Skype for iPhone Sparks Battle Between Consumers and Carriers

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/03/skype-for-iphone-sparks-battle-between-consumers-and-carriers/)

The release of an official Skype application (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/30/official-skype-app-is-now-available-in-the-app-store/) for the iPhone appears to have been controversial for both mobile carriers and consumers. The Voice-Over-IP software allows iPhone users to make phone calls over Wi-Fi to other Skype users or even to regular landline phones. Obviously, such functionality could compete with mobile carrier's own voice services.

As a concession, Apple has prevented the use of such applications over cellular data networks (EDGE or 3G) and only officially allows it to run on Wi-Fi. (Strangely, several readers have noticed that the Skype application presently does work over 3G when running beta iPhone 3.0 firmware, but that may simply be an oversight on the part of Apple.)

T-Mobile in Germany, however, threatened (http://www.9to5mac.com/tmobile-cutting-off-skype-to-iphone-users) that it may take action to prevent its customers from using Skype on the iPhone. On the flip side, an open-Internet advocacy group is asking the FCC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123876873806886721.html) to see if AT&T and Apple are violating federal rules by restricting Skype to just Wi-Fi.Free Press and other consumer advocates want the FCC to affirm that so-called net neutrality protections also cover wireless networks. That would prevent AT&T or other operators from blocking services like Skype on their mobile networks.Skype (http://appshopper.com/social-networking/skype) has proven to be massively popular on the iPhone and iPod Touch reaching over one million downloads (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/04/03/skype-for-iphone-reaches-one-million-downloads-in-just-two-days/) in the first two days of availability.

Article Link: Skype for iPhone Sparks Battle Between Consumers and Carriers (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/03/skype-for-iphone-sparks-battle-between-consumers-and-carriers/)

[1Zach1]

Good, the more competition between carriers/developers the better for consumers.

[moonzilla]

pardon my french, but EFF the carriers

[roberry82]

Good, the more competition between carriers/developers the better for consumers.

Agreed. Not to mention a strong push forward in the use of cellular signals for tasks other than talking on them through traditional methods.

Skype made headlines for allowing VoIP, not VoCell. LOL. No wonder Cell Carriers would get upset... basically use your unlimited data plan to make all your calls on and never worry about minutes again. That's how it should be, anyway.

[bytethese]

Hmm, I've never used Skype, I might have to give it a try and I am often on a WiFi connection.

[Bevz]

Skype works over cellular network with OS 3 beta... Really? I know what i'll be trying out later.... ;)

[wonderbread57]

editorial correction: Apple is not making a concession by disallowing Skype over 3G.

While I don't see why someone would prefer Skype to making a 3G call (except for international). I think Apple is wise to introduce Skype which will open the door for Skype video conferencing over Wi-Fi with the new iPhone's speculative front facing cam. ATT's network will likely not be ready for video conferencing by the next release of iPhone but such a feature over Wi-Fi could be good promotional material.

[trunkster]

Skype works over edge on iPhone 3.0 firmware as well. I thought it was really going to suck but it wasn't that bad. I haven't tried carrying on a long conversation over it though.

[born4sky]

at least they should allow 3g data usage if u calling outside your country.

[BongoBanger]

I wouldn't worry too much. The UK carriers tried to kick up a fuss when Nokia announced the N97 would have Skype integrated into it.

They caved in when Nokia pointed out that they could pretty much sink any of them by blocking their handsets from being sold by those carriers who didn't play ball.

[mikeinternet]

AT&T should worry more about making there own service work better if they want people to stay away from this.

Won't the inevitable iChat app have the same functionality? (minus the connection to actual land lines) Does that mean T-Mobile will be looking to ban an Apple app?

[Baumi]

From the article:

T-Mobile in Germany, however, threatened that it may take action to prevent its customers from using Skype on the iPhone.

I'm not a big fan of T-Mobile, but it should be noted that, as far as I gather from the reporting in German media, they're only threatening to filter traffic on T-Mobile's own public WiFi hotspots. They're not talking about killing off Skype on German iPhones altogether.

Jens

[LoganT]

I'd rather pay 50 bucks for unlimited 3G and be able to use Skype on the cellular network. Instead of paying 70 dollars for minutes I rarely use and 30 dollars for internet.

[iPhoneNYC]

I understand the appeal of Skype but Truphone has been available for almost a year doing exactly the same thing...

[smartaleck]

All this deliniation of data, voice, text... it's all complete and utter *********.

You pay for 1's and 0's. You should be able to use them however you like.

An example of this rampant exploitation of the system? A recent NY Times article pointed out that it costs cell carriers next to nothing for text messages:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/28/the-new-york-times-t.html

Likewise, your cable co tells you that you can get a "discount" on VOIP phone if you sign up with them for a year. It costs them pennies a month for VOIP phone.

Think about it, Skype is free, or $3 per month to call land lines and cell phones in America. Why is that? It's because it costs so little to make those calls.

AT&T charging for separate text/data/phone? It's all complete nonsense based on the consumer not knowing that everything is running through the exact same pipe.

Again, voice calls, texts, IM's, SMS, MMS, 3g data to watch Youtube videos: all identical. All 1's and 0's.

Skype is EXACTLY what the consumer needs to make the most out of the "unlimited" data that we pay so much for.

[ziggyonice]

Having it on wi-fi makes perfect sense. The desktop version of Skype would requires wi-fi (or an Internet connection) to work, so there's no reason for them to block the iPhone version over wi-fi.

[iphoneCDN]

You can easily use Skype for the iPhone over 3G now. Just install Voipover3G via Cydia and you're golden: http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/tips-tricks/how-to-use-skype-over-3g-on-your-iphone/

[lftrghtparadigm]

All this deliniation of data, voice, text... it's all complete and utter *********.

You pay for 1's and 0's. You should be able to use them however you like.

An example of this rampant exploitation of the system? A recent NY Times article pointed out that it costs cell carriers next to nothing for text messages:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/28/the-new-york-times-t.html

Likewise, your cable co tells you that you can get a "discount" on VOIP phone if you sign up with them for a year. It costs them pennies a month for VOIP phone.

Think about it, Skype is free, or $3 per month to call land lines and cell phones in America. Why is that? It's because it costs so little to make those calls.

AT&T charging for separate text/data/phone? It's all complete nonsense based on the consumer not knowing that everything is running through the exact same pipe.

Again, voice calls, texts, IM's, SMS, MMS, 3g data to watch Youtube videos: all identical. All 1's and 0's.

Skype is EXACTLY what the consumer needs to make the most out of the "unlimited" data that we pay so much for.

Thank you. That's everything I was going to say.

This needs to be posted and reposted and reposted.

[macduke]

If its ruled that Skype should be allowed over 3g, watch out for brand new data tiers from AT&T, with higher prices to follow. I wouldn't be surprised to see 500mb caps so that people will buy more expensive $40-60 data plans to help offset the loss on their voice plans. I'm all for internet freedom, but when it comes to profit margins, something has got to give.

[rockosmodurnlif]

From reading the original Skype on iPhone (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=678037) thread, I thought the software was extremely buggy (although it's rating is 3 stars).

Is there any data on actual usage versus just number of downloads?

[Shookster]

Considering that recipients must have Skype (and must therefore be near a Wi-fi point at the time) and that you've already paid for a fixed number of minutes through AT&T, I don't see this as a big game changer. You've already paid for the minutes - you're not really getting any benefit unless you exceed your allotted number of minutes.

[smartaleck]

Seriously man...

It's like the water utlity company telling you that to have water going to your shower will cost $20, and to your sink $20, but if you bundle those services together, they'll give it to you for $30.

I mean, charge whatever you need to make your business run, but don't lie to us and collude to limit competition.

Thank you. That's everything I was going to say.

This needs to be posted and reposted and reposted.

[BlueRevolution]

Canada?

[macduke]

Having it on wi-fi makes perfect sense. The desktop version of Skype would requires wi-fi (or an Internet connection) to work, so there's no reason for them to block the iPhone version over wi-fi.

Some people don't even use wifi. A lot of students I know just have 3g data cards for their laptop along with an AT&T phone (with no data plan on the phone). Are they going to restrict them from using Skype over 3g? It's just a little less convenient than having it on your phone. Or if you are using wifi, what about people who have AT&T DSL? Are they blocked because it competes with another AT&T product?

[tbertran]

AT&T charging for separate text/data/phone? It's all complete nonsense based on the consumer not knowing that everything is running through the exact same pipe.

Again, voice calls, texts, IM's, SMS, MMS, 3g data to watch Youtube videos: all identical. All 1's and 0's.


Although I am no fan of "Big Cell" Business, keep in mind that a rather costly infrastructure is needed for those 0's and 1's to go anywhere. In other words, it is cheap to use now because large investments were made in the past.
Your argument is similar to me complaining about my landlord charging me $1,500 of monthly rent for my 2BR when all I'm really using is the roof over my head and that, in itself, is not worth $1,500.

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

[badmac78]

The end of telecom as we know it ...

if the FCC can be convinced that non use of Skype is anti-trust, the carriers officially lose (about time).

It irritates me that I am gouged as a consumer to pay for mediocre service...

[slu]

It is a good thing for the carriers that the app is kinda sucky...although it should get better.

[hotzenplotz]

Considering that recipients must have Skype (and must therefore be near a Wi-fi point at the time) and that you've already paid for a fixed number of minutes through AT&T, I don't see this as a big game changer. You've already paid for the minutes - you're not really getting any benefit unless you exceed your allotted number of minutes.

True. But consider this: I have a paygo iPhone and I do not feel like paying for international calls to call my friends and family in Europe. I can call them now for 2 cents/minute. :D

[hotzenplotz]

Although I am no fan of "Big Cell" Business, keep in mind that a rather costly infrastructure is needed for those 0's and 1's to go anywhere. In other words, it is cheap to use now because large investments were made in the past.
Your argument is similar to me complaining about my landlord charging me $1,500 of monthly rent for my 2BR when all I'm really using is the roof over my head and that, in itself, is not worth $1,500.

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

Just remember that a lot of the cell infrastructure is paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, through government money.

[haoqfu]

i figured years ago this kind of problem will eventually come out

if skype can be used over 3G, why we would need the voice service for. with LTE rolling out in the coming years, i'm pretty sure the quality of skype call will getting very close to the regular voice call.

[eyehop]

I pay nearly $300/mo combined for telecommtv. It's just data that's artificially separated into 'services'. It's a helluva lot of money to pay for pipes.

[smartaleck]

Agreed and you have a valid point: they are running a business and have to pay for their CODB, infrastructure, and make a profit, that is fine and good.

However, if we approach cell phone plans and data as total bits and bytes, and not as minutes, texts, images, websites, movies, we can then see the industry and its pricing structure in an entirely different light.

They are telling us that texts cost X, data costs Y, and calls cost Z, when it is patently not true. AT&T has a set cost per unit of data. Say, for the price of their infrastructure, payroll, advertising, and profit margins, it costs $1 per megabyte of data. This megabyte is then packaged into the arbitrary categories of "voice", "text", and "data plan". say a text uses 1kb of data and you get 200 texts a month at $x. And say you download 200mb of youtube videos on your iphone as part of a $30 data plan... and use 450 minutes of cell phone call time for $39. Well, if you accept the premise that each uses the exact same thing--data ie 1's and 0's--then each thing has a completely arbitrary value that is not based on actual cost to the company, but on a marketing strategy with no basis in reality.

We should have a pricing structure that does not exploit the ignorance of the consumer, or lie to us and tell us that this is the way it has to be. I have no problem paying for data or the money spent on infrastructure, I have a problem with paying for cell phone texts when it costs the company nothing to transmit them, or a company telling me that I can use the data I paid for for X but not Y and Z because they have set up a completely arbitrary distinction on what ways an identical commodity, data, can be used.

Again, I am not talking about getting something for nothing, I am talking about getting a fair price for a service. They are increasing their profit margins by taking advantage of the ignorance of the consumer. The more people know this, the more leverage we as consumers have to get things at a fair value.


Although I am no fan of "Big Cell" Business, keep in mind that a rather costly infrastructure is needed for those 0's and 1's to go anywhere. In other words, it is cheap to use now because large investments were made in the past.
Your argument is similar to me complaining about my landlord charging me $1,500 of monthly rent for my 2BR when all I'm really using is the roof over my head and that, in itself, is not worth $1,500.

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

[apsterling]

pardon my french, but EFF the carriers
Nice pun.

[lftrghtparadigm]

i figured years ago this kind of problem will eventually come out

if skype can be used over 3G, why we would need the voice service for. with LTE rolling out in the coming years, i'm pretty sure the quality of skype call will getting very close to the regular voice call.


The big surprise for everyone in 2010/2011 is that, in response to the growing demand for a less mysterious mobile service, that is reasonably priced, the LTE/ WiMax networks will be data-only and replace the need for cellular technology.... And it will still cost everyone $100/mon.

[cdinca]

Just remember that a lot of the cell infrastructure is paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, through government money.

People seem to forget this.

[bretm]

Although I am no fan of "Big Cell" Business, keep in mind that a rather costly infrastructure is needed for those 0's and 1's to go anywhere. In other words, it is cheap to use now because large investments were made in the past.
Your argument is similar to me complaining about my landlord charging me $1,500 of monthly rent for my 2BR when all I'm really using is the roof over my head and that, in itself, is not worth $1,500.

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

Start cutting in on their profit margin and you won't be seeing things like an IPhone for $199 either. They are counting on a certain amount of business to subsidize the phones, the infrastructure, the ads, and their employees paychecks.

Somebody has to make some money to pay some taxes to pay for the bailouts!

[JP3G]

How about Canada, where you can't even use it via Wi-fi.. -_-

[smartaleck]

It's not about cutting into their profit margin, it's about pricing things fairly and not accepting manipulation on the part of the carrier. I refuse to admit that the only way you can have a subsidised $199 iphone is by accepting completely illogical and exploitative pricing structures.

Start cutting in on their profit margin and you won't be seeing things like an IPhone for $199 either. They are counting on a certain amount of business to subsidize the phones, the infrastructure, the ads, and their employees paychecks.

Somebody has to make some money to pay some taxes to pay for the bailouts!

[winninganthem]

Huzzah! This is great news to hear that people are questioning the legality of limiting functionality over wireless networks. Keep fighting the good fight!

[Small White Car]

I've said it before, but the carrier that adopts this model first will be the big winner:

* You pay the carrier $x for unlimited data each month.
* You then pay a $y phone bill to have a phone number. You can pay your carrier for this or someone like Skype. It's up to you.

There. Done. That's it.

With "x" priced properly, the carrier will continue to make a profit. The price of "x" will be competitive between all the carriers as they'll mostly be competing with each other on price, speed, and network area.

The price of "y" will be low because a dozen companies will start doing it. Skype, AT&T, Verizon, Apple...they'll all have their own version of "y" that they offer to anyone.

You pick your iPhone's ISP (x) and your iPhone's phone service (y) from different companies, just like how you pick your home ISP and your home e-mail from different companies. (Remember when 'AOL' meant ISP and e-mail? Hardly anyone gets both things from the same source anymore. It will change the same way on the call phone side.)

This is how everything will be in 5-6 years. The carriers should stop fighting it and jump in. It will be better for them in the long run.

[axual]

AT&T and others need competition. Sorry, that's how the market works. If they are so concerned, they should have acted long ago and scooped up Skype or produced their own VOIP software.

[fleshman03]

All this deliniation of data, voice, text... it's all complete and utter *********.

You pay for 1's and 0's. You should be able to use them however you like.

An example of this rampant exploitation of the system? A recent NY Times article pointed out that it costs cell carriers next to nothing for text messages:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/28/the-new-york-times-t.html

Likewise, your cable co tells you that you can get a "discount" on VOIP phone if you sign up with them for a year. It costs them pennies a month for VOIP phone.

Think about it, Skype is free, or $3 per month to call land lines and cell phones in America. Why is that? It's because it costs so little to make those calls.

AT&T charging for separate text/data/phone? It's all complete nonsense based on the consumer not knowing that everything is running through the exact same pipe.

Again, voice calls, texts, IM's, SMS, MMS, 3g data to watch Youtube videos: all identical. All 1's and 0's.

Skype is EXACTLY what the consumer needs to make the most out of the "unlimited" data that we pay so much for.

Thank you. That's everything I was going to say.

This needs to be posted and reposted and reposted.

Agreed with and posted for a third time.

[tbertran]

Your argument would make sense if AT&T was in the business of providing a public service. For example, I would gladly embrace your opinions if you were talking about, say, education, health care or even the post office.
I do expect a fair pricing for all these "goods" because they are (or at least, should be) performed in the name of the public good. No one company should make a financial profit from these.

But as far as telcos go, their business is in making money. Period. Of course there are limits as to how one should be able to make money.
As far as I know, AT&T and others deliver the service they advertise at the price they advertise. They don't lie, they don't steal.

Of course, since this is America, you are free to take your business to the competition.

[kntgsp]

I fail to see how this is such earth shattering news about the new Skype app.

Fring has been around forever.

[Friendlyuser]

Although I am no fan of "Big Cell" Business, keep in mind that a rather costly infrastructure is needed for those 0's and 1's to go anywhere. In other words, it is cheap to use now because large investments were made in the past.
Your argument is similar to me complaining about my landlord charging me $1,500 of monthly rent for my 2BR when all I'm really using is the roof over my head and that, in itself, is not worth $1,500.

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

I completely agree... And also, the carriers make a good amount of their profits from customers who exceed their minutes and have to pay for extra minutes... Allowing skype over 3g would pretty much completely eliminate those profits and they're just going to jack up the price elsewhere to recover those losses... its sad but true... they're a company and they're going to do everything they can to keep their profit margins as high as possible. :mad:

[smartaleck]

And we as Americans have a right to educate ourselves and not be taken advantage of. They do advertise the service they provide (well, even though 3g doesn't work nearly as fast as they say, nor is the area they say it covers really accurate) for a price they clearly state, but if consumers knew the truth they wouldn't stand for it.

I personally think data should and probably will be a utility, just like water or electricity. But that aside, we should not feel that we are getting a square deal. All telcos do the same thing so there IS no competition in terms of fair market value for data.

We consumers must insist this is not the case.



Your argument would make sense if AT&T was in the business of providing a public service. For example, I would gladly embrace your opinions if you were talking about, say, education, health care or even the post office.
I do expect a fair pricing for all these "goods" because they are (or at least, should be) performed in the name of the public good. No one company should make a financial profit from these.

But as far as telcos go, their business is in making money. Period. Of course there are limits as to how one should be able to make money.
As far as I know, AT&T and others deliver the service they advertise at the price they advertise. They don't lie, they don't steal.

Of course, since this is America, you are free to take your business to the competition.

[EglMtn]

AT&T and others need competition. Sorry, that's how the market works. If they are so concerned, they should have acted long ago and scooped up Skype or produced their own VOIP software.

Yes, but McDonalds does not allow Burger King to sell hamburgers inside a McDonalds building.

[Nezert EM1]

my skype works great over 3G......i am very happy

[dagamer34]

Today's mobile telcos are simply tomorrow's mobile ISPs. Pure data plans are coming. These companies better be ready.

[robcoles]

While I agree, there does seem to be certain groups who think they should get something for nothing, Many people, myself included like to be treated open and honestly by our service providers. I see the role of my cell phone carrier as providing a reliable, low latency, high bandwidth and mobile internet connection, I'm quite happy to pay for different bandwidths, latency and even reliabilities to a certain degree. But I object to being told how to use that service.

In the context of my relationship with my landlord, I am very happy to pay him what we mutally agree on, for the use of the appartment, the roof, walls and windows e.t.c. But I would have strong objections to my Landlord dictating that I could not have pizza delivered, on the grounds that the landlord operates a pizza reasturant on the ground floor of the building, and I should eat there instead.

Although I am no fan of "Big Cell" Business, keep in mind that a rather costly infrastructure is needed for those 0's and 1's to go anywhere. In other words, it is cheap to use now because large investments were made in the past.
Your argument is similar to me complaining about my landlord charging me $1,500 of monthly rent for my 2BR when all I'm really using is the roof over my head and that, in itself, is not worth $1,500.

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

[Hobbs35]

I'm sure the carriers will look at bringing some form of QOS in and then charge you extra to have the voice percentage increased.

[Michael CM1]

If its ruled that Skype should be allowed over 3g, watch out for brand new data tiers from AT&T, with higher prices to follow. I wouldn't be surprised to see 500mb caps so that people will buy more expensive $40-60 data plans to help offset the loss on their voice plans. I'm all for internet freedom, but when it comes to profit margins, something has got to give.

I can't say how much I would be all for data tiers.

The first thing that has to go is the term "unlimited" when there is a data cap. Now I haven't looked recently, but if AT&T (or anybody else) advertises these data plans as "unlimited" yet puts a cap on how much you can download, that's a flat-out lie. If they're marketing plans for DSL at 1.5Mb, 3Mb, 6Mb and just calling their data plan for wireless a "data plan," that's OK.

