Apple Tablet to Support Multiple Wireless Carriers Including Verizon?

[Cmax]

Link to story:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143107/Apple_s_tablet_will_use_Verizon_s_3G_network_sources_say

From the story:
"The tablet will be supported by multiple [mobile] carriers," said Brian Marshall of Broadpoint AmTech, citing unnamed sources he said were close to the situation. "Verizon and others," he continued. "Definitely Verizon. I've been told that's a certainty."


If true, then I guess we'll all have an opportunity to trash Verizon's 3G data network this year, just as we did with AT&T using the iPhone over the past few. Perhaps that is what Brian Ullem, who heads emerging devices for Verizon Wireless, was concerned about when he said in 2009, "The Apple tablet, if it debuts as expected early next year, has the potential to be a disruptive product".

[thegoldenmackid]

I still call b.s.

[clevin]

Im sure big V has veto power on any such plan if they don't like it.

[miles01110]

If true, then I guess we'll all have an opportunity to trash Verizon's 3G data network this year, just as we did with AT&T using the iPhone over the past few.

Hopefully not. I don't understand the mentality that overloading anyone's network is a good thing or something to aspire to (like those morons who tried to arrange what essentially was a DDoS attack on the network after AT&T's comments about data usage).

[Cmax]

Im sure big V has veto power on any such plan if they don't like it.

No doubt - but should they decide not to carry Apple's iSlate would suggest to me they know, regardless of all the blue stuff in their "there's a map for that" ads, that their 3G data network is really no better than AT&T's. Besides, I would imagine it a rather hard business decision for Verizon for them not to want to get onboard with the iSlate. Just imagine the profits they could make with an iStale data package verses what they charge now for a smartphone.

[alphaod]

I'll be content if it comes with dual radios allowing folks to choose either using a CDMA or GSM network; maybe even utilize CSIM/RUIM cards (if Verizon will support it).

[Cmax]

Hopefully not. I don't understand the mentality that overloading anyone's network is a good thing or something to aspire to (like those morons who tried to arrange what essentially was a DDoS attack on the network after AT&T's comments about data usage).

Oops -- sorry. It was never my intention to even remotely suggest we all work together to bring a network down. I work in an IT department and my only aspirations and dreams of such stuff always involve nightmares (that is, yet another disaster recovery scenario that needs to be worked out). Anyway, all I meant to imply here was that given the unexpected problems AT&T encountered with the iPhone -- are the other 3G carriers up to the challenge with the iSlate.

[kdarling]

If true, then I guess we'll all have an opportunity to trash Verizon's 3G data network this year, just as we did with AT&T using the iPhone over the past few.

Data network slowdown, perhaps. But it won't cause voice drops, as with AT&T.

Perhaps that is what Brian Ullem, who heads emerging devices for Verizon Wireless, was concerned about when he said in 2009, "The Apple tablet, if it debuts as expected early next year, has the potential to be a disruptive product".

In industry, "disruptive technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology)" means innovations that affect the market in unexpected ways. For example, handheld calculators were disruptive products.

[Nermal]

I'll be content if it comes with dual radios allowing folks to choose either using a CDMA or GSM network; maybe even utilize CSIM/RUIM cards (if Verizon will support it).

As far as I'm aware (and I'm really only guessing here and assuming that Verizon works the same way as in NZ), Apple could easily add a RUIM slot but Verizon would be under no obligation to use it. My Nokia phone has the slot but there's no card in it and the phone works perfectly without it.

It could be useful for countries that do use the cards though (I think India does, for example).

[Cmax]

In industry, "disruptive technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology)" means innovations that affect the market in unexpected ways. For example, handheld calculators were disruptive products.

Thanks for the Wikipedia link. After reading that article, seems to me as if it were stating the mission statement for Apple Inc. Of course, it's not - yet I still can't help believe that the term "disruptive innovation" is but an oxymoron. Me still thinks there is a deeper issues here.

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/06/apple-tablet-to-support-multiple-wireless-carriers-including-verizion/)

With their upcoming tablet, Apple may be offering the flexibility that many prospective iPhone owners have wished for: carrier independence. According to a Broadpoint AmTech analyst (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143107/Apple_s_tablet_will_use_Verizon_s_3G_network_sources_say), Apple will be offering 3G wireless data networking on their Tablet with multiple providers with Verizon support a "certainty".

This would mean that customers will be able to choose from a number of mobile providers for their Tablet's data service when not near a Wi-Fi hotspot. This would allow Tablet users to browse the web, check their email, and more wherever there was 3G service. Such connectivity is taken for granted on mobile phones such as the iPhone, but is increasingly expected for other mobile devices.

iPhone owners, however, are presently restricted to AT&T service only due to exclusivity agreements between Apple and AT&T which are expected to expire in mid 2010.

Article Link: Apple Tablet to Support Multiple Wireless Carriers Including Verizion? (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/06/apple-tablet-to-support-multiple-wireless-carriers-including-verizion/)

[miles01110]

Anyway, if the Tablet is indeed on multiple carriers I guess we'll get to see if Verizon's network is as good as they've been hyping it to be.

[iOrlando]

i've struggled with this idea and the tablet.

I still am leaning towards no 3G/data connectivity for the first version but I can see pros/cons for each side.

Realistically, are people, besides apple zealots, willing to pay monthly data plans for 1) home 2) cellphone 3) tablet?

[derek1984]

Wow. If this is true, I am certainly buying this. And I will without hesitation go with Verizon.

[Harun]

I usually wait for the second version of new devices like this. I have been very happy I have done that in that past. However, if this device has pure data plans that are affordable I will likely get one the first week.

Maybe that rumor they are planning on selling 10 mill of these isn't so crazy.

[smegma11]

You spelled verizon wrong in the lead line

[hanpa]

iPhone owners, however, are presently restricted to AT&T service only due to exclusivity agreements between Apple and AT&T which are expected to expire in mid 2010.



Fortunately only in the US, at least not here in Europe.
Unfortunately, the poor AT&T network stops us from using 3G data services fully due to the "non-existing" agreement between AT&T and Apple that has crippled too many apps world-wide.

[Nickday89]

oh no, we wont be able to trash verisons 3g, it's just too good! and, if the tablet costs too much, less people buy, which means less people complain, and less data-clogging servers

[GeekLawyer]

I buy the concept of non-exclusive carrier choice for the iSlate (or iWhatever).

What I don't buy - literally - is the likelihood that people are going to pony up for yet another expensive data plan. I have internet service at home. I have internet service for my iPhone. I have a 3G dongle for my MBP when I'm on the road. That's it. I'm not adding a fourth internet contract/fee/expense. No way.

There are a few ways Apple could handle this. And maybe if the price is truly approaching $1000, maybe they've figured out a way to bake 3G connectivity into the purchase price (as has Amazon). Otherwise, I hope they sell a version that either doesn't require 3G or one that will finally take advantage of my iPhone's ability to tether.

[derek1984]

I buy the concept of non-exclusive carrier choice for the iSlate (or iWhatever).

What I don't buy - literally - is the likelihood that people are going to pony up for yet another expensive data plan. I have internet service at home. I have internet service for my iPhone. I have a 3G dongle for my MBP when I'm on the road. That's it. I'm not adding a fourth internet contract/fee/expense. No way.

There are a few ways Apple could handle this. And maybe if the price is truly approaching $1000, maybe they've figured out a way to bake 3G connectivity into the purchase price (as has Amazon). Otherwise, I hope they sell a version that either doesn't require 3G or one that will finally take advantage of my iPhone's ability to tether.



$15 a month would be fair. Anything more wouldn't.

[kdarling]

What I don't buy - literally - is the likelihood that people are going to pony up for yet another expensive data plan. (snip)

We know how much Apple loves WiFi as an alternative to 3G, so that's bound to be in there too.

There are a few ways Apple could handle this. And maybe if the price is truly approaching $1000, maybe they've figured out a way to bake 3G connectivity into the purchase price (as has Amazon)....

Yes, building in the air cost for book/magazine downloads sounds very likely.

Question to Kindle owners though: aren't you able to surf the web, too? If so, how is that charged?

[Yvan256]

Let's just hope that 3G is an option and not a requirement. Or maybe there's two "iSlate" models, similar to the iPhone/iPod touch choice.

[tiguk]

As I'm paying for the privilege of tethering my MBP from my iPhone with O2, I was kind of hoping that I'd be able to use my iPhone tethering for the Tablet too.

Anything else would be a waste.

I guess eventually even AT&T might get around to offering tethering too! ;)

[dopeytree]

Hmm I wonder if you can buy this without a contract and teather to iphone but we'll have to see how pricings work out.

I'm eagerly awaiting to see how this will fit into the lineup is it a lowend macbook replacement or an extra inbetween the iphone and macbook but which is overpriced and requires a contract to work...

Will the 1st gen be overpriced like the 1st gen iPhone?

[psingh01]

They need to let me put my iPhone sim card in there to get 3G! I'm not paying a monthly internet subscription for each device I own.

[GeekLawyer]

...Question to Kindle owners though: aren't you able to surf the web, too? If so, how is that charged?That's what I actually meant by "baked in" to the initial price. Kindle's Whispernet is "free" for the life of the device. There is a rudimentary web browser on the Kindle. No monthly charge for 3G access to Sprint's network.

[miles01110]

I guess eventually even AT&T might get around to offering tethering too! ;)

Tethering with the iPhone really isn't that difficult.

[designgeek]

Anyway, if the Tablet is indeed on multiple carriers I guess we'll get to see if Verizon's network is as good as they've been hyping it to be.

AMEN! Let's see if it can handle millions of users and heavy data usage.:)

[wolfshades]

With the caveat inherent in the word "may" in this post.....if Apple indeed shows up with an iTablet or whatever, it really depends upon how they market it to the average user as well as the carriers. If they push this as a Kindle killer, as well as a kind of iPhone add-on (presumably, you won't be accessing the internet on both devices at the same time), then those who have data plans with their carriers can augment those plans by using this device.

Kindle of course offers data access at no additional cost so if this is just a sort of super e-book, then the logic behind that might mean we'll not end up paying for another data plan. At least there's some hope here.

I doubt very many of us (any of us?) are willing to pay for another data plan.

[blackcrayon]

They need to let me put my iPhone sim card in there to get 3G! I'm not paying a monthly internet subscription for each device I own.

You'd want to disable your iPhone whenever you want wireless on the tablet? ;)

Clearly tethering would be the way to go, it already works... It's just whether AT&T is going to "turn it on". And I guess the question is whether the tablet would put significantly more demand on their data network than the iPhone (enough that the extra "tethering revenue" wouldn't be worth it for them).

I agree with the previous poster though, something like a $15/mo data plan (something between a typical data plan and something like Amazon's "free" Whispernet) would go a long way...

[andiwm2003]

I buy the concept of non-exclusive carrier choice for the iSlate (or iWhatever).

What I don't buy - literally - is the likelihood that people are going to pony up for yet another expensive data plan. I have internet service at home. I have internet service for my iPhone. I have a 3G dongle for my MBP when I'm on the road. That's it. I'm not adding a fourth internet contract/fee/expense. No way.

There are a few ways Apple could handle this. And maybe if the price is truly approaching $1000, maybe they've figured out a way to bake 3G connectivity into the purchase price (as has Amazon). Otherwise, I hope they sell a version that either doesn't require 3G or one that will finally take advantage of my iPhone's ability to tether.

$15 a month would be fair. Anything more wouldn't.


$15 is a dream. the price will simply be the same as a USG 3G dongle or tethering. certainly no less than the $30 data plan for the iphone 3G with ATT. so expect something around $50 per month. alternatively run it as wifi only device.

[SteveSparks]

Realistically, are people, besides apple zealots, willing to pay monthly data plans for 1) home 2) cellphone 3) tablet?

That is a question I have been asking myself. What's the cost going to be, I don't see the end user being able to afford:

$49 a month for home internet
$30 a month in cell phone data charges
$30+ a month for tablet data charges

I own or have owned every gadget known to man, like many here and the big turn off is always the monthly charge.

[SteveSparks]

That's what I actually meant by "baked in" to the initial price. Kindle's Whispernet is "free" for the life of the device. There is a rudimentary web browser on the Kindle. No monthly charge for 3G access to Sprint's network.

It does not work well on the Kindle, however its free which makes me happy. It has a good enough browser to get something in a pinch or read a blog etc. I put up with the poor quality because the Kindle is a great eReader and I use mine daily for reading not web browsing, however when I do, I don't complain because that is a free extra...

[vvebsta]

Does anyone else think that "iSlate" is just the worst name ever?

[Wayazo]

i've struggled with this idea and the tablet.

I still am leaning towards no 3G/data connectivity for the first version but I can see pros/cons for each side.

Realistically, are people, besides apple zealots, willing to pay monthly data plans for 1) home 2) cellphone 3) tablet?

I am not. Cell coverage is still to sketchy in my area for me to get rid of my home phone. My wife and I have cell phones. Adding a third item relying on 3G for connectivity and having to pay an additional data fee for it just doesn't make sense. If Amazon can include data connectivity up to 3G on the Kindle, I'd like to see Apple should do so too. Make the cost part of the purchase so it's only a one time thing and I'll be more interested. Competitive plans combining home, cell, and tablet 3G pricing would also make me more interested.

[SteveSparks]

$15 is a dream. the price will simply be the same as a USG 3G dongle or tethering. certainly no less than the $30 data plan for the iphone 3G with ATT. so expect something around $50 per month. alternatively run it as wifi only device.

And likely pay $200-$300 more for the device from Apple. :(

[Aeolius]

Let's just hope that 3G is an option and not a requirement. Or maybe there's two "iSlate" models, similar to the iPhone/iPod touch choice.

Agreed. Having to pay another monthly bill for cell access would most likely be a deal-breaker for me. I want to use the device via WiFi or tethered to my iPhone (when AT&T wakes up). I can't add another device to my AT&T plan, as I have it maxed out with 5 iPhones. Verizon doesn't provide adequate service, where I live.

[Wayazo]

Tethering with the iPhone really isn't that difficult.

If you could tether your iphone to the tablet for 3G, and do so at no extra charge, I'd go for that.

[ncc1701d]

Is the USA the only place that forces a particular provider with the purchase of the iPhone?

[psxp]

It would be smart to not have the 3G capability built it, just allow it to tether to the iPhone via Bluetooth! It would keep the cost down and whats the point in having two 3G devices on you at the same time?

I think the tablet device, if it exists, will work in UNION with a Desktop based Mac/PC and iPhone. Its not going to be an All-In-One solution.

Look where apple were going with the MacBook Air.. it was made to work in conjunction with another Desktop based Mac and not as a total replacement..

just my opionion.. too many clowns in the media are getting worked up about nothing. .then after the Apple event happens its going to be.. "Apple couldnt deliver.. " etc etc!

[adamw]

Having the ability to have multiple carriers is a good thing. Competition between carriers should help to keep prices from being too unreasonable. :)

[guzhogi]

While I'd like it to be open to multiple carriers, I have a problem seeing this happen before the iPhone. The iPhone seems to be Apple's flagship product now so it seems weird if Apple were to get another product out that's open to multiple carriers before the iPhone.

[MatthewCobb]

Is the USA the only place that forces a particular provider with the purchase of the iPhone?

No, or rather it may be now. Europe (incl UK) has been easing up on this over 2009.

[andiwm2003]

And likely pay $200-$300 more for the device from Apple. :(

Agreed. Having to pay another monthly bill for cell access would most likely be a deal-breaker for me. I want to use the device via WiFi or tethered to my iPhone (when AT&T wakes up). I can't add another device to my AT&T plan, as I have it maxed out with 5 iPhones. Verizon doesn't provide adequate service, where I live.

If you could tether your iphone to the tablet for 3G, and do so at no extra charge, I'd go for that.

I don't see a chance that the 3G data plan is going to be less than $50. Also the whole concept of a tablet is a internet device. So a version with 3G is very likely.

To me a wifi only version is useless because I need it as internet device at work where I don't have wifi for security reasons.

Maybe apple can make a deal with ATT to get a discounted data plan for iphone users at $30. or they subsidize the tablet. But it will be an expensive toy on 3G no matter what.

The other important question to me is how much of apples mac software will run on the tablet: iphoto, safari, mail, keychain, itunes, idisk, pages/numbers/keynote/powerpoint, preview, pixelmator/photoshop versions and such in addition to apps from the iphone.

I also can imagine that 3G access to ebooks and emagazines is free because it's paid via your subscription to the magazines and the data amount is low compared to video downloads. but free internet browsing via 3G will be costly because bandwith is limited and expensive.

[MikeDTyke]

They need to let me put my iPhone sim card in there to get 3G! I'm not paying a monthly internet subscription for each device I own.

How do you answer your phone when the sim is in the slate.

The thing a lot of people need to remember on here is, that a vast majority of mobile phone users don't have data service on their contract. They use their phones for calling people and txting.

Maybe their happy enough to leave the phone to do something simple really well and then have a slate or a laptop for email/browsing etc.

I think we'll see the slate with the cellular modem built in (dongles currently cost about £20 on payg), so integrating the chip without the flash memory/case and other gubbins should be pretty damn cheap.

Then the option is buy the tablet at full price and use it with wifi only, with the option to add a sim later. Add tethering to an existing mobile contract or buy the tablet discounted from a mobile company subsidized by a data contract.

M.

[talkingnewmedia]

I still am leaning towards no 3G/data connectivity for the first version but I can see pros/cons for each side.

Realistically, are people, besides apple zealots, willing to pay monthly data plans for 1) home 2) cellphone 3) tablet?

If Apple includes 3G then that opens up the tablet being a subsidized product -- no 3G, no subsidy.

Like Google's new phone, Apple could offer the tablet without a contract at a higher price, and let the carriers offer it at a discount with a data plan.

In either case, the tablet would need to have WiFi, Bluetooth, and the ability to get data over a cell network, either through built-in capability or a quick add-on. It seems that the best solution would be to build it in.

From a media perspective (my world) publishers want tablet owners to be able to download content from anywhere, so 3G capability would be essential for them . . . and a media store would be nice, too.

[4mat]

Already have 3 carriers in Australia. Even so, I hope tethering with iPhone is possible. Is tethering with multiple devices at once possible?

[Stella]

Carrier independence is one thing... the question is: is the slate going to be unlocked. Can you put in your existing spare SIM and run on any network, freely?

Its time that Apple, if you buy an iPhone outright ( which you can do ), it comes unlocked - switch around carrier networks as you please.

[phineas]

As I'm paying for the privilege of tethering my MBP from my iPhone with O2, I was kind of hoping that I'd be able to use my iPhone tethering for the Tablet too.

Anything else would be a waste.

I guess eventually even AT&T might get around to offering tethering too! ;)

AT&T is having enough problems with there network, and customers along with billing and you want them to offer a tethering program with the iPhone.

I'm seriously hoping Vzw is coming over to LTE and that there picking the new iPhone up this summer.

I am NOT saying there going to be better, there network is much much better, but this advertisement that AT&T is running with being able to talk and surf at the same time does nothing for me, and I wonder how many others?

[mdriftmeyer]

The Publishing Industry is gearing up for the Tablet and yet the Telco/Wireless industry analysts are all talking about what? Their hope they aren't out of the loop on this device, by proclaiming such fantasy as this one.

This isn't a 3G hot spot wizbang machine.

[andiwm2003]

.............................................................I am NOT saying there going to be better, there network is much much better, but this advertisement that AT&T is running with being able to talk and surf at the same time does nothing for me, and I wonder how many others?

in three years I never wanted to talk on the phone and surf the web at the same time. and with the iphone it's not possible anyway to use it as a phone and use an app in parallel. so this is not a necessary feature for me, maybe for others.

it's more important to have reliable cell phone service and robust fast internet. in both categories ATT fails in my area. lots of dropped calls and frequent internet slowdowns.

[lilskaterpunk]

Doubt it... But I guess January 26/27 are around the corner ;)

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Oops -- sorry. It was never my intention to even remotely suggest we all work together to bring a network down. I work in an IT department and my only aspirations and dreams of such stuff always involve nightmares (that is, yet another disaster recovery scenario that needs to be worked out). Anyway, all I meant to imply here was that given the unexpected problems AT&T encountered with the iPhone -- are the other 3G carriers up to the challenge with the iSlate.

And of course key to the potential of the nightmare is the uncertain concept that the Tablet will have to sell in very high volume like the iPhone to get enough units into the marketplace to potentially be disruptive. That's the piece I'm not seeing as very likely.

[cmaier]

I sense my life is about to get more expensive.

I use verizons per-day plan with my MBP aircard, but they just stuck a cap on those plans. If the tablet offered tethering, i'd just get a contract for the tablet and tether my MBP TO the tablet when necessary (a couple times a month).

[cmaier]

in three years I never wanted to talk on the phone and surf the web at the same time. and with the iphone it's not possible anyway to use it as a phone and use an app in parallel.

huh? Sure it is.

[Lesser Evets]

I still call b.s.

Right there with you.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

i've struggled with this idea and the tablet.

I still am leaning towards no 3G/data connectivity for the first version but I can see pros/cons for each side.

Realistically, are people, besides apple zealots, willing to pay monthly data plans for 1) home 2) cellphone 3) tablet?

If it can double as a (first purchase, super-sized) iPhone, yes. As a great mobile VOIP phone (not dependent on a locked wifi location), yes. And before anyone implies I mean holding a 10" screen up to your ear, that's NOT the idea (picture dialing on your Tablet, but using your ear buds with microphone (or a wireless bluetooth headset) for your communicating- just like you can do with the iPhone now, without holding the iPhone up to your ear).

[ltcol266845]

Question to Kindle owners though: aren't you able to surf the web, too? If so, how is that charged?

It isn't. Completely free.

That said, out side of their book store, that web browser is frustrating to use because it doesn't have a touch screen and the need for eInk to refresh. But it works GREAT with Amazon's book store. And Wikipedia.

[derek1984]

And likely pay $200-$300 more for the device from Apple. :(



I already pay the $30 a month for 3G on the iPhone like everybody else. Having another 3G data plan for over $20 a month would make me consider not even bothering with this. I am getting this with 3G or I am not even going to bother.

[starflyer]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)


I guess eventually even AT&T might get around to offering tethering too! ;)

Tethering with the iPhone really isn't that difficult.

How can I do this without a jailbreak?

[Small White Car]

And likely pay $200-$300 more for the device from Apple. :(

Based on what?

The iPhone costs $600 with 16 GB.
Google's Nexus 1 costs $520 for 4 GB.

The iPod Touch costs $300 for 32 GB
The Zune Touch costs $270 for 32 GB.

Am I missing something? What Apple handheld device are you thinking of that's vastly more expensive than its competition?

[ltcol266845]

If it can double as a (first purchase, super-sized) iPhone, yes. As a great mobile VOIP phone (not dependent on a locked wifi location), yes. And before anyone implies I mean holding a 10" screen up to your ear, that's NOT the idea (picture dialing on your Tablet, but using your ear buds with microphone (or a wireless bluetooth headset) for your communicating- just like you can do with the iPhone now, without holding the iPhone up to your ear).

I totally was thinking the same thing, partly what I am hoping Google Voice can do this year.

But it better not be 10" for type of usage scenario. Where do you put it while you walk? It'd have to go in a bag, or hold it in your hand. First one, sure, but no where near as convenient as tossing it back in the pocket. Second one, maybe, but I imagine a great deal of theft especially in urban environments... Or people walking around you bumping into you and watching it crash to the ground....

We'll see, I'm excited to see what Apple cooked up, though I'm girding myself up for disappointment. If it uses a traditional LCD screen, this is a no-go. I hope Apple innovates better than that. I really need to have a screen similar to eInk, or at least those hybrid jobs that can switch between LCD and eInk.

[Gepper]

To the guys in the states, aren't you able to get an extra SIM-card from your provider? In sweden you can get an extra one for just a few $ / month.

[flopticalcube]

Let's just hope that 3G is an option and not a requirement. Or maybe there's two "iSlate" models, similar to the iPhone/iPod touch choice.
That's what I'm hoping. It could be as simple as a little plugin module similar to what netbooks have and then you could choose various carriers or non at all but that doesn't sound very Apple.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

There are a few ways Apple could handle this. And maybe if the price is truly approaching $1000, maybe they've figured out a way to bake 3G connectivity into the purchase price (as has Amazon).

I would say there is no way this could happen, unless the 3G is extremely limited to downloading content to consume on the device (no VOIP, 3G phone calls, heavy web browsing, etc... in other words, no "open" 3G for broad use).

Why? Because full use of a 3G data connection at a baked-in price of even $1K could completely kill the 3G businesses of AT&T, Verizon, etc. As soon as you have "free" 3G for purposes other than buying media, you can have VOIP as a complete replacement to the flexibility of 3G phone service.

At the point, EVERY cell phone contract would be at great risk of getting canceled for the much better deal to be had with this device plus a solid VOIP application.

Amazons "free" 3G is not free at all. It is paid for in the price of each bit of media downloaded to the device. If that device was such that people were scarcely buying media and instead using it for broad 3G demanding purposes , media prices would have to go up and/or "heavy user" fees would be announced.

AT&T, Verizon, etc are not going to kill their very golden goose just to help Apple sell more Tablets.

[Aeolius]

If it can double as a (first purchase, super-sized) iPhone, yes.

And how would I carry it? Not on a belt clip, like my iPhone. I suppose I would have to invest in a man-purse. ;) I already have an iPhone. I already have a MacBook. I want a new device that compliments my prior purchases, not one that has redundant features.

[*LTD*]

in three years I never wanted to talk on the phone and surf the web at the same time. and with the iphone it's not possible anyway to use it as a phone and use an app in parallel. so this is not a necessary feature for me, maybe for others.

Yes, you can.

[RyanS123]

There is no way, i am spending a $1,000 for a apple tablet plus a monthly data charge! This should be included! Barnes & Noble, and Amazon both include their data service @ no charge. Im sure the people at Apple could figure out a way to do it.

[Xenious]

i've struggled with this idea and the tablet.

I still am leaning towards no 3G/data connectivity for the first version but I can see pros/cons for each side.

Realistically, are people, besides apple zealots, willing to pay monthly data plans for 1) home 2) cellphone 3) tablet?

Exactly! My iphone already is a pipe to the internet via cellular access why do I have to pay for another pipe when I can use the one I have?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Hmm I wonder if you can buy this without a contract

My guess is absolutely, but for a price without a subsidy... so get ready for "sticker shock". My guess on the low end for an unsubsidized Tablet is $799, though it is much easier to imagine $999 vs. $599, so I'm price biased (expectation) to the upside.

[fishmoose]

Wifi and being able to tether the iPhone to it would be enough for me tbh, let's see what happens though.

[Small White Car]

There is no way, i am spending a $1,000 for a apple tablet plus a monthly data charge! This should be included! Barnes & Noble, and Amazon both include their data service @ no charge. Im sure the people at Apple could figure out a way to do it.

The Kindle does not do full color websites, Youtube, iTunes, photo galleries, online video games...

You get the picture. This is like asking why a cart-full of groceries costs $200 while a single bottle of milk only costs $4.

They're totally different things. You can't expect to pay the same for both.

[arkmannj]

Does this mean we'll be stuck with a subsidized / unsubsidized pricing structure ?
If I had a tablet I honestly would have little interest in paying another monthly fee to a wireless company.

If I'm away from WiFi then I can tether my phone to it, or use my USB data dongle.

[GeekLawyer]

...Why? Because full use of a 3G data connection at a baked-in price of even $1K could completely kill the 3G businesses of AT&T, Verizon, etc. As soon as you have "free" 3G for purposes other than buying media, you can have VOIP as a complete replacement to the flexibility of 3G phone service...I agree with you that it's unlikely. It's the direction I wish things would go, however. I'd love to see the pricing model turned on its head. Instead of having carriers subsidize the price of mobile devices, I'd much rather pay an inflated up-front price that would essentially pre-pay connectivity. Rather than having it nickel-and-dimed back out of me over the next two years. There's a time-value to money. Perhaps if you paid it in advance a discount could be offered due to 1) they'd have the revenue now and 2) no chance of cancellation over the life of the contract.

As it is now, our devices are subsidized heavily, which we pay back over the contract term. But it's not like AT&T reduces your wireless bill once you've repaid the subsidy. They continue to charge the same amount, ad infinitum.

Just to complete my thought - the Kindle has done this already. Yes, most of what you get over 3G is purchased books. But there is a web browser. That you could, in theory, use 24/7 to look at "free" content on the web. In theory.

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

This should open the door for a future verizon iPhone.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

$15 is a dream. the price will simply be the same as a USG 3G dongle or tethering. certainly no less than the $30 data plan for the iphone 3G with ATT. so expect something around $50 per month. alternatively run it as wifi only device.

That is extremely likely. It cracks me up how, ahead of every big product launch from Apple, we Apple fans decide to build up the appeal of the product by imagining all these other companies cutting their revenue & profit throats to help Apple sell more of the new product. There is NO REASON for an AT&T, Verizon, etc to heavily discount their service especially for this product, effectively creating incentives for their own customers to switch devices and pay AT&T, Verizon, etc LESS for the same service.

Get real people. Apple can do whatever is within Apple's power to try to sell more of these Tablets. When you start banking on other companies shooting themselves in the foot to help Apple sell more Tablets, you're disconnecting from the realities of how capitalism works.

[aegisdesign]

I totally was thinking the same thing, partly what I am hoping Google Voice can do this year.

Google Voice is not A VoIP service. It might evolve into one now that Google have bought Gizmo, but at present it uses regular landline and mobile phone networks, not internet only VoIP/SIP clients.

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

I buy the concept of non-exclusive carrier choice for the iSlate (or iWhatever).

What I don't buy - literally - is the likelihood that people are going to pony up for yet another expensive data plan. I have internet service at home. I have internet service for my iPhone. I have a 3G dongle for my MBP when I'm on the road. That's it. I'm not adding a fourth internet contract/fee/expense. No way.

There are a few ways Apple could handle this. And maybe if the price is truly approaching $1000, maybe they've figured out a way to bake 3G connectivity into the purchase price (as has Amazon). Otherwise, I hope they sell a version that either doesn't require 3G or one that will finally take advantage of my iPhone's ability to tether.



$15 a month would be fair. Anything more wouldn't.

IF you already have a data plan on a phone.

[Small White Car]

Get real people. Apple can do whatever is within Apple's power to try to sell more of these Tablets. When you start banking on other companies shooting themselves in the foot to help Apple sell more Tablets, you're disconnecting from the realities of how capitalism works.

Very nice.

As for me, I do just fine not having 3G on my Macbook Pro. In the same way I think I'd do just fine without 3G on a tablet.

It's funny how the possibility of 3G suddenly makes everyone think they'll have to get it or the tablet will be useless! No it won't. Laptops have been very popular without 3G. The iSlate can be too. Just don't sign up for it.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It would be smart to not have the 3G capability built it, just allow it to tether to the iPhone via Bluetooth! It would keep the cost down and whats the point in having two 3G devices on you at the same time

No purpose. But for the people who don't own iPhones, having 3G capability built into this device is tremendously appealing. We shouldn't assume the market for the Tablet is iPhone owners. I wouldn't think Apple is trying to compete with itself, nor trying to penetrate a market as small (large) as the iPhone-owner market as their primary objective.

[DipDog3]

So would I still need a iPhone?

How much are the plans?

[chwhale]

I have to believe that if this tablet is supposed to work with wireless carriers, that someone at some carrier would have leaked something by now. Apple is very tight-lipped about their products but the same security measures aren't in place at any wireless provider. Just look back at gadget sites over the past few years. Something is always leaked.

I am not in favor of a forced monthly fee. Make it a hybrid of sorts. Give me wifi only or the ability to connect it to a carrier if I choose. In my case, AT&T doesn't seem to be able to deliver consistant voice service to my iPhone, let alone a good data network. I'm nowhere near a 3G service area. So, forcing a customer like me into a monthly contract for service that I can't even get is a big deal breaker. Hopefully Steve and Co. has considered this.

[Chupa Chupa]

Really irrelevant unless Apple has made some sort of irresistible pricing deal w/ carriers (unlikely). I probably will buy an App Tab if knocks my socks off, but I def. won't be burdening myself with yet another Internet account. I already pay $35 for DSL and $30 for my iPhone. Enough already. Moreover, if I were to pay for wireless Internet I wouldn't lock it down to a single device. I'd get a Mi-Fi.

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

I can see free books and periodicals over the air. But this thing is going to be a data-heavy broswer with apps to download, so I can't see them giving away 3G or including it in the price. I see $30 a month or $15 if you already have an iPhone to tether to.

[TraceyS/FL]

To the guys in the states, aren't you able to get an extra SIM-card from your provider? In sweden you can get an extra one for just a few $ / month.

This was brought up in another thread - and I don't think it got answered there. I don't *think* you can - but that doesn't mean crap! LOL!!

[DotComCTO]

I have to say that while everyone is jumping up and down about how great Verizon is, I have two observations:

1. I have a Blackberry on VzW and my iPhone on AT&T. Data transfer on my iPhone blows the BB away. I've done side-by-side tests many times and my iPhone on AT&T is simply faster.

2. My big concern about VzW is that they have a tendency to "nickel & dime" their customers. Want tethering? That'll cost you. Visual voicemail? Cha-ching. VzW used to charge to unlock the GPS capability in their phones; I remember that from earlier BBs that I had. And so on and so on. Not sure what VzW will charge for putting this device on their network.

So, while Vz voice is good, AT&T data is faster for sure (I'm just outside of NYC).

Just my 2 cents.

--DotComCTO

[TraceyS/FL]

Really irrelevant unless Apple has made some sort of irresistible pricing deal w/ carriers (unlikely). I probably will buy an App Tab if knocks my socks off, but I def. won't be burdening myself with yet another Internet account. I already pay $35 for DSL and $30 for my iPhone. Enough already. Moreover, if I were to pay for wireless Internet I wouldn't lock it down to a single device. I'd get a Mi-Fi.

that is where i am. BUT, if there is a decent plan for $15/mo - i might consider it.

Apple COULD force US carriers to "do more" with plans with this. I'd like to see a per mb pre-paid option without it being tied to a time frame. Let me buy 2gb and buy more when it runs out, not in 30 days.....

It's MY data fantasy that will never happen! :D

[HobeSoundDarryl]

...but this advertisement that AT&T is running with being able to talk and surf at the same time does nothing for me, and I wonder how many others?

The issue here is that Verizon has slammed AT&T with a very tangible, highly resonating concept... that is true. AT&T's initial reaction was to try to prevent this message from continuing via legal means, but courts generally support truth.

So now AT&T is trying to address the issue by asking: what do we do that Verizon can't? And this answer is the best they can do.

The correct solution is what has been stated many times before: beat Verizon at their own game... build a bigger network. And that would also solve several other issues such as poor reception, etc. But rather than spend money to satisfy customers, AT&T would rather try to smooth it over with advertising. From a user's point of view, that's very much the WRONG answer, but it is a much cheaper way to go.

[cmaier]

Really irrelevant unless Apple has made some sort of irresistible pricing deal w/ carriers (unlikely). I probably will buy an App Tab if knocks my socks off, but I def. won't be burdening myself with yet another Internet account. I already pay $35 for DSL and $30 for my iPhone. Enough already. Moreover, if I were to pay for wireless Internet I wouldn't lock it down to a single device. I'd get a Mi-Fi.

Good point. If the tablet tethers, even better - one less thing to carry.

[CmdrLaForge]

I definitely hope that I don't have to sign up for any Telco plan to get an iSlate. This would definitely be a deal breaker for me.

[HyperX13]

I'll be content if it comes with dual radios allowing folks to choose either using a CDMA or GSM network; maybe even utilize CSIM/RUIM cards (if Verizon will support it).

It may come with removable radios like the x300 lenovos.

[Lepton]

As I wrote in an article recently, which some stupid rule keeps me from linking to here (but its in my profile), I believe they will have a slot. They can sell the tablet in any old store without a card in the slot, but a carrier can bundle the device with their own card and a contract, subsidizing it. This lets Apple make one model that works on any carrier. Many more predictions in the article - stylus, BT keyboard and mouse support, iChat, etc.

[cmaier]

As I wrote in an article recently, which some stupid rule keeps me from linking to here (but its in my profile), I believe they will have a slot. They can sell the tablet in any old store without a card in the slot, but a carrier can bundle the device with their own card and a contract, subsidizing it. This lets Apple make one model that works on any carrier. Many more predictions in the article - stylus, BT keyboard and mouse support, iChat, etc.

As should be apparent by now, Apple eschews slots.

[iOrlando]

Exactly! My iphone already is a pipe to the internet via cellular access why do I have to pay for another pipe when I can use the one I have?

what if att said...ok apple...we want 2 more years exclusivity...but as a sweetner..any iphone user can add this tablet to their $30 iphone data plan for no charge...

i think apple might say hmmm we might have to take you up on that

[HobeSoundDarryl]

And how would I carry it? Not on a belt clip, like my iPhone. I suppose I would have to invest in a man-purse. ;) I already have an iPhone. I already have a MacBook. I want a new device that compliments my prior purchases, not one that has redundant features.

I appreciate the problem myself. And there's more than 1000 posts in the past weekend's thread trying to figure out such issues.

But, as I imagine it, I don't have an iPhone now. I'm interested in one but I'm a tall guy with tall guy hands, always finding iPhone/Touch too small for good use every time I've worked with them. I'm hoping the 7" version also rumored is real, as that would be perfect size... even if ALL I used it for was very much iPhone-like functionality.

But even if 10" is all we get, if it covers the phone functionality need (true 3G or unhindered, mobile VOIP), then yes, it's carried in a laptop-like bag, maybe in the same bag as a laptop (like a couple of magazines or a few folders of information in another pocket.

Whether it has a phone built in or not, how are people going to carry it when not in active use? Some kind of bag/case/portfolio wrap. If it's going with you and you want hands free some of the time, that case has a shoulder strap. Man-purse here (we/you) Tablet-buyers come.

And, by the way, I have much harder time imagining people with iTunes-connected devices like existing laptops and iphones being a BIG market for this Tablet. Yours is just one of the reasons why.

[_bnkr612]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

Who would want to pay for two plans on two different devices? Certainly, swapping SIMs won't be desired.

[aegisdesign]

iPhone Bluetooth tethering is a lame duck. It's too slow. Why would you bother with Bluetooth when you've got WiFi built in to your device?

Apple needs this app on the iPhone...

Joikuspot - http://www.joikushop.com/?action=products&mode=productDetails&product_id=33

I use this all the time on my Nokia. It creates a WiFi hotspot on my phone which bridges to the 3G connection. Anything I'm carrying is never away from a WiFi network of my own.

So, if the Tablet is WiFi only, that's not a big problem and actually preferable if you've a Nokia already anyway. If you've an iPhone, well, buy a Nokia - Wifi and 3G capable Nokias with unlimited internet tariffs are £15-20 here in the UK and often cheaper than buying a USB dongle.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

There is no way, i am spending a $1,000 for a apple tablet plus a monthly data charge! This should be included! Barnes & Noble, and Amazon both include their data service @ no charge. Im sure the people at Apple could figure out a way to do it.

I strongly suspect the $1000 (or my guess of $799) is the unsubsidized (no contract) price. I'm guessing subsidies will get it down into the "shockingly low" range of $499-$599.

I can't imagine a 3G data service included except one severely limited to being used for downloading purchased content, for reasons stated in another reply (#66). In that case, much like with the products you reference, it's not actually free... you're paying for it in the (higher) price of each product you buy with it.

There will be no wide open 3G use baked into the price, unless the price was crazy high, well north of $1000. AT&T, Verizon, etc will want to fully get theirs... not cut their profit throats to help Apple sell more Tablets.

[derek1984]

No reason to think they can't offer this at a $30/month data plan like the iPhone or $15/month if you already have a data plan. The discount would keep many people with AT&T and they would still be making money they shouldn't be because of the possibilities of tethering.

[aegisdesign]

As should be apparent by now, Apple eschews slots.

Though they seem to like adding them lately - adding SD card slots to the iMac and their laptops.

If they add a slot like the iPhone SIM slot, paperclip sales will rocket. :D

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I have to believe that if this tablet is supposed to work with wireless carriers, that someone at some carrier would have leaked something by now. Apple is very tight-lipped about their products but the same security measures aren't in place at any wireless provider. Just look back at gadget sites over the past few years. Something is always leaked.

I am not in favor of a forced monthly fee. Make it a hybrid of sorts. Give me wifi only or the ability to connect it to a carrier if I choose. In my case, AT&T doesn't seem to be able to deliver consistant voice service to my iPhone, let alone a good data network. I'm nowhere near a 3G service area. So, forcing a customer like me into a monthly contract for service that I can't even get is a big deal breaker. Hopefully Steve and Co. has considered this.

I strongly suspect it will be as you are wanting it... OPTIONAL 3G contracts else WIFI (maybe (hopefully) wimax though). Of course, the issue with this will be that without the likes of a 3G company helping to pay the TOTAL price Apple wants for it, the unsubsidized prices will probably be a bit higher than anyone suspects. For example, if someone asks, "how much does an iPhone cost?" the crowd usually knows the subsidized price. Look up the unsubsidized price and then extrapolate that to this bigger-screen, even more capable Tablet.

[SteveSparks]

If it can double as a (first purchase, super-sized) iPhone, yes. As a great mobile VOIP phone (not dependent on a locked wifi location), yes. And before anyone implies I mean holding a 10" screen up to your ear, that's NOT the idea (picture dialing on your Tablet, but using your ear buds with microphone (or a wireless bluetooth headset) for your communicating- just like you can do with the iPhone now, without holding the iPhone up to your ear).

Where do you put this phone in you "car" to make calls when driving. I could see the idea at a desk but in a car, on a boat at the airport?

Too big to drive with one hand and dial with the other, do you replace your pocket sized cell phone with a tablet or do you pay two monthly fees?

I don't see tablet monthly fees as justifiable as a cell phone with tablet like features that you find in the iPhone. You need a new "can't live without" or a affordable nice to have device in a tablet. I see the "nice to have" as the one winning the game and that means affordable an really no monthly fee.

[dguisinger]

The issue here is that Verizon has slammed AT&T with a very tangible, highly resonating concept... that is true. AT&T's initial reaction was to try to prevent this message from continuing via legal means, but courts generally support truth.

So now Apple is trying to address the issue by asking: what do we do that Verizon can't. And this answer is the best they can do.

The correct solution is what has been stated many times before: beat Verizon at their own game... build a bigger network. And that would also solve several other issues such as poor reception, etc. But rather than spend money to satisfy customers, AT&T would rather try to smooth it over with advertising. From a user's point of view, that's very much the WRONG answer, but it is a much cheaper way to go.


Oh yes, because all the text messages I get when a tower upgrade in my area is completed isn't tangible network upgrades..... nor is todays announcement that their towers are all upgraded to 7.2Mbps and that the backhaul upgrades are in progress. Pull your head out of your ass unless you like the extra warmth it gives you. Just because someone advertises doesn't mean they aren't working on things you don't physically see.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I agree with you that it's unlikely. It's the direction I wish things would go, however. