Jul 7, 2007, 04:36 AM
O2 is better than Vodafone anyway. Especially in 3G. Vodafone Live really sucks, O2 are trying to make theirs better at least.

andintroducing
Jul 7, 2007, 10:04 AM
"Restrict content" probably means that Apple didn't want Vodafone's interface branding, and didn't want Vodafone Live! software on the iPhone. Anyone who has ever used Vodafone Live! knows that it seriously sucks. If such was the case, then bravo to Apple for not caving in.

If the rumor is true that the exclusive carrier for Germany is T-Mobile, it would be very interesting to see how the relationship will play out, since Telekom also owns Musicload, the second largest online music portal behind iTunes...

I'm not convinced that that's what they mean by "restrict content." That does seem to be the most ominous line in the whole of the iPhone articles I've seen.

I mean, they're currently restricting application development to the web. Aren't they also restricting access to VOIP pages? Not sure.

But is there really content they're restricting now or in the future other than requiring certain standards for videos, etc? (Which is a mess in and of itself: no flv yet, some movie previews automatically grouping themselves as podcasts but other movie previews grouping themselves under movies [so the Ratat. preview is grouped under Podcasts, but the Die Hard preview can only be found under "movies," that makes sense, right?], and TV shows not bought in iTunes, just mp4s from Tivo get filed as "movies" not TV. Right! Why can't we label the files ourselves and group within Apple's big categories according to our own desires? Why even have the subcategories? Let's kust put everything in videos and I'll sort them myself).

But I digress. Content restriction on iPhone (no porn for you!): bad!!

Or was this just sloppy journalism and as others suggest Vodaphone was crying wolf ("restriction") when in fact they wanted to keep the Internet freebies restricted so they could sell individual wallpapers of Billie Piper at £2?

andintroducing
Jul 7, 2007, 10:36 AM
Originally Posted by mmzplanet
A powerbook G3 can do a lot more than an iPhone. Just because a phone can make calls, it does not suddenly become better than any full Macintosh.

I don't blame Vodaphone or Verizon for not wanting to cave in to Apple. I agree with OS and hardware lock-in because it makes things more stable. However, what Apple is doing with AT&T is like trying to make Macs only connect to the internet with one ISP.

Above is the most sensible post I've read on MacRumors.com over the last five and a half years. Seriously. Sincere thanks, mmzplanet.

Yeah, but reality says they have to commit with some carrier, especially when they want concessions from their carrier to change the way that wireless service works in the US! Not really that smart a comment.

While it's not entirely clear who is the ultimate winner as all of this shakes out (will be some years before we know the true impact of the decisions the carriers and Apple have made), it's clear that Apple had to go with someone and probably AT&T only made the concessions if Apple made a long term commitment.

It's not like locking on one ISP!

ISPs don't currently have an active and successful model of locking into particular computer models. The cell phone industry does! And Apple's move, far from being conservative and holding up all the pillars of the cell phone industry actually weakens those carriers hidebound models of the past. But one thing at a time or they'd never let Apple's phone work on ANY network!

Sucks for Verizon-philes out there, but otherwise brilliant!

wdash
Jul 7, 2007, 10:50 AM
I can see a couple of major issues with the launch, both from a network provider point of view and consumer point of view.

1: Network operators need to be really careful about taking this phone on, especially if it is to be a premium product as uk mobile operators have built a very expensive 3g network across the UK and spent the last few years telling us we can't live with it out, releasing a 2g edge handset (do we even have edge??) as a major new release will sugges to the public that 3g isn't as necessary as we have been led to believe, which may make more than a few shareholders question why they have had to invest so much in them.

2: It is rare in the UK to pay more than £30 for any handset on anything but the cheapest of tariffs, if apple want to try and sell the iPhone for more than £50 with a contact they will struggle, there are already plenty of handsets that fill the niche its being seen as here (handset + music player), which are cheap, for example the W950i is free on a £35 tariff, and that has 4gb internal storage and is touch screen.

I mean with these two issues a £200/£300 iPhone on a £35 a month contract is seriously hard to swallow, the lack of 3G is a real dampner for the networks, and anyone wanting to use it for browsing can get faster handsets, sure they may not be all touch screen, but as it stands my M600i is quicker to browse the net on than an iPhone, and that cost me less than the supposed price here with a contact when I bought it sim free.