Now that I've made that point, I don't want to pay $30/month for a data plan that I don't really use all that much. I think I use 100MB/month right now on EDGE, and I think the limit is 5GB. I would really prefer some 1GB cap on my plan at $10/month and let the heavy YouTubers pay for what they use. One-size-fits-all didn't work for landline broadband, and it won't work for mobile as it becomes more mainstream.

[hitekalex]

I fail to see how this is such earth shattering news about the new Skype app.

Fring has been around forever.

Let me break it down for you:

Fring = barely usable Skype client. Because the calls have to be routed through Fring proxies, the contact state has significant lag, and the quality of voice call is somewhere between poor and unusable. Doesn't support full Skype functionality like contact search, etc.

Skype = fully functional Skype client. Because it's a native client, it has none of the above issues and supports full set of Skype functionality.

[cmwade77]

What I would like to see is to be able to be provided with an unlimited data plan that I can use in anyway I want (Skype, Surfing the internet, tethering, what have you) and not have to pay for minutes separately.

Bottom line is that these days data is cheap, done properly a cell phone company could potentially charge as little at $20.00 per month for an unlimited data plan with no cell minutes.

Let's face reality, Boost Mobile is no offering unlimited everything plans for $50 per month (in some areas it costs $5.00 more for internet) and this is with a prepaid phone, so there is no reason for anyone to be paying over $55.00 per month for phone service anymore. And no more overage minutes, yet they are still making a profit by all accounts, so I don't see why AT&T should be any different.

[TheIguana]

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

That is a completely irresponsible thing to say. As if people weren't copying cassettes in the 80s, those people would be far more than 30 years old today.

But that is quite enough with the piracy undertones. Frankly I don't much care for being ripped off or being cornered by service monopolies as a consumer. Particularly when they are providing their service on leased air space, that is owned by every single person in the said country.

[bloodycape]

So, it is the iphone they are complaining about, but they haven't said much about BB, Symbian, WM, and Palm users who, in many case, have had skype available for years? Odd isn't it?

[iWizzard]

Sins i have my own IP switch or even id I didn't I rather use a generic SIP program.

Why look your self down to a single provier?

[kastorff]

From reading the original Skype on iPhone (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=678037) thread, I thought the software was extremely buggy (although it's rating is 3 stars).

Is there any data on actual usage versus just number of downloads?

From what I've read, the bugginess is related to using Skype on jailbroken iPhones with specific combinations of software loaded. I've made several long calls (45-75 minutes) with Skype on the iPhone to landlines/mobile phones and it's worked very well. The call quality is a bit worse than using Skype on my desktop, but that could be speaker/mic related too. It's certainly good enough for anything I might want to do with it. Even with just wi-fi capability, it's a huge step forward if one frequently has access to wi-fi.

[alchemistmuffin]

Apple is not the bad guy here.

IT'S at&t!

Apple wants to allow use of VOIP via 3G, but at&t told them not to.

Remember, Apple is just a messenger here! at&t is the bad guy here.

Beside, isn't the whole point of using VOIP is over the high speed internet connection via Wi-Fi, not cell connection?

[lftrghtparadigm]

Apple is not the bad guy here.

IT'S at&t!

Apple wants to allow use of VOIP via 3G, but at&t told them not to.

Remember, Apple is just a messenger here! at&t is the bad guy here.

Beside, isn't the whole point of using VOIP is over the high speed internet connection via Wi-Fi, not cell connection?

Not at all. The point is to use data, "internetz" data, for voice calls....for no additional arbitrary fee. 3G is more than fast enough.

[inkswamp]

Of course, since this is America, you are free to take your business to the competition.

Right. You can, for example, legally move your iPhone service from AT&T to a competitor like T-Mobile or Verizon.

You know... because this is America.

[lftrghtparadigm]

Frankly I don't much care for being ripped off or being cornered by service monopolies as a consumer.

And honestly its embarassing and pathetic that WE don't stand up to it AS IS, let alone when AT&T tries to break the law to continue raking in their dough.

Make no mistake, banning Skype from 3G is in fact going to prove to be ILLEGAL.

If the FCC shirks their responsibility to the Fair Use Doctrine and decides that AT&T's proietary gateway to the internet is somewhere ITS OWN internet, then we're all officially screwed.

[declandio]

Is this just in America? Skype works fine on 3G on O2 in the UK... or am I missing something?

[powers74]

Just remember that a lot of the cell infrastructure is paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, through government money.


And we're only going to be paying for more of it in the future...

[kironin]

pardon my french, but EFF the carriers

my feelings exactly!

without Skype, my phone is a bit iffy in my house precisely because the carrier's signal is so weak where I live. They can stuff it where the sun don't shine.

[Teddy's]

Canada?

Oh yeah, Rogers suck.

iPhone?. No thanks, Thanks for nothing

[diamond.g]

And honestly its embarassing and pathetic that WE don't stand up to it AS IS, let alone when AT&T tries to break the law to continue raking in their dough.

Make no mistake, banning Skype from 3G is in fact going to prove to be ILLEGAL.

If the FCC shirks their responsibility to the Fair Use Doctrine and decides that AT&T's proietary gateway to the internet is somewhere ITS OWN internet, then we're all officially screwed.
Fully expect a rate hike when/if banning Skype is seen as illegal. AT&T will just claim that it is to cover added bandwidth burden on their network.

[Dagless]

That's wrong to stop users from accessing Skype. An iPod Touch will be allowed to do it, but not an iPhone? It isn't going to work the same way. I can't rely on a Skype number once I'm not in my house for example and doesn't the app have to be running?

It's not going to replace the phone part of the device, although in all fairness it should do. IIRC doesn't some country have a phone service that lets a mobile phone act as a land line when you're back home?

[yocko]

t-mobile netherlandds just released a statement that they don't care, saying that people have paid for their data, now they can do with it what ever they want...

And AT&T is to blame, because european handsets have been able to do skype forever, as stated above. Nokia's sold in europe have had skype or truphone integrated on it forever.

[Small White Car]

Fully expect a rate hike when/if banning Skype is seen as illegal. AT&T will just claim that it is to cover added bandwidth burden on their network.

And what's wrong with that? That's what I WANT to happen.

Don't charge me $30 and then tell me all the things I can't do.

Charge me $60 and let me do everything. (Skype, laptop tethering, app-store apps over 10 MB, etc.) Continue to offer the "$30 but you can't do everything plan" for whoever wants it.

I would GLADLY pay more for actual unrestricted service. I hope this IS what happens.

[TheWarIsNotOver]

Welcome the start of the era of free phone calls xD Why pay for your mobile connection, if you can have internet with you all the time :P

[klittle32]

What's the big deal to carriers anyway? Consumers would still be paying them for the internet connection (EDGE or 3g) over which VOIP would be used. My guess is that carriers will eventually adjust the price of the internet connectivity to account for any losses they may incur from less frequent (traditional) phone calls made.

[hh83917]

Well, if you guys check Engadget, ATT just said sorry, that was a mistake in the terms... :D

[avionicsman]

so not getting an iphone might get an itouch soon though. So if skype works with it and I get the mic of course then for sure the app in mine. Now as for Canada does anyone here know if our crappy law makers are trying to ban it from the itouch as well??

[DELLsFan]

I knew and hoped an issue like this would eventually force the carriers into revealing their true, greedy colors. Don't feel sorry for ANY of them. AT&T just happens to hold the iPhone reins at the moment.

T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint - they are all peas of the same pod, arguing their infrastructure, and rising bandwidth and operational costs justify the fleecing the cell customers are getting. Make no mistake about this: the carriers want their profits - obscene profits to continue at the expense of their consumers. SMS pricing is just one example of a pricing structure out of control. They will fight together as hard as they can to keep the status quo.

Years ago, America Online (as it was named before being American became passe') made the decision to offer unlimited pricing. It wasn't easy losing the per-minute revenue from those hopelessly addicted at the time, but AOL is still in business today. So it will be for the cell carriers. As the business model evolves, so must the company. There are no more $300 America Online phone bills. Eventually, there will come a day when 20 cents per SMS text message will not be tolerated either.

Unlimited data = Unlimited data. Sorry, AT&T and others - we consumers are onto you. You can either ride the wave, or be swept away by it. :cool:

[gmcalpin]

It irritates me that I am gouged as a consumer to pay for mediocre service...
What, are you a communist? This is pure, 100%, free market capitalism, baby! Companies should always be allowed to charge you whatever they want, whyever they want – and collude with their so-called competitors to make sure your only other options are just as bad.

</sarcasm>

Seriously, though, it's just a matter of time. Big business always wants its high profit margins and tries its damnedest to make sure no smaller companies can come along and undercut them with, you know, reasonable rates. They just slow down real progress by a few years when they do that, though.

It's like the whole battle over DRM, or — hell — video tapes. Anytime something "new"(-ish) comes along, they bitch and moan until they figure out how to make money off of it themselves.

[djdole]

Being an iPhone user that doesn't use skype, all I can say is this had damn well better not result in AT&T upping the 'unlimited data use' charge. :eek::mad:

[kntgsp]

Let me break it down for you:

Fring = barely usable Skype client. Because the calls have to be routed through Fring proxies, the contact state has significant lag, and the quality of voice call is somewhere between poor and unusable. Doesn't support full Skype functionality like contact search, etc.

Skype = fully functional Skype client. Because it's a native client, it has none of the above issues and supports full set of Skype functionality.

Fring worked quite well for me with Skype. Never had any problems with it.

So what exactly is the outrage? The only thing the Skype app does is improve a service that was already available anyway. AT&T didn't let you use VoIP on their 3G network before and they don't now. What's the change?

[needthephone]

This just shows that basically the Mobile carriers are operating a dying business model.

There is no future in it.

It's all data whether its a voice call or downloading a web site.

They have to realise this and realise their future is selling data time not voice calls.

The writing is on the wall.

I think apple know this and are working towards the multiple wifi solution (can't remember the name of it but it is a vast network of small to medium wireless wifi routers basically)

I suppose it must hurt the carriers after spending gazillions on their mobile towers to see the whole thing undermined by a few D link routers!!

Tough but they invested in the wrong technology.

[diamond.g]

And what's wrong with that? That's what I WANT to happen.

Don't charge me $30 and then tell me all the things I can't do.

Charge me $60 and let me do everything. (Skype, laptop tethering, app-store apps over 10 MB, etc.) Continue to offer the "$30 but you can't do everything plan" for whoever wants it.

I would GLADLY pay more for actual unrestricted service. I hope this IS what happens.

Sadly most other folks just want to use Skype for the price they currently pay.

[mister880]

I love my iPhone and truthfully haven't really had a problem with AT&T's service. I love the fact that my phone works in so many countries I travel too. But one thing that has always bothered me is how crippled I am overseas because of the expense of using my phone / data connection abroad.

Skype on a WIFI seems like a fair trade off for AT&T and USERS. It would allow me to call back home without huge fees that are split between AT&T and what ever no name carrier im on like O2, Orange UK, or French Telecom.

If only AT&T could work out a cheaper universal data plan for iPHONE I would pay top dollar for worldwide data access from my phone if it was unlimited.

I understand carriers not wanting to be able to use Skype over their data networks but what we do off their network has nothing to do with them!

Mister880

[joemama]

Doesn't Boost Mobile already do the unlimited data plan? $50 text, voice, web....

[42gb]

I learned my lesson when I didn't snatch up NetShare when it went back on the AppStore. Even though I didn't need it at the time, I knew there would be a time when I would, so I figured I'd just buy it whenever that time came. Oops.

I foresaw this battle so I grabbed the Skype app even though I almost never use it, at least as of yet.

[synth3tik]

I have never used Skype. However I could see how if someone had Skype at home, how they might want to have it on their phone too. I don't see the problem with phone users like me. I barely ever talk on the phone and have between 50-75% of my minutes rolling over. AT&T does not loose anything. I have a hard time too thinking of most people using only skype.

I don't see Apple restircting skype to wi-fi as a problem. They made the phone, they choose what the program could do. However I think it is kind of a bitchy move to directly screw people over like what T-mobile Germany seems to be doing.

In any regards I may be one of the only people that did not download Skype for the iPhone, but I think the millions who did don't deserve to be screwed over by Apple or their carrier.

[briand05]

It's time for the FCC to step in and stop this crap. I'm a supporter of strong government regulation over these corporate thugs. Net neutrality must be applied to all internet access. Unlimited Internet access means unlimited access to the full internet. No more hidden crap in the TOS, it's time for the government to step in and tell these companies who's boss. This fake advertising must be stopped now.

[iphones4evry1]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/03/skype-for-iphone-sparks-battle-between-consumers-and-carriers/)

On the flip side, an open-Internet advocacy group is asking the FCC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123876873806886721.html) to see if AT&T and Apple are violating federal rules by restricting Skype to just Wi-Fi.

I think the courts can use common sense to see that this is Not a matter of "open access" (like a library not censoring books), but rather a matter of operating revenue. If Skype was an internet website that provided content it would be different. But Skype is merely a program that allows people to talk. It is not content. Hopefully, the courts will realize this.
My personal opinion is that I have no problem with Skype being used over WiFi (because people could otherwise use their laptop computers), but if Skype is used over carrier networks (3G and EDGE) then Skype will need to begin paying royalties to the carriers WHO SPENT BILLIONS BUIDING THE NATIONWIDE AND WORLDWIDE NETWORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
A lot of you might not realize when you pay your monthly cell phone bill that the carriers had to spend Billions to build nationwide 3G networks. It's not just the millions of antennas nationwide; it's also the technology and software development. If carriers lose revenue because of Skype, they may no longer be profitable and if there are no cell phone towers and no networks, Skype is going to be useless.
(FYI: I do not work for a carrier and I do not own stock in a carrier. In the past, I did own stock in AT&T. It has been about two years now since I sold my AT&T stock and bought Apple stock. I know that AT&T is not flush in profits like the oil companies. AT&T has to reinvest large amounts of their income back into network upgrades every year to keep up with the competition. 3G network equipment for nationwide coverage is NOT cheap!)

[donbadman]

Good.
Maybe now i'll actually be able to take calls when in my flat seeing as my wifi has great reception and o2 is to be honest, crap.
At least my contract is up this month, it doesn't seem too bad being an early adopter now as I can go pay as you go on orange...
(with much better service than o2) :D:D

[donbadman]

It's time for the FCC to step in and stop this crap. I'm a supporter of strong government regulation over these corporate thugs. Net neutrality must be applied to all internet access. Unlimited Internet access means unlimited access to the full internet. No more hidden crap in the TOS, it's time for the government to step in and tell these companies who's boss. This fake advertising must be stopped now.

+1 you are talking pure sense, aint nothing worse than corporatocracy.

[imacdaddy]

Just remember that a lot of the cell infrastructure is paid for by you and me, the taxpayer, through government money.

They (as in res/biz voice, res/biz broadband, biz data (local loop/VPN/Eth etc)) all run on the same infrastructure/network/DWDM backbone. They just fan out 8 - 12 T1's to the cell site in a building already serving landline voice/broadband. The ROI on these cell sites is roughly less than 12 months. The majority of the infrastructure itself is manly paid back through services provided to businesses/banks/special projects in less than 2 - 3 years.

Why does the government provide money to these telcos? :confused:

[jw2002]

Any time a company gets into the business of attempting to control their customers' behavior, they are skating on thin ice. The airlines tried this with all sorts of limitations, and all it did for them was shed customers to the low frill carriers. The movie and recording industry attempted the same thing -- with disastrous results.

Apple, T-Mobile, and ATT need to realize that they will never succeed in controlling user behavior. The Apple iPhone is an extremely powerful device that is clearly more flexible than a traditional hand phone and technically subject to none of its limitations. If the providers don't provide telephone calls that can compete with Skype, then they will lose in the long run. Any impediments they try to erect will easily be circumvented by users through jail-breaking and proxy servers.

What next? Prohibit emails on the iPhone because it is viewed as a way for customers to skirt around the $0.20 fee per instant message?

[(L)]

One one side, I have 1000s of rollover minutes (minutes I'll never use) that AT&T overcharges me for. On the other side, it's nice having a number, and if no competitor offers me a cheaper package with less minutes (which is improbable since all you people talk with too much reliance on machines), I'm not going to save any money.

Skype is cool anyway, and phoning over the internet is obviously the future. What was costly in one era may become cheap in the next. That's just how it works. They might want to, but ultimately can't, just manipulate data costs, etc. There will be a cheaper, more competitive provider who is not afraid to provide more for less to more people. (Google? Who knows.)

Until then, it's just one cloudy haze for me. Let's say Skype usage explodes. Will people be willing to give up their numbers? Can you Skype offices, businesses, or emergency dispatchers? AT&T will continue to rob me so long as I barely use my phone, but for most people who use more minutes, it doesn't seem so unfair to me. They provide a service (with terrible support), and people use that service. They're not just going to give us all a break.

[MikeTheC]

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out. I can appreciate the business end of the situation; nevertheless, I would never make the mistake of putting them up on some kind of lofty pedestal either.

Where the biggest influential factor I think will come from is in government and how they decide to pursue regulation and control in the future. It may well be that, in the final analysis, the carriers aren't our worst enemy...

[imacdaddy]

True. But consider this: I have a paygo iPhone and I do not feel like paying for international calls to call my friends and family in Europe. I can call them now for 2 cents/minute. :D

It works both ways. You can say the same that people in Europe wanting to call an AT&T fixed/mobile line of their friends/family in the States via Skype out. AT&T will make $ from terminating the incoming international call. At the end of the day the average ratio of outgoing vs incoming is going to be the same. AT&T is not going to lose any money.

Skype to Skype over 3G may put a strain on a SINGLE cell site that you are connected on but not on the network. As I mentioned in my previous reply, it rides on the same infrastructure/network as other products (voice/broadband/data). But I don't think there will be more than a few simultaneous Skype connections on a single cell site via iPhone at any given time.

The Carriers are already making VERY good margins on the mobile/data price plans. If they weren't so "greedy" and limiting/restricting types of use (ie Skype, voip, tethering...) they can see more subscribers and renewing customers....this will be a positive impact on their cashflows. IMO, there will be more casual users than heavy users if Skype, voip, tethering etc.

[kdarling]

They are telling us that texts cost X, data costs Y, and calls cost Z, when it is patently not true. AT&T has a set cost per unit of data.

This claim couldn't be more wrong, at least with current systems.

Voice calls and texts are handled quite differently from internet data.

Voice uses switched circuits, similar to your home phone. When a call goes through, that slot on that tower is dedicated to YOU and YOU alone. It's your guaranteed bandwidth, whether you talk or not. That's why voice calls are charged by time.

Data uses shared circuits, similar to cable broadband. The bandwidth is shared between everyone. You only get just enough slots to carry your data. That's why internet access is charged by the byte.

Mix in that that voice & data must share the wireless towers, but voice is the main reason for phone carriers to exist. And that data is usually shunted directly to the internet, but voice uses carrier infrastructure.

As for those who claim that Skype is free to call from home... either you must be too young to pay for your home internet connection, or you're stealing someone's WiFi.

[Alisstar]

I bought my first cell phone at 18 yrs old back in 1997. I remember back then I didn't have to pay for SMS. Hardly anybody used it so they gave it away free if you requested it. Then as more people started using it, they raised the price to .03 cents, then .05 cents, then .10 cents, and then .20 cents. Obviously, at .20 cents per text, with more and more people texting me, and without an unlimited data plan available at the time, it created a bad financial formula for my pocket. I had to cut my bad habit, and I cut it cold. I completely canceled anything that had to do with data, that is until they started coming out with unlimited data plans a few years ago. Now I'm back to being addicted to SMS.

Having said all that, if they were to raise prices again on SMS, I think I would probably cut it off again from my plan and just use the feature called phone I hardly ever use anymore. I know it'll be very hard for me. But I also know that if I did it in the past, I can do it again . :cool:

[iMaggot]

I'd rather pay 50 bucks for unlimited 3G and be able to use Skype on the cellular network. Instead of paying 70 dollars for minutes I rarely use and 30 dollars for internet.

I agree, all i use is the 3G on my iPhone, i would love to just pay for the 3G and use Skype for cell calls.

[Davy.Shalom]

pardon my french, but EFF the carriers

Agreed.

[troller]

Is apple to stupid to sell the iphone nly by themselves ? I give a ******* about the carriers and anyway I don't want this contract ****. Sell the iphone unlocked and let the carriers go to hell.

BTW. In Germany they try to block the skype app.

[peterdevries]

Is apple to stupid to sell the iphone nly by themselves ? I give a ******* about the carriers and anyway I don't want this contract ****. Sell the iphone unlocked and let the carriers go to hell.

BTW. In Germany they try to block the skype app.

eeehm, to use the phone features of the iPhone you need a carrier. Otherwise you could buy an iPod Touch, it's cheaper and also runs Skype..

I agree though that the carriers abuse their position. The reasoning that T-Mobile uses here in Europe is plain lying. :mad:

[moniker]

I don't understand why the carriers are getting upset now. Skype has had clients for other mobile operating systems for a long time. I've been using Skype on my Nokia mobile for over a year now, over 3G. Some carriers even sell separate Skype add-ons for their contracts.

[hiimamac]

Fully expect a rate hike when/if banning Skype is seen as illegal. AT&T will just claim that it is to cover added bandwidth burden on their network.

Naaaah. Cell phone service will be a utility soon as will Internet.

As an iPhone used with goodles of neat smart phones coming, and Apple becoming more consumer than chi chi, we will have more options, not less.

I don't see a future for large cell phone carriers, especially ATTeho charges too much. One decent smart phone with flash, app store, video conferencing, and no cap and the iPhone becomes dead almost instantly.

If I were AT&T I would be very nervous about a new smart phone, the FCC taking on ATT the way they did with cable, DSL and telco, very very nervous.

Payback time.

[Saladinos]

Most everybody under 30 in this country grew up with the idea that you can get something for nothing... If only.

Not for nothing, but if you all pitch in, the individual cost is pretty low. That's what Europe learnt nearly a century ago, and America would do well to adopt.

This is a bad move in another way. Apple fought hard with the original iPhone to get independence from the carriers. The carriers provided the network, Apple provided the software. Carriers now are trying to shovel their own rubbish on to the AppStore or take it over entirely (as in China). Now we see some carriers want to limit certain Apps still further. This is ridiculous. They should only provide the network, and as long as we use it within the terms of our agreement with them, they have no right to comment on the software.

Also, is anybody thinking about Skype here? They're being denied a legitimate business opportunity because the carriers can't live up to their 'unlimited data' promises.

If carriers object, they should increase the minutes (and hence price) of the minimum contract and get compensated. If people have more included minutes, they're not going to be using Skype, and if they don't use those minutes, they're paying more for the extra data. Unfortunately, this is not an option because the contract prices are already as high as the carriers dare put them (don't you feel sorry for these guys?).

The only thing carriers can do in response to Skype is stop advertising unlimited data and put a cap on it. Unfortunately, this will be taking the market back a few years, and some enterprising carrier will eventually reawaken the idea in an effort to get customers.

All this brings me to my point: isn't telecoms supposed to be this crazy ultra-competitive market? If one carrier has a problem with Skype, we can quite easily move to one that will once the exclusivity deals wear out. The only reason T-Mobile DE can do such an outrageous thing is because they're a virtual monopoly in Germany (being a former state-run company). If they were in a normal competitive market, they wouldn't dare do this. So don't expect it to spread.

[Saladinos]

Naaaah. Cell phone service will be a utility soon as will Internet.

As an iPhone used with goodles of neat smart phones coming, and Apple becoming more consumer than chi chi, we will have more options, not less.

I don't see a future for large cell phone carriers, especially ATTeho charges too much. One decent smart phone with flash, app store, video conferencing, and no cap and the iPhone becomes dead almost instantly.

If I were AT&T I would be very nervous about a new smart phone, the FCC taking on ATT the way they did with cable, DSL and telco, very very nervous.

Payback time.

There are a trail of those phones lying behind the iPhone, dead, beaten and bloodied, including (to name but a few): The Samsung Instinct, Samsung Omnia, HTC Touch, HTC Touch Pro, HTC Touch HD, XPERIA X1, T-Mobile G1, BlackBerry Storm, LG Vu, LG Dare, and now the Palm Pre. The iPhone isn't going anywhere.

[iSamurai]

hum. those bloody carriers only care about making $$$$$$$$$$. it's already bad enough that only now do you get skype on the iPhone while other smartphones already have it.

if you use skype over 3G you still pay for 3G data. stingy bastards. so what if I do international calls every now and then?

Consumer rights watchdogs should be all over this if skype is blocked -- even if it's only in Germany.

[mdriftmeyer]

I think the courts can use common sense to see that this is Not a matter of "open access" (like a library not censoring books), but rather a matter of operating revenue. If Skype was an internet website that provided content it would be different. But Skype is merely a program that allows people to talk. It is not content. Hopefully, the courts will realize this.
My personal opinion is that I have no problem with Skype being used over WiFi (because people could otherwise use their laptop computers), but if Skype is used over carrier networks (3G and EDGE) then Skype will need to begin paying royalties to the carriers WHO SPENT BILLIONS BUIDING THE NATIONWIDE AND WORLDWIDE NETWORKS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
A lot of you might not realize when you pay your monthly cell phone bill that the carriers had to spend Billions to build nationwide 3G networks. It's not just the millions of antennas nationwide; it's also the technology and software development. If carriers lose revenue because of Skype, they may no longer be profitable and if there are no cell phone towers and no networks, Skype is going to be useless.
(FYI: I do not work for a carrier and I do not own stock in a carrier. In the past, I did own stock in AT&T. It has been about two years now since I sold my AT&T stock and bought Apple stock. I know that AT&T is not flush in profits like the oil companies. AT&T has to reinvest large amounts of their income back into network upgrades every year to keep up with the competition. 3G network equipment for nationwide coverage is NOT cheap!)

Before a dollar is spent to build out the networks, BILLIONS are spent on leasing Bandwidth from who? The FCC.

So if you think the FCC is going to side with this lobby group kids under 30 are delusional.

[princigalli]

T-Mobile in Germany is no better than the worst type of mafia and organized crime you could imagine. They brake laws all the time, threaten legal actions even when they don't have rights, they cheat consumers and inflate their bills. They are even trying to copyright a color (ugly pink used in their logo) against all EU rules.

[hiimamac]

There are a trail of those phones lying behind the iPhone, dead, beaten and bloodied, including (to name but a few): The Samsung Instinct, Samsung Omnia, HTC Touch, HTC Touch Pro, HTC Touch HD, XPERIA X1, T-Mobile G1, BlackBerry Storm, LG Vu, LG Dare, and now the Palm Pre. The iPhone isn't going anywhere.

I would love to agree with you by the truth is, I work fir a high end tech firm, mostly mac and while some of us have iPhone's, we all have sprint htc or touch. What hasn't happened and is about to happen is smart phones with features that apple doesn't have and if they do with 3.0, it's due to all the newer smart phones coming out. Heck even apple stores use windows mobile for ez pay but the point is, mobile 6.5 looks a lot like iPhone and this is from msft. There are many news smart phones coming, everyone will have an app store with many developers that were shut out fromApple going to android.

Sure the iPhone is king but the smart phone, android, palm, msft os are in it's infancy and we know from apples business model, they fear flash, Voip, video conferencing and mlions hate AT&T. It will take I or two good smart phones and open source app development too damage apple and that's bad for apple, not to mention DRM and iTunes, plus songs going to $1.29, as apples bread and butter is consumer phones and iPods. Even I think msft new mobile os looks good and can only imagine what palm will be like. You have millions of iPhone users with 2 year contracts about to expire.

Search the net, everyone is developing app stores, phones are geting better, the browsing, more refined, you can't use old last years models and apple will only open up so much wheras other providers will go for video conference, streaming TV ( apple won't do , apple tv), flash=hulu, voip, non AT&T, this ISA really big year for non iPhone developers

[sjo]

There are a trail of those phones lying behind the iPhone, dead, beaten and bloodied, including (to name but a few): The Samsung Instinct, Samsung Omnia, HTC Touch, HTC Touch Pro, HTC Touch HD, XPERIA X1, T-Mobile G1, BlackBerry Storm, LG Vu, LG Dare, and now the Palm Pre. The iPhone isn't going anywhere.

there're several smartphones selling as well as iphone, some even better. eg, research in motion sold twice as many smartphones during holiday season as apple. outside the us (and to certain extend the uk), iphone hasn't really been all that successful. lots of talk yes, but mediocre or slow sales. apple really needs to deliver something special with the next model, otherwise they are going to loose momentum. tweaking looks a bit, adding 3.2mpix cam and increasing memory won't be sufficient.


Apple fought hard with the original iPhone to get independence from the carriers. The carriers provided the network, Apple provided the software.

this is proving to be a myth. apple didn't have to fight hard because the phone didn't really have anything that would upset the carriers too much. now that iphone is starting to get where the other smartphones have been for years, they're are facing the carrier resistance.

I don't understand why the carriers are getting upset now. Skype has had clients for other mobile operating systems for a long time. I've been using Skype on my Nokia mobile for over a year now, over 3G. Some carriers even sell separate Skype add-ons for their contracts.

the us carriers have thus far chosen to not to offer those phones that have been capable for skype and have other advance features. so the us public have largely been unaware of the existence of these services, and are only now starting to catch up with the rest of the world. the us carriers haven't really offered decent deals on advanced nokia phones until very recently (e71x from att).

the most advanced nokia phones such as n97 are probably not going to be available from the us carriers.

[niuniu]

Skype need to make their own handset with a data network and all but kill the cellular monopoly for good. Would have been incredible if Apple went for this from the start - making the iPhone a Skype phone used over a data network. That would have been revolutionary in it's effect..

[zacman]

The IM for Skype client on Symbian uses call back so you don't have any active data connection at all while phoning. Works well.

[cablefun]

The Three network in the uk have Skype on all of their handsets and it is free to use on pay as you go and contract. this has been the case for over a year. you can als make skype out calls as well. The simple solution for three to keep their profit margin is to disable skype out calls to the uk so you have to use them.... simple.

[SydneyDev]

My money is on the carriers. An ordinary consumer doesn't have a chance against an aircraft carrier.

[mudenza]

Can someone explain to me something

Why didn't Fring kick up the same amount of fuss as Skype?

Is Skype a better program? Aren't they basically identical?

[fastbite]

If they don't want people to use Skype, then they must lower their absurd prices. My iPhone is crippled every time I travel, as the roaming charges are plain ridiculous.

[mccldwll]

And what's wrong with that? That's what I WANT to happen.

Don't charge me $30 and then tell me all the things I can't do.

Charge me $60 and let me do everything. (Skype, laptop tethering, app-store apps over 10 MB, etc.) Continue to offer the "$30 but you can't do everything plan" for whoever wants it.

I would GLADLY pay more for actual unrestricted service. I hope this IS what happens.


Slogging through and finally getting to some posts that make sense. There is no free lunch. All carriers have to make $ to keep going, improving networks, etc.. The price plans are just marketing approaches--like making people think they really can get a free phone when they sign up for 2 years. Look at a hospital bill sometime and that $20 charge for a $.01 aspirin. If they only charged $1, $19 would pop up as a charge in other areas. The end result of skype over cell networks, if/when allowed, probably will be a more efficient, more transparent pricing structure, but not everyone will benefit. That $19 aspirin revenue will have to be recovered somewhere.

[mccldwll]

Skype need to make their own handset with a data network and all but kill the cellular monopoly for good. Would have been incredible if Apple went for this from the start - making the iPhone a Skype phone used over a data network. That would have been revolutionary in it's effect..


Are you sure that's not what's going on, in a slow rollout? Aapl couldn't have done that from Day 1. iPhone has been out less than 2 years. Aapl couldn't have successfully introduced the iPhone without partnering with a major carrier. Aapl is sitting on $30B in cash.

[Breckenridge]

FCC should regulate cell phone network providers especially when consumers are charged $20-$30 / per month for an internet access good only for updating myspace account, mapping and email. I pay $28 / month for a 7 mb dsl line and I can use it for whatever I please, shouldn't I be allowed to do the same on a cell internet network. If at&t and other providers are fighting voip because their network cannot accommodate for the extra traffic from voip communications then they should simply upgrade or get out of the business.

[DELLsFan]

Slogging through and finally getting to some posts that make sense. There is no free lunch. All carriers have to make $ to keep going, improving networks, etc.. The price plans are just marketing approaches--like making people think they really can get a free phone when they sign up for 2 years. Look at a hospital bill sometime and that $20 charge for a $.01 aspirin. If they only charged $1, $19 would pop up as a charge in other areas. The end result of skype over cell networks, if/when allowed, probably will be a more efficient, more transparent pricing structure, but not everyone will benefit. That $19 aspirin revenue will have to be recovered somewhere.

True enough, but I think you've discounted the effect an evolved, efficient, aggressive, AND transparent pricing model will have on market share. People (like me) are tired of the carriers' small print and excuses and want service at a MORE reasonable price.

The US cell carriers need to offer one price to include voice, data, AND SMS. Competition and aggressive marketing should have kept these schmagoolies honest and the prices fair. In a free market, this usually works. However, once upon a time, the carriers all colluded to gouge on SMS pricing and unfortunately only one carrier now officially hosts the iPhone. iPhone customers get few choices and little recourse on service and a la carte pricing. The result means if the customer wants an iPhone, he should expect to pay a premium for one. Is this about right?

To a degree, yes - this is fair. Apple deserves to be paid for their product. Yes, AT&T needs to be compensated for service and infrastructure. These businesses have expenses, sure - and they deserve to make a profit. On the other hand, however, as technology evolves and profit margins have obviously increased, I think "investment in 4G" and "product development" have become buzz-word excuses to justify unreasonable prices on voice, data, and texting. SMS pricing is flat-out unconscionable and clear evidence to this end, IMO. Bandwidth is not as expensive as they make it sound. Finally, I think the exclusive contract made between Apple and AT&T is nothing more than a modern day monopoly and should never have been allowed.

For AT&T or others to whine about Skype and their infrastructure and operational costs is disingenuous at best.

[diamond.g]

If I were AT&T I would be very nervous about a new smart phone, the FCC taking on ATT the way they did with cable, DSL and telco, very very nervous.

Payback time.

Yeah I remember when my internet and cable bill were far cheaper than they are now. Thanks FCC....

[mccldwll]

The US cell carriers need to offer one price to include voice, data, AND SMS. Competition and aggressive marketing should have kept these schmagoolies honest and the prices fair. ... The result means if the customer wants an iPhone, he should expect to pay a premium for one. Is this about right?

To a degree, yes - this is fair. Apple deserves to be paid for their product. Yes, AT&T needs to be compensated for service and infrastructure. These businesses have expenses, sure - and they deserve to make a profit. On the other hand, however, as technology evolves and profit margins have obviously increased, I think "investment in 4G" and "product development" have become buzz-word excuses to justify unreasonable prices on voice, data, and texting. SMS pricing is flat-out unconscionable and clear evidence to this end, IMO. Bandwidth is not as expensive as they make it sound. Finally, I think the exclusive contract made between Apple and AT&T is nothing more than a modern day monopoly and should never have been allowed.

For AT&T or others to whine about Skype and their infrastructure and operational costs is disingenuous at best.

I don't disagree that more transparency is needed, or that prices couldn't drop. But I think many want something for nothing, and don't understand that simply because people are being gouged in SMS pricing, doesn't mean that that revenue could be eliminated w/o it resurfacing elsewhere.
As far as the T and Aapl exclusive contract being nothing more than a modern day monopoly, I think that's silly, at best. Yes, it has that effect. Yes, full carrier choice and full portability would be nice for consumers. But if anyone actually believes that aapl could have come charging into the telecom space trying to dictate terms to carriers, and throwing hard elbows at Nokia, Mot, et al, without that entire group coming down on aapl like a ton of ***** and crushing the iPhone, then contact me. I've got a bridge that might interest you.

[gnasher729]

I'd rather pay 50 bucks for unlimited 3G and be able to use Skype on the cellular network. Instead of paying 70 dollars for minutes I rarely use and 30 dollars for internet.

That is very understandable. I can also see why the carrier would prefer that you pay 70 dollars for minutes youI rarely use and 30 dollars for internet instead of 50 for unlimited 3G + Skype. :eek:

[IEatApples]

FCC should regulate cell phone network providers especially when consumers are charged $20-$30 / per month for an internet access good only for updating myspace account, mapping and email. I pay $28 / month for a 7 mb dsl line and I can use it for whatever I please, shouldn't I be allowed to do the same on a cell internet network. If at&t and other providers are fighting voip because their network cannot accommodate for the extra traffic from voip communications then they should simply upgrade or get out of the business.

Agreed! :cool:

… but I think a change is coming soon, because as it stands right now the providers are blocking progress, and that can't go on forever…

(I hope)… ;)

[DELLsFan]

I don't disagree that more transparency is needed, or that prices couldn't drop. But I think many want something for nothing, and don't understand that simply because people are being gouged in SMS pricing, doesn't mean that that revenue could be eliminated w/o it resurfacing elsewhere.
As far as the T and Aapl exclusive contract being nothing more than a modern day monopoly, I think that's silly, at best. Yes, it has that effect. Yes, full carrier choice and full portability would be nice for consumers. But if anyone actually believes that aapl could have come charging into the telecom space trying to dictate terms to carriers, and throwing hard elbows at Nokia, Mot, et al, without that entire group coming down on aapl like a ton of ***** and crushing the iPhone, then contact me. I've got a bridge that might interest you.

Another problem with US cellular carriers are the two different cell technologies in use. If we had only one (GSM arguably seems to be the better and more advanced of the two), there might not have been such gerrymandering between Apple and AT&T.

If the effect of Apple and AT&T's marriage is monopolistic, it's hardly "silly", friend. It's a serious problem I hope is rectified once their 5 year contract expires. I think full carrier choice and full portability is a goal consumers and regulation should demand from the carriers and cell manufacturers. The absence of it restricts choice, exploits the end user, and is a missed opportunity by analog-thinking executives in charge of digital technology.

:apple:

[twoodcc]

interesting. i doubt we'll get skype over cellular networks anytime soon though

[str1f3]

Can someone explain to me something

Why didn't Fring kick up the same amount of fuss as Skype?

Is Skype a better program? Aren't they basically identical?

because an app native app will almost always perform better than a third party app. the call quality and connectivity on skype is already better than fring. fring may do a lot but i never needed it to. i have other apps for im.

[Saladinos]

there're several smartphones selling as well as iphone, some even better. eg, research in motion sold twice as many smartphones during holiday season as apple. outside the us (and to certain extend the uk), iphone hasn't really been all that successful. lots of talk yes, but mediocre or slow sales. apple really needs to deliver something special with the next model, otherwise they are going to loose momentum. tweaking looks a bit, adding 3.2mpix cam and increasing memory won't be sufficient.

I would certainly call the iPhone successful. You have to consider a number of factors when analysing if it's successful from a business point of view:
- Apple has only been in the market for two years. Many volume customers have significant inertia and don't switch unless the platform has been established for some time.
- Apple has one model at one price point. Other manufacturers have several. This is related to the point above. As Apple spends more time in the market, they'll release more product lines to appeal to more people at more price points.
- Regardless of the amount of sales, Apple's sales have been increasing dramatically. They have upwards momentum, which from a business perspective, is crucially important.
- Apple have removed many of the competitive advantages of their rivals. WinMo's software superiority, built up over about a decade, has vanished in one year, and the iPhone is now the mobile platform to develop for. Developers are making lots of money from the AppStore, which is going to attract more people to the platform. Again, upwards momentum.

I would love to agree with you by the truth is, I work fir a high end tech firm, mostly mac and while some of us have iPhone's, we all have sprint htc or touch. What hasn't happened and is about to happen is smart phones with features that apple doesn't have and if they do with 3.0, it's due to all the newer smart phones coming out. Heck even apple stores use windows mobile for ez pay but the point is, mobile 6.5 looks a lot like iPhone and this is from msft. There are many news smart phones coming, everyone will have an app store with many developers that were shut out fromApple going to android.

WinMo 6.5 may look like the iPhone's OS, but it isn't nearly as good as the iPhone's OS. It doesn't work as well, not all the software uses the touch interface, it only supports resistive touch and 65K colours...etc. It may have a new look, but to paraphrase Bertrand Serlet, it's still WinMo. Oh, and as I mentioned above, 3rd party software, which used to be the big advantage of WinMo, has now disappeared. The iPhone has more apps, more developer support, and a better store. Also, all apps on the iPhone were built to take maximum advantage of the large touch screen. The iPod touch has the same OS, meaning that apps developed for the iPhone are accessible from 30 million devices. That's impressive even if you compare it to WinMo's established market share.

Oh, and everyone's running away from WinMo. Palm, Sony Ericsson, LG, Samsung, HTC...etc are all moving away from the WinMo-exclusive business models they used to have. Instead, they're adopting OSes such as Symbian or Android (or for Palm, WebOS). WinMo is haemorrhaging manufacturing partners.

Sure the iPhone is king but the smart phone, android, palm, msft os are in it's infancy and we know from apples business model, they fear flash, Voip, video conferencing and mlions hate AT&T. It will take I or two good smart phones and open source app development too damage apple and that's bad for apple, not to mention DRM and iTunes, plus songs going to $1.29, as apples bread and butter is consumer phones and iPods. Even I think msft new mobile os looks good and can only imagine what palm will be like. You have millions of iPhone users with 2 year contracts about to expire.

Search the net, everyone is developing app stores, phones are geting better, the browsing, more refined, you can't use old last years models and apple will only open up so much wheras other providers will go for video conference, streaming TV ( apple won't do , apple tv), flash=hulu, voip, non AT&T, this ISA really big year for non iPhone developers

Actually, you got that the wrong way around. Apple is the new kid.

Also, whilst your argument might make sense to somebody focussed on technical details, it doesn't happen like that in reality. iTunes was outselling Amazon even though Amazon was DRM free. Phones have had features like copy and paste for ages, but that didn't stop the iPhone's explosive growth.

Lots of those competitors I mentioned were technically 'better' than the iPhone when they were released. The people who buy the devices obviously don't care. They feel that the iPhone offers them more.

[Goona]

Last time I checked Apple has sold 17 million iphones in less than 2 years, if you add in ipod touches the number of iphone OS devices goes to 30 million in less than 2 years, I'll say they aren't doing too badly. Apple also seems to be making more money off their phones than RIM. When the 3g launched, they sold about the same amount of phones as RIM but significantly more money. They are selling a lot of apps, web sites are getting the most hits from iphones, and iphone and ipods have the highest consumer satisfaction rates.

[jzuena]

Skype need to make their own handset with a data network and all but kill the cellular monopoly for good. Would have been incredible if Apple went for this from the start - making the iPhone a Skype phone used over a data network. That would have been revolutionary in it's effect..

You mean like the original Cisco iPhone?

[ipoppy]

I dont know what to think about iPhone now really. I am owner of one of them as well and I am Apple fan/freak person but I need more from next iphone to be as supportive as I am now. The other smart phones got that core apps which I need soooooo much on next iphone which are:
1. I need Video conference as a ichat
2. I need video recording and pictures with better camera
3. I need turn-by -turn such TomTom
4. Skype over 3G since other smart phones got it so why not iPhone (please explain that to me?)
5. Slingbox some sort of app over 3G too (which is on the way apparently) which will eliminate need for built in TV tuner.
The last two depend on carriers really but still...its Apple marketing. The other wishes are for apps so developers will deal with it.
If Apple will make that happened I am with them, otherwise I may step away and focus BB for a change.

So far

http://s3.amazonaws.com/wootdesigncontestentries/RobGlenn/iPhone_vs._Blackberry-o8bng5-d.jpg

[sjo]

I would certainly call the iPhone successful. You have to consider a number of factors when analysing if it's successful from a business point of view:


you're getting pretty defensive :) i pointed out that there are smartphones selling as well or even better than iphone. if you read that calling iphone unsuccessful i think you should lower your defenses a little and observe the world outside steve jobs' reality distortion field. ...


- Apple has only been in the market for two years. Many volume customers have significant inertia and don't switch unless the platform has been established for some time.
- Apple has one model at one price point. Other manufacturers have several. This is related to the point above. As Apple spends more time in the market, they'll release more product lines to appeal to more people at more price points.


yes indeed, there are several areas apple needs to address in the future.


- Regardless of the amount of sales, Apple's sales have been increasing dramatically. They have upwards momentum, which from a business perspective, is crucially important.


actually, no. iphone has sold really well only during one quarter, when iphone 3g was made available. after that the sales have been declining at alarming rate. apple has a change to gain more momentum when the next iteration is announced next summer, but if the rumors are correct (slight modification in case, 3.2mpix cam, more memory), the price needs to come down...



- Apple have removed many of the competitive advantages of their rivals. WinMo's software superiority, built up over about a decade, has vanished in one year, and the iPhone is now the mobile platform to develop for. Developers are making lots of money from the AppStore, which is going to attract more people to the platform. Again, upwards momentum.


i don't know in what world you're living in, but in this one winmo has never had software superiority. the top dog in smartphones is symbian. by far.

[iPhoneNYC]

In their ads, ATT sells 3G as "internet," easily letting the consumer think that 3G is wifi. Then Skype comes along and says you can use me on 3G and wifi and ATT flips out.

ATT has been a huge disservice to Apple and the iPhone in the past and and it just continues again with this Skype thing.

[donlphi]

All this deliniation of data, voice, text... it's all complete and utter *********.

You pay for 1's and 0's. You should be able to use them however you like.

An example of this rampant exploitation of the system? A recent NY Times article pointed out that it costs cell carriers next to nothing for text messages:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/28/the-new-york-times-t.html

Likewise, your cable co tells you that you can get a "discount" on VOIP phone if you sign up with them for a year. It costs them pennies a month for VOIP phone.

Think about it, Skype is free, or $3 per month to call land lines and cell phones in America. Why is that? It's because it costs so little to make those calls.

AT&T charging for separate text/data/phone? It's all complete nonsense based on the consumer not knowing that everything is running through the exact same pipe.

Again, voice calls, texts, IM's, SMS, MMS, 3g data to watch Youtube videos: all identical. All 1's and 0's.

Skype is EXACTLY what the consumer needs to make the most out of the "unlimited" data that we pay so much for.

AMEN!!!

[Saladinos]

you're getting pretty defensive :) i pointed out that there are smartphones selling as well or even better than iphone. if you read that calling iphone unsuccessful i think you should lower your defenses a little and observe the world outside steve jobs' reality distortion field. ...

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to appear so defensive. You said that "iphone hasn't really been all that successful". My point was that, whilst Apple's sales volumes haven't matched RIM's, if you consider Apple's position, the iPhone has done very well indeed.

actually, no. iphone has sold really well only during one quarter, when iphone 3g was made available. after that the sales have been declining at alarming rate. apple has a change to gain more momentum when the next iteration is announced next summer, but if the rumors are correct (slight modification in case, 3.2mpix cam, more memory), the price needs to come down...

Momentum is definitely something that needs to be maintained, but I disagree about iPhone sales falling. As the iPhone 3G has been available in more markets, global sales have been accelerating.

i don't know in what world you're living in, but in this one winmo has never had software superiority. the top dog in smartphones is symbian. by far.

I meant to say WinMo's superiority over the iPhone in software. With the original iPhone, people used to compare it to WinMo, saying they preferred the latter because of its larger 3rd party software selection. My point was that, despite WinMo being available for ages, the iPhone has been so successful that this factor has been simply erased.

I don't know what Symbian's software selection is like. It is certainly possible that it is better yet than the iPhone. However, with the iPhone picking up so much attention at games conferences (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/30/iphone-dominates-2009-mobile-game-developers-conference/) and from venture capitalists (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/03/23/ngmoco-raises-additional-10-million-in-financing/), I'm sure Apple are looking at that as a target rather than a threat.

[hiimamac]

Great points. Sorry. Out the last post. Types on an iPhone. You can always spot iPhone replies. Fir instead or for, u instead of I. LOL.

Anyway, great points. When you think about CONTROL. Apple wins. They cripple anything and force you to spend $2000 just to get good GPU. the same canbe said for the iPhone. Search "real reason no flash on iPhone" and you will see adobe wants it but apple fears the flash app.

I would relax though. Right now, the US, went from 3rd speed wise to 17th. Meanwhile other countries stream video/tv on their phones. Am happy GM Ford and others who sold crappy cars that fell apart are going down. Sure I feel bad for the workers but not the cororate types. Greed has ruins this country. Am glad Obama has an 80 billion dollar broadband initiative that wants to turn broadband into a utility. Plus an FCC head that will go after these greedy bastards.

Hope they all face stiff, great iPhone smart phone compitition and Apple loses millions of customers. This would force apple to open up to other carriers and I promise there will be a better phone out there with a better data plan in the next six months.

People are hurting now. Cell phones becoming a utility not a luxary. Corprate greed will not be tolerated any more. Hope AT&T fails misrably as I believe data hikes will NOT be tolerated and the FCC will step in. Just watch.

Peace.

Typing on iPhone agiain. Oopps. LOL

there're several smartphones selling as well as iphone, some even better. eg, research in motion sold twice as many smartphones during holiday season as apple. outside the us (and to certain extend the uk), iphone hasn't really been all that successful. lots of talk yes, but mediocre or slow sales. apple really needs to deliver something special with the next model, otherwise they are going to loose momentum. tweaking looks a bit, adding 3.2mpix cam and increasing memory won't be sufficient.




this is proving to be a myth. apple didn't have to fight hard because the phone didn't really have anything that would upset the carriers too much. now that iphone is starting to get where the other smartphones have been for years, they're are facing the carrier resistance.



the us carriers have thus far chosen to not to offer those phones that have been capable for skype and have other advance features. so the us public have largely been unaware of the existence of these services, and are only now starting to catch up with the rest of the world. the us carriers haven't really offered decent deals on advanced nokia phones until very recently (e71x from att).

the most advanced nokia phones such as n97 are probably not going to be available from the us carriers.

[lftrghtparadigm]

For of those that still don't understand, skype is only working over 3G on 3.0 due to the OS falsely reporting that the phone is constantly on WiFi. Anyone can test this with speedtest.net app.

As soon as this is corrected, 3.0 skype will be restricted as well.

[tenguy]

Once again, people want it all. They get a FREE app that has restrictions then want those restrictions removed. That's just like when iPhone came out. People bought the phone, on their own free will, knowing that they were stuck with AT&T then complained that they couldn't use another carrier. It's what's called an "entitlement mentality".

[Saladinos]

Great points. Sorry. Out the last post. Types on an iPhone. You can always spot iPhone replies. Fir instead or for, u instead of I. LOL.

Anyway, great points. When you think about CONTROL. Apple wins. They cripple anything and force you to spend $2000 just to get good GPU. the same canbe said for the iPhone. Search "real reason no flash on iPhone" and you will see adobe wants it but apple fears the flash app.

I disagree with the point about Apple not allowing flash because of control.
- Flash opens the door for many more browser vulnerabilities. For example, in the Pwn2Own competitions, browser exploits usually happen through flash.
- Flash is a proprietary format. Apple let you do pretty much the same thing with the iPhone's HTML5, CSS Animations, and H.264 support. By not allowing flash on the iPhone, Apple are promoting open standards. This is better for the web as a whole.
- Flash is heavily x86 based. It took Adobe ages to create an x64 native version that ran with acceptable performance because of this (by Adobe's own admission). Making it run on ARM is crazy. Even if it works, it'll be slow and drain the battery in seconds flat.
- Flash wasn't designed for touch input. Many sites use events like mouse-overs. These sites may not work properly on the iPhone and would need to be redesigned. If they're going to be redesigned, why use Flash anyway? Do it in standards-based HTML and Javascript and it'll work on all platforms.

I don't think Apple cares about controlling you. People could create premium web applications if they wanted to, and Apple couldn't/wouldn't stop them. For things like Hulu streaming, I don't think it's the iPhone that needs to change - I think Hulu has to change. The BBC in the UK have shown with their iPlayer service that streaming to all kinds of devices can work well. Services need to move away from Flash, and the sooner they do the better.

[michael.lauden]

AMEN!!!

you're agreeing with someone who agreed to Apple's UELA. and the iPhone being subsidized to AT&T would mean you agreed to their EULA too

[wizbang-fl]

AT&T should worry more about making there own service work better if they want people to stay away from this.

Won't the inevitable iChat app have the same functionality? (minus the connection to actual land lines) Does that mean T-Mobile will be looking to ban an Apple app?

I would think so or lock the phone in such a way that you have to pay a fee to use it in this manner. I remember a couple of years ago that if you were in a wi-fi area with certain T-Mobile phones and you paid (I think it was $10 / mo.) the phone would allow you to make calls through the wi-fi and not apply to minutes.

[sjo]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to appear so defensive. You said that "iphone hasn't really been all that successful". My point was that, whilst Apple's sales volumes haven't matched RIM's, if you consider Apple's position, the iPhone has done very well indeed.

i said: outside the us (and the uk), iphone hasn't really been all that successful, which happens to be true. in the us it has been successful, iphone 3g has been somewhat successful in uk, but outside those markets, the impact has been some hype, not so much sales.



Momentum is definitely something that needs to be maintained, but I disagree about iPhone sales falling. As the iPhone 3G has been available in more markets, global sales have been accelerating.

considering starting point of zero, more iphones have been sold than last year. accelerating, probably not so. the sales pattern globally appears to be similar to that of the us: decelerating after the initial volumes at becoming available.


I meant to say WinMo's superiority over the iPhone in software. With the original iPhone, people used to compare it to WinMo, saying they preferred the latter because of its larger 3rd party software selection. My point was that, despite WinMo being available for ages, the iPhone has been so successful that this factor has been simply erased.

I don't know what Symbian's software selection is like. It is certainly possible that it is better yet than the iPhone. However, with the iPhone picking up so much attention at games conferences (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/30/iphone-dominates-2009-mobile-game-developers-conference/) and from venture capitalists (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/03/23/ngmoco-raises-additional-10-million-in-financing/), I'm sure Apple are looking at that as a target rather than a threat.

what apple (and any smartphone manufacturer) needs to do on software side is to increase quality, not quantity. and this is the point of this thread: allowing carriers to sabotage the applications is counterproductive from the point of view of utility of the software. developers and vc's have plenty of great ideas, but some of those are bound to clash with the interests of the carriers (some of whom still prefer thinking cell phone service as their sandbox).

[GenNovE]

Just recently I decided to do a test.

I took my Laptops 3g sim card and I inserted it on my iphone 3g running beta 2. The iphone recognised the data connection and the entire day I used skype.
I use my google voice number which is then forwarded to my skype number.
Not only do i get visual voicemail but it is also transcribed and then text/emailed to me.

No voice data from ATT at all.

I paid 29.95 for unlimited calling for a whole year from skype. And I pay about 40 bucks for 3g data a month for my laptop.

40x12=480 + 29.95 unlimited calling= $509.95 a year total
Unlimited calling. Plenty of apps to use for texting, unlimited internet included.

I am currently paying 165.69 a month for my iphone plan.
Unlimited calling, unlimited internet, unlimited text messaging.

165.69x12=1988.28. a year total.

The iphone's potential is greater then anything we have seen. But it needs to be crippled. because if allowed to do anything then companies like ATT will loose profit.

[jbernie]

If I am not mistaken, the moment AT&T officially allows you to tether your iPhone 3g with your laptop you can use Skype (or any other app like it) over the tethered connection which defeats the purpose of blocking it on the phone itself.

I guess they are just hoping that this setup is viewed as inconvenient or a hassle and people will not bother.

[rnizlek]

Am I the only one here happy with my AT&T plan?

I agree that calling "unlimited" data "unlimited" is a blatant lie by AT&T. It should be advertised as a 5 GB plan.

But I'm overall very happy with my plan. I'm paying $10 less a month than Verizon ever charged me for my Blackberry, I use about 3/4 of my minutes every month and I feel I get my money's worth out of it.

I think a lot of valid points have been made on this thread about data-only plans, unlimited data and Skype over 3G. However, I worry that changes made by AT&T (such as allowing Skype over 3G) will raise the price that I pay for data. I think they definitely need to come out with tiers on the data side, much like the phone side of things. As long as I can get my 450 min/5 GB data plan for $69.95 a month I'll be happy. Offering lower tier price plans will also increase the price for those with higher tier plans, as AT&T has to make it's profit somewhere.

AT&T does need to make money. They don't need to gouge consumers, but they do have to pay for thousands of cell sites across the US (which aren't cheap - you can get quite a bit of money for having a cell tower installed on your land) and costs such as upgrading new areas to 3G and eventually 4G and so forth. They are rolling out 3G to my area this spring - I'm sure that's not going to be cheap for them, but I appreciate the fact that they're going to do it (Verizon put in 3G a few years ago).

Also, is handling a phone call fundamentally different than handling data on a cellular network? For instance, can a cell tower only handle x phone calls and y data packets or are phone calls basically encoded the same way as data? In other words, if everyone in the vicinity of a 3G tower started making VOIP calls tomorrow rather than phone calls would the tower be overwhelmed? Or does making a VOIP call utilize the same pool of resources that a phone call would use?

[rnizlek]

I should also note that for all those complaining about AT&T's profit, that is the very nature of capitalism. These companies are not out there to provide you the best service at the best value possible they are out there to make as much possible money for their investors. If they make more money, they have been successful. Providing you a service at a better value is a failure to them if they don't increase their profits by doing it. That's how capitalism works.

Now where I live (Burlington, VT), I get my electricity, water, cable and internet (and landline if I want it, but I don't) through municipal providers. My electric company offers me a better rate than the commercial utility that services the surrounding communities and my communications provider offers me packages unbeatable by commercial competitors. And I think that's a very beneficial way to do business - mission driven organizations that are out to provide a service rather than to generate a profit (I should note that all the municipal providers are not subsidized and must at minimum cover their operating costs themselves). The main reason is that these organizations are concerned with providing a quality product, not skimming as much off the top as possible.

But if you talk to people most places, they will tell you these municipally backed companies smack of socialism and are inefficient and un-American. Try convincing people in this country to support of state or federally backed organization to roll out cellular broadband and provide it to citizens at cost. Politicians would be voted out office if they suggested that.

[jbernie]

Last time I checked Apple has sold 17 million iphones in less than 2 years, if you add in ipod touches the number of iphone OS devices goes to 30 million in less than 2 years, I'll say they aren't doing too badly. Apple also seems to be making more money off their phones than RIM. When the 3g launched, they sold about the same amount of phones as RIM but significantly more money. They are selling a lot of apps, web sites are getting the most hits from iphones, and iphone and ipods have the highest consumer satisfaction rates.

Apple is doing quite well but their sales are more consumer/small business where people don't have the investment in servers or rely on cheap mail services for their business email etc, the small business people just have a fancy phone.

Blackberry has been around for alot longer so they can offset their costs easier on new devices. Even though they are very much more into the consumer market, their biggest market is corporations & large government. Also, Blackberrys are not that great for web surfing especially the models with the scroll wheel on the side and not the track ball in the middle, but they do corporate applications etc really well.

Once you are the Blackberry market, most of the iPhone users are flying solo and wont have the integration that the Blackberry offers. The blackberry servers offer a lot of control over the devices by way of security settings, group policies, wiping lost/stolen devices etc.

[ian.maffett]

I for one (and apparently also many of you) feel that skype is a great app to have on the iPhone because one of the many downfalls of the iPhone in general is AT&T's sketchy service, to say the least. Moreover, (also as many of you) I rely solely on my iPhone and have no land line. This way, I can use skype on my wifi and thus far have not been concerned with dropping calls, etc. I think due diligence is paid since it won't allow you to make calls via the cellular network and in a way helps to keep it honest.
Additionally, I agree that in most cases the more competition exists, the more consumers benefit.

[princigalli]

In Italy Skype comes factory installed on handsets distributed by the carrier "3". Not only do they allow it, they encourage it. And it works perfectly in their 3G networks. Are ATT and T-Mobile still so primitive?

[lftrghtparadigm]

I dont know what to think about iPhone now really. I am owner of one of them as well and I am Apple fan/freak person but I need more from next iphone to be as supportive as I am now. The other smart phones got that core apps which I need soooooo much on next iphone which are:
1. I need Video conference as a ichat laughable at best
2. I need video recording and pictures with better camera I'm sure its coming, but what you need is an actual camera
3. I need turn-by -turn such TomTom Again, its coming
4. Skype over 3G since other smart phones got it so why not iPhone (please explain that to me?) Call up AT&T. Apple has nothing to do with Skype, or 3G restrictions
5. Slingbox some sort of app over 3G too (which is on the way apparently) which will eliminate need for built in TV tuner. Also laughable in terms of the word "need"
The last two depend on carriers really but still...its Apple marketing. The other wishes are for apps so developers will deal with it.
If Apple will make that happened I am with them, otherwise I may step away and focus BB for a change.


Go for the blackberry then, if you prefer a few hardly useful, yet "advanced" features over stability, performance, and versatility.

[tyr2]

A number of the phones on the '3' network in the UK come with an inbuilt Skype client. It's free to use even if you don't have a data plan.

So with regard to mobile data '3' 'gets it', in that it's all just data, and if you can attract people over to your network paying a monthly subscription then it's a good deal for both parties. Unfortunately their network coverage is terrible.

[louiell]

I just bought a nokia E71, understand not iPhone, but I can make calls using VOIP app Fring to/from gchat and skype, not the greatest on edge network, but on 3G/Wifi is as good as a regular cell call. I can also do video chat as well, not as great but proof of concept is there. Go register yourself an IMEI number of a cheap goPhone, buy the 15$ unlimited data plan and then put your sim in a high powered unlocked phone and totally avoid paying the 30 dollar fee that they would charge you if only they knew what phone you had. At least most of you aren't using a Verizon phone, all the capability of the phone taken out because Verizon puts their own OS over the top of the manufacturer.

[Nikos]

Looks like the Skype application has been taken down. Just took this screen...

http://www.nikostoscani.com/images/skypeapp.PNG

EDIT: It has also been removed from iTunes.

[jbernie]

Looks like the Skype application has been taken down. Just took this screen...

EDIT: It has also been removed from iTunes.

Basic explanation, Skype (eBay?) had and issue with posting an update.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10213160-94.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

[geokost]

Looks like the Skype application has been taken down. Just took this screen...

EDIT: It has also been removed from iTunes.

I downloaded it @ 7:04 central time.

[iphonerain]

As a consumer, I of course support Skype being readily available on any device that has the capability of supporting it. After all, it's not illegal to use it on the computer w/your cable/dsl/wifi. Why should it be illegal to use it on any other device that supports this function? But I understand why businesses are panicking over it. People might switch networks to AT&T and choose the lowest possible plans and take advantage of Skype to make calls. In this economy it's probably better for Skype's usage to be limited so that networks don't all go out of business and put an insurmountable amount of people out of jobs.... (yes, yes, I know how this sounds.. but we're in an economy where 8.3% of the population in the US are unemployed..)