No 3G + high cost make it hard to believe the phone could do anything but bomb here.

Ash

Donnacha
Jul 7, 2007, 10:54 AM
Everyone, just get a grip!

Yes, it is just sloppy journalism - when just newspaper, especially one with a reputation for being a bit sloppy, seems to get one of the major facts the other round from every other publication on the planet, you should probably presume that they got it wrong.

Seriously, the clue is that they also got the price of the iphone wrong by $100 - and you don't see everyone celebrating that as proof of an upcoming price-cut, do you?

So, don't panic, you'll have all the porn you want.

@andintroducing: most of the things you mention are software issues and Jobs made it crystal clear that there would be software updates to add missing the functionality. Do you really think that the entire staff of Apple, part-time and fulltime, who will all own iphones themselves, aren't going to do everything they can to fill in the gaps and improve the software?

mmzplanet
Jul 7, 2007, 11:15 AM
Yeah, but reality says they have to commit with some carrier, especially when they want concessions from their carrier to change the way that wireless service works in the US! Not really that smart a comment.

While it's not entirely clear who is the ultimate winner as all of this shakes out (will be some years before we know the true impact of the decisions the carriers and Apple have made), it's clear that Apple had to go with someone and probably AT&T only made the concessions if Apple made a long term commitment.

It's not like locking on one ISP!

ISPs don't currently have an active and successful model of locking into particular computer models. The cell phone industry does! And Apple's move, far from being conservative and holding up all the pillars of the cell phone industry actually weakens those carriers hidebound models of the past. But one thing at a time or they'd never let Apple's phone work on ANY network!

Sucks for Verizon-philes out there, but otherwise brilliant!

It sucks because there is a chance AT&T can ruin the iPhone before I can get it on a good network. To be honest I do still love my blackberry, I still wish I can get an iPhone. I just work in a place (hospital) that AT&T does not work indoors. Verizon works throughout the campus.

I am mainly whining because I want an iPhone but it would cause frustration using the part of it I need the most. I still have my iPod :)

Its bad enough I don't have a Mac at work (until I buy my own), now theres an awesome phone out there I can't have either :mad: Of all the boards I post on, I think this one could understand the frustration. :p

andintroducing
Jul 7, 2007, 03:35 PM
Everyone, just get a grip!

Yes, it is just sloppy journalism - when just newspaper, especially one with a reputation for being a bit sloppy, seems to get one of the major facts the other round from every other publication on the planet, you should probably presume that they got it wrong.

Seriously, the clue is that they also got the price of the iphone wrong by $100 - and you don't see everyone celebrating that as proof of an upcoming price-cut, do you?

So, don't panic, you'll have all the porn you want.

@andintroducing: most of the things you mention are software issues and Jobs made it crystal clear that there would be software updates to add missing the functionality. Do you really think that the entire staff of Apple, part-time and fulltime, who will all own iphones themselves, aren't going to do everything they can to fill in the gaps and improve the software?

Good to know. Saw the "restrictions" comment popping up all over the Internet. Wasn't clear there was only one source.

However, on software, you're wrong. FLV, yes, they've said they're addressing that. Everything else I wrote about though (essentially the organization system of video within iTunes) has been that way since day 1 with the video Pods. Not a bug or a new gap with the phone. Just shoddy decisions in terms of organization of video files many years ago, but now they've been using it for years.

Think it's really a stretch to imagine they're going to overhaul the system by which they manage the iTunes video section just because they added one device. And currently that device uses those systems entirely.

A remote possibility, yes, but rather remote. Incremental change, probable; overhaul, unlikely. Plan to have your video files sorted incorrectly ad infinitum.

(Beef: Some movie previews filing as "movies," others filing as "podcasts," TIVO rips of TV shows filing as "movies," TV show clips filing as "movies," home movies filing as "movies," and only purchased TV shows filing under "TV.") God only knows where FLV will go, though probably still not play FLV videos in the Pod section (affects Pod video sales?). FLV will probably only work when found ON a webpage, not when playing a file.

It sucks because there is a chance AT&T can ruin the iPhone before I can get it on a good network.

So how do u see AT&T ruining the iPhone exactly? Slower adoption maybe, but Apple had to get in bed w someone.

____
Posted from an iPhone

RnSK
Jul 7, 2007, 05:03 PM
You mean, you're not a developer, but you play one on macrumors.

Wrong again :)


I think if you were a developer then you would know what a window server is and how the name of Mac OS X's is the Quartz window server (it is also an event server which I referred to as an "event manager", not a "window manager" though I would imagine either one a real developer would understand what I was talking about).

"Quartz" is in fact, the (fastly being depricated and superceded) 2D drawing layer for Mac OS X based on PDF Imaging (as opposed to Display Postscript) and QuickDraw.

As a *nix user and developer for over a decade, I'm well aware of the differences between a window server and a window manager.


Several apps are clearly not widgets. They are either Appkit apps or they are Appkit like apps like Safari on Windows. Which reminds me, do you actually think that Safari on iPhone is a widget?!?!?

Yeah...based on what...you looking at the pictures and making this determination?

"See! Weather and stocks are widgets because they look like the ones in the Dashboard! They don't have window elements!! Haha!"

The reality is of course a bit more complex.

They are in fact a new hybridized class of "application" made for the iPhone; Stocks.app, Weather.app, MobileSafari.app, MobilePhone.app...see the pattern?

There is a base binary in each bundle (like a desktop app) but the ui elements (including the main/base window, which like its wigety cousins is named "Default.png") are all individual pngs.

I believe here that we are getting wrapped up in my oversimplification of the nature of the apps themselves; they are more a new class of aplication "Mobile Apps" that hybridize widget design and native code.

Just as widgets can and do use native code (virtually all of the ones apple ships have a native code component) the way phone apps are constructed move this code but of the .widgetplugin bundle and makes it the main executable. Additionally, phone apps have no nibs (but the plist calls "MainMenu" likely for legacy and cohesiveness) but instead use pngs. They do still support localization via the .lprog/.strings mechanism.

The phone does not have Appkit or Cocoa...but again...because you say so, well...the facts of the matter mean nothing ;)

Of course, you really can't tell any of this from *the pictures*...which seems to be the empirical method you seem to be using to make your assertions. It might be better to look at something tangible instead :)

alFR
Jul 7, 2007, 06:22 PM
Hmm, what no-one seems to be mentioning about these UK carrier rumours is that only one of the UK carriers has a deployed EDGE network - Orange. So, one of these scenarios must apply:

1. The Euro iPhone will be 2g i.e. GPRS (which would suck as it's so slow).
2. The Euro iPhone will be 3G (unlikely IMHO as I can't see them making a major hardware revision like that 3 months after the US launch: this would probably also suck as the battery life would suffer, unless they work some engineering magic).
3. Whichever carrier Apple make a deal with will need to roll out an EDGE network (after spending all those millions on the 3G licences? Not likely).
4. The deal will be with Orange.

Comments?

shamino
Jul 7, 2007, 08:01 PM
What happens when any phone contract ends?

That's right, the company has to unlock the phone for you.
Maybe in the country where you live. Here in the US, there's no such obligation.

When my current Verizon contract expires, they will be under no obligation to unlock my RAZR, and Sprint (being the other CDMA carrier) will be under no obligation to activate it for their network, should I choose to switch.
A Darwin OS based OS with Quartz graphics. Whether we call it "Mac OS X" or "OS X" its basically the same OS that we all colloquially refer to as "Mac OS X". The intel macs are missing Classic. Does that make them not Mac OS X anymore?
So by your definition, the Shuttle PC on my desk at home is also a Mac, because Apple could, theoretically, release a version of Mac OS capable of running on it.

By your definition every computer in the world is a Mac, because Apple could, theoretically, port Mac OS X to any of them.

In the real world, nobody uses such a pointless definition.

The iPhone is not a Mac, and you are just wasting everybody's time trying to claim the opposite.

Plutonius
Jul 7, 2007, 09:47 PM
Hmm, what no-one seems to be mentioning about these UK carrier rumours is that only one of the UK carriers has a deployed EDGE network - Orange. So, one of these scenarios must apply:

1. The Euro iPhone will be 2g i.e. GPRS (which would suck as it's so slow).
2. The Euro iPhone will be 3G (unlikely IMHO as I can't see them making a major hardware revision like that 3 months after the US launch: this would probably also suck as the battery life would suffer, unless they work some engineering magic).
3. Whichever carrier Apple make a deal with will need to roll out an EDGE network (after spending all those millions on the 3G licences? Not likely).
4. The deal will be with Orange.

Comments?

It was stated in an earlier thread that O2 can upgrade its GPRS to EDGE with a software change. If true, the UK iPhone carrier will probably be O2 as announced earlier.

killerrobot
Jul 8, 2007, 03:38 AM
I can see a couple of major issues with the launch, both from a network provider point of view and consumer point of view.

1: Network operators need to be really careful about taking this phone on, especially if it is to be a premium product as uk mobile operators have built a very expensive 3g network across the UK and spent the last few years telling us we can't live with it out, releasing a 2g edge handset (do we even have edge??) as a major new release will sugges to the public that 3g isn't as necessary as we have been led to believe, which may make more than a few shareholders question why they have had to invest so much in them.

2: It is rare in the UK to pay more than 30 for any handset on anything but the cheapest of tariffs, if apple want to try and sell the iPhone for more than 50 with a contact they will struggle, there are already plenty of handsets that fill the niche its being seen as here (handset + music player), which are cheap, for example the W950i is free on a 35 tariff, and that has 4gb internal storage and is touch screen.

I mean with these two issues a 200/300 iPhone on a 35 a month contract is seriously hard to swallow, the lack of 3G is a real dampner for the networks, and anyone wanting to use it for browsing can get faster handsets, sure they may not be all touch screen, but as it stands my M600i is quicker to browse the net on than an iPhone, and that cost me less than the supposed price here with a contact when I bought it sim free.

No 3G + high cost make it hard to believe the phone could do anything but bomb here.

Ash

spot on. I agree 100%. The UK market is going to be a tough one for Apple. Like Japan, we have our own way of doing things. The iPhone is great, but remember that we have much better phones in the UK than the American market (bar iPhone?:p) and people are not going to pay 300 and 50 per month. Not many people anyway. Not me, that's for sure.

As for 3G - it is a step back to use EDGE over here. We can get 3G coverage most places now and I don't see people buying something because it's got a touchscreen. There's already phones out there with better cameras, faster internet, email and often come with a free ipod!

Did I say that? No one should be caving in to anyone. If apple wants that much more money, raise the price of the phone. My biggest issue with this is that I like the iPhone. But I find AT&T horrible.

All this Vodaphone and Verizon comparing.... Vodaphone owns 45% of Verizon Wireless. Verizon is the other 55%. It used to be 60% Vodaphone until recently. So it should be no surprise that Vodaphone is acting the same way Verizon Wireless did.

It's Vodafone!

Further to other comments, I think its important to realise people in the UK are NOT going to want a contract for 2 years!!! The 18 month ones are hard enough to digest. I fought with vodafone to keep mine at 12 months and 15 per month for 500 mins+500 SMS. I might want to move country in about 1.5 years so I don't want to have a contract with some loser mobile phone company.

Vodafone rejecting Apple's offer will not hurt Vodafone, it will hurt Apple.

Sure someone will sign up with Apple here in Europe, but I think over all, the iPhone will not have as much success in Europe as it will have in the States, especially if its locked down and involves a 2 year contract.

I think everyone is also forgetting that all the other cell phone makers aren't going to take this iPhone success sitting down. Lots of people in this thread act like no one is going to copy it, and make it better simply because it won't be locked down.

All in all, Apple is hurting Apple by demanding so much of the carriers and only trying to market with one. Had they struck deals with several carriers, they would have already tripled their sales of the iPhone (in my opinion).

Compile 'em all
Jul 8, 2007, 05:42 AM
All in all, Apple is hurting Apple by demanding so much of the carriers and only trying to market with one. Had they struck deals with several carriers, they would have already tripled their sales of the iPhone (in my opinion).

Apple can't do deals with more than one carrier because carriers won't let 'em. AT&T demanded that the iPhone to be an exclusive in return for sharing revenue with Apple. If the phone wasn't exclusive to AT&T, Apple wouldn't lose a dime. In fact they would be making much more money.

AT&T gain is people switching over from other networks. Apple gains nothing. You think if Apple could strike deals with more than one carrier, they wouldn't?

killerrobot
Jul 8, 2007, 05:52 AM
AT&T gain is people switching over from other networks. Apple gains nothing. You think if Apple could strike deals with more than one carrier, they wouldn't?

They agreed to not deal with others because of AT&T. They could've rejected that and said no, we will sell to whoever we want. I personally think when they locked themselves in to one provider, they hurt themselves.

LG and Nokia (phone makers just like Apple now, not service providers) have phones on just about any network, why can't Apple? I think Apple needs to get the hell out of demanding stuff from the providers and concentrate on selling the phones. If anything screws up the success of the iPhone, it will be the service plans and the providers. (That's my opinion.)

EDIT: It's kind of hard to claim it's going to revolutionize the world when only 1% of the cell phone users will ever even get to use it. I think Apple is selling their product short by dealing with one provider.

kallisti
Jul 8, 2007, 07:45 AM
The only way to get content into the iPhone is by syncing via iTunes and a USB cable. And the only way to get photos out is to e-mail them.



Actually, you can get photos out either by emailing them OR by importing them into iPhoto during a sync. Not sure if it can import into other programs (such as Aperture).

Your point about BT currently being crippled for syncing is still valid, but I just wanted to make sure you knew that emailing photos isn't the only way to get them out of the iPhone.

Cleverboy
Jul 8, 2007, 07:59 AM
Restrict content? What content? In the US, is any content restricted?
Perhaps it means Vodafone's Vodafone Live! service, which is only accessible via the Vodafone network, and in my experience charges you a very high premium for very poor quality content. I can see why Apple would want to restrict that, and I could see why Vodafone would go off to sulk in a corner.It's the EXACT same type of deal here in the U.S. We iPhone users do not have access to ANY of AT&T's custom content features. This was outlined in the training manual leak weeks back. Apple wants iPhone to be a carrier agnostic platform and isn't looking to have iPhone users "confused" by features concocted by the networks so that iPhone's in different countries, on different networks, have a different set of features to support. It would be an utter nightmare to be certain. The snubbing of Verizon's "VCAST" was certainly an issue with them. I'm all broken up that I can't use "Song ID"... sniff... :( :rolleyes: :D

It's Vodafone's loss. Yep.

~ CB

Plutonius
Jul 8, 2007, 08:16 AM
If this story is true, I don't blame Verizon for passing up on the iPhone. There is no reason that Verizon should be held hostage for a product like that. Personally, I will have a really hard time justifying the money for an iPhone. They are really expensive. But that seems to be Apple's thing. Wanting a percentage of the cell phone service is totally absurd. Apple wouldn't be doing anything to assist the service, contributing to the service, or anything else. They would just be stealing money from the other company. Of course, I only feel this way it this is all true. And I don't think Cingular will pick up a bunch of new customers because of the iPhone unless they will be discounting the service greatly. The phone is very pricy and when you can get good phones for next to or for nothing with other contracts, I don't think the iPhone is going to be a must have thing.

This was a sample of the many postings on MacRumors before the iPhone was released in the states. Like the states, I believe the iPhone will end up selling very well in Europe after a 3G version is released sometime next year.

Cleverboy
Jul 8, 2007, 08:39 AM
They agreed to not deal with others because of AT&T. They could've rejected that and said no, we will sell to whoever we want. I personally think when they locked themselves in to one provider, they hurt themselves.
Everyone and their sister knows WHY. You can't pretend this was an arbitrary and needless decision. It was because we wouldn't get a number of features and benefits if we didn't. Exclusivity was the carrot that got us unrestricted WiFi, Visual Voicemail, iTunes activation, improved EDGE performance and more.
LG and Nokia (phone makers just like Apple now, not service providers) have phones on just about any network, why can't Apple?Because Apple's not a whore and can negotiate better deals from that exclusive position of strength?
I think Apple needs to get the hell out of demanding stuff from the providers and concentrate on selling the phones.Like the ROKR? No thanks, man. Apple shouldn't make demands on providers? Why not?
If anything screws up the success of the iPhone, it will be the service plans and the providers. (That's my opinion.)No, there's a number of other ways to screw up. Trust me. Service plans and providers are only one way. Apple has a strategy beyond just "selling phones" and we'll all be much better off if Apple continues to battle for the evolution of the platform and not simply whoring itself out to every provider in the market and crippling all of its features by compromise.
EDIT: It's kind of hard to claim it's going to revolutionize the world when only 1% of the cell phone users will ever even get to use it. I think Apple is selling their product short by dealing with one provider. That's nonsense. 1% according to who? You mean Apple's initial target for 2008? By dealing with one provider, Apple is able to set a standard. If you're not paying attention to WHAT they're doing with the ONE provider, then your missing most of the story. Apple has made their platform network agnostic. The phone simply requires Internet access as well as WiFi and call services. From there, Apple intends to make it capable of all sorts of things while lowering the price year over year. Not revolutionary? Who ELSE is taking this approach? Did I miss something? With the iPod, it was about revolutionizing content delivery and portable music. With the iPhone its about revolutionizing portable communications. With companies like Nokia that pride themselves on a vast and ever changing range of products, they've made a lot of money by preying on factors of price and a myriad of varied features for different consumer segments/types. Apple, conversely, has prided themselves on a small product line (something they'd strayed from prior to Jobs return).

Steve Jobs broadcast on CNBC via YouTube http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX1Lz8PDgg8)
"As far as this goes, y'know... this is the future. And, its' not... Y'know... I wish we could sell it for $100 today, we can't. It's a little more expensive than that. But, as we bring the cost down, year over year, and can appeal to more and more people, I don't see why everybody wouldn't want one of these."

~ CB

killerrobot
Jul 8, 2007, 09:00 AM
@CB
I like how your think my opinions are nonsense. Notice how I call them my opinions.

I'm still waiting for all your "facts" to check out.

Much Ado
Jul 8, 2007, 09:36 AM
Hmm, what no-one seems to be mentioning about these UK carrier rumours is that only one of the UK carriers has a deployed EDGE network - Orange. So, one of these scenarios must apply:

1. The Euro iPhone will be 2g i.e. GPRS (which would suck as it's so slow).
2. The Euro iPhone will be 3G (unlikely IMHO as I can't see them making a major hardware revision like that 3 months after the US launch: this would probably also suck as the battery life would suffer, unless they work some engineering magic).
3. Whichever carrier Apple make a deal with will need to roll out an EDGE network (after spending all those millions on the 3G licences? Not likely).
4. The deal will be with Orange.

Comments?

No-one in the UK will buy a phone that expensive without 3G.

It's been said before, but the mobile set-up here in Europe is extremely developed. And even Apple wouldn't put out a GPRS phone for web browsing ;)

I'd happily wait a few more months to get a 3G phone.

whooleytoo
Jul 8, 2007, 09:44 AM
I think the "OSX vs MacOSX on iPhone" argument is a rather silly semantic argument.

We all knew some time ago the iPhone OS would be a substantial branch of the OSX we see on our Macs with several frameworks we're used to seeing on the Mac removed and (likely) several new added.

On the other hand, it is OSX and does run binary executables.

What we call it (OSX/Mac OSX/iPhone OSX/iPhone OS) is pretty irrelevant, surely.

Will they/can they offer it in Europe as in the US? (i.e. a 2 year contract, 5 year network exclusive?)

Do we yet even know how it works in the US? My impression is: when the 2 year contract expires, purchasers will be free to switch network, but you still won't be able to buy a new iPhone and use it with any network other than AT&T until the 5 years are up.

garybUK
Jul 8, 2007, 10:07 AM
And remember that Vodafone is Verizon's carrier in the UK.

Err try the other way around dude, vodafone is the largest cell operator in the world and own 45% stake in Verizon Wireless, thereofore Verizon is Vodafone's carrier in the US :)

Cleverboy
Jul 8, 2007, 10:22 AM
@CB
I like how your think my opinions are nonsense. Notice how I call them my opinions.killerrobot, don't be so sensitive. You said, and I quote "I think Apple is selling their product short by dealing with one provider." I said that "that's nonsense". And, I really DO think that's nonsense. I would never say that your opinions are nonsense in general, but anyone is capable of making a nonsensical statement.

I'm still waiting for all your "facts" to check out.Easy enough. My over-arching statement in response to yours was "If you're not paying attention to WHAT they're doing with the ONE provider, then your missing most of the story." Here are a list of the "facts" I listed and where I'd source them.

"Apple has made their [iPhone] platform network agnostic." - This is an easily verifiable observation (disclosed in the training manual). All of AT&T's network media services have been excluded (with the exception of call-based services). While many of their services are tied to the network in "function", they are not proprietary TO the network (meaning, they can be implemented on ANY network that chose to partner with them).
"The phone simply requires Internet access as well as WiFi and call services." - This is another easily verifiable observation.
"Apple intends to make it capable of all sorts of things while lowering the price year over year." - This from a statement by Steve Jobs, during the CNBC video I linked in the previous post.
"With companies like Nokia that pride themselves on a vast and ever changing range of products, they've made a lot of money by preying on factors of price and a myriad of varied features for different consumer segments/types." - There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back that detailed that Nokia's approach in designing the 8800 series, and how it breaks up its customers up into numerous categories and actively markets a wide assortment of phones with different features to each of those categories. The practice isn't as remarkeable as the number of categories.
"Apple, conversely, has prided themselves on a small product line (something they'd strayed from prior to Jobs return)." - This is a well known fact. Steve Jobs very famously reduced Apple's product line to a 4 segmented square, and has kept the iPod from blossoming past its 3 descreet categories (iPod Shuffle,iPod Nano,iPod) each time new versions are released the old are no longer produced.

So, I'm not sure why you would be "waiting" to see if my "facts" check out. If something I've said is wrong, I'd be more than willing to own up to it. I don't think its fair to make vague comments about whether something I've said checks out though. Just say it.

~ CB

All in all, Apple is hurting Apple by demanding so much of the carriers and only trying to market with one. Had they struck deals with several carriers, they would have already tripled their sales of the iPhone (in my opinion).The crazy thing is, that you're talking as if Apple is the ONLY phone maker that makes exclusive deals with certain carriers. I'm not clear you understand why phone makers like Research in Motion or Nokia introduce phones that are exclusive to a specific carrier, because none of your statements, that I've read, take this into account.

When you suggest a company like Apple should "simply" [sic] deal with everyone, you have to take into account WHY it wouldn't do so in the first place, and exactly what it would be giving up on. If there was NO compromise everyone would agree with you.

~ CB

killerrobot
Jul 8, 2007, 10:32 AM
@CB
"Apple's not a whore" . I don't agree. Every business is a whore. They succumbed to AT&T's demands. :)

I'm not being sensitive, I just don't see you're point of dissecting my now "nonsensical" argument that Apple is selling themselves short. That's my opinion, how are you going to prove that wrong? I think they managed it wrong. How are you going to prove that wrong?

You need to quit being so "sensitive", and accept someone's opinion as an opinion. If you don't agree, say you don't agree and don't throw quotes around from who the hell knows where to make it sound like you're right.

I'm waiting for facts to be checked because the iPhone has been on the market a whopping two weeks. That's a little too soon to see if they played it right or not in the US market let alone how it will turn out with the European market.

EDIT: In reply to your double post. I understand it all. I don't agree with Apple's marketing department as I said before. Also, I don't THINK Vodafone will hurt from this decision IF they turn it down. Also, "simply" is spelled "simply" so you don't need a [sic].

Plutonius
Jul 8, 2007, 11:01 AM
I'd happily wait a few more months to get a 3G phone.

It will be about a year before you see a 3G iPhone. People will have to make their own decision but I think that many will choose unlimited EDGE data over the current expensive 3G data plans. Many will also get the iPhone for its wifi connectivity. You can't really appreciate the iPhone till you actually try it out / hold one.

wdash
Jul 8, 2007, 02:37 PM
Will they/can they offer it in Europe as in the US? (i.e. a 2 year contract, 5 year network exclusive?)


They could, there is nothing to prevent them, there are plenty of exclusive to carrier deals, however in my experience all handsets are available sim free, even without the deals (used to work for a large mobile phone wholesaler and I could buy pretty much any phone from them, regardless of which network it was locked to prior to shipping out of the warehouse).

2 year contracts just don't exist in the UK, atleast not at personal level, 18 month ones have been around for maybe a year and they aren't particularly successful, they often come with a lot of bonuses (e.g. free broadband) because no one is signing up for them, so a 2 year isn't going to work.

It was stated in an earlier thread that O2 can upgrade its GPRS to EDGE with a software change. If true, the UK iPhone carrier will probably be O2 as announced earlier.

They wont upgrade to Edge, even if it is software, at massive expense (testing, trials etc) simply for one handset, if O2 doesn't have EDGE inplace (which i'm 95% sure it doesn't) it wont put it in place for the iPhone, it just wouldn't make financial sense...

Ash

Cleverboy
Jul 8, 2007, 03:34 PM
@CB
"Apple's not a whore" . I don't agree. Every business is a whore. They succumbed to AT&T's demands. :)Whores "sleep around" and compromise their integrity on a much broader scale. Personally, I think succombing to one partner's "ground rules" is one of the cornerstones of a happy, monogamous relationship. I won't stretch the metaphor farther than that though. You're free to think otherwise, but just saying that it sounds like crazy talk to me. :: shrug ::
I'm not being sensitive, I just don't see you're point of dissecting my now "nonsensical" argument that Apple is selling themselves short. That's my opinion, how are you going to prove that wrong? I think they managed it wrong. How are you going to prove that wrong?Being stuck on the term "nonsense" sounds really sensitive to me (like the skin under your arm or the inside of your nose). :) I'd just get to the point and not worry about it. For instance, I refuse to talk about your sensitivity around that any more than this closing sentence on the matter.
You need to quit being so "sensitive", and accept someone's opinion as an opinion. If you don't agree, say you don't agree and don't throw quotes around from who the hell knows where to make it sound like you're right.Ok.

BTW, you're right, I'm probably using "sic" wrongly. I just didn't agree with the word you used and wanted to hold it at arms length. I should have been satisfied just to leave it in quotes. :rolleyes:

~ CB

koobcamuk
Jul 9, 2007, 03:16 AM
The crazy thing is, that you're talking as if Apple is the ONLY phone maker that makes exclusive deals with certain carriers. I'm not clear you understand why phone makers like Research in Motion or Nokia introduce phones that are exclusive to a specific carrier, because none of your statements, that I've read, take this into account.

~ CB

RIM and Nokia have handsets on all networks in the UK. Sometimes some networks get them first, but they all end up on the same network, more or less. All the good phones do anyway.

Whores "sleep around" and compromise their integrity on a much broader scale....
~ CB

I thought a whore got paid for sex. Sleeping around makes you a slut :rolleyes:

Cleverboy
Jul 9, 2007, 04:46 AM
RIM and Nokia have handsets on all networks in the UK. Sometimes some networks get them first, but they all end up on the same network, more or less. All the good phones do anyway.I guess I'll politely bow out. I just disagree, but I don't feel strongly enough to keep talking about it.:rolleyes:Check out definition 2, or 1b depending on your dictionary. It's not really THAT important.

~ CB

koobcamuk
Jul 9, 2007, 10:17 AM
I guess I'll politely bow out. I just disagree, but I don't feel strongly enough to keep talking about it.Check out definition 2, or 1b depending on your dictionary. It's not really THAT important.

You're right, I was just being a bit picky. Whore/slut... anyway...

I stand by what I said, but I also won't bother coming back to this thread, so I retire too now.

I joined in late anyway. Who know's what'll happen, eh?;)

Fairly
Jul 10, 2007, 02:24 PM
Vodaphone are only like the biggest cell provider in the world - they're going to let Lilliputian Apple dictate to them?:D

shamino
Jul 11, 2007, 09:11 AM
Vodaphone are only like the biggest cell provider in the world - they're going to let Lilliputian Apple dictate to them?:D
If Apple is the only supplier of a product that Vodaphone feels they must have, then yes. If Vodaphone doesn't care about the iPhone, then no.

It's as simple as that. Everything else is just ego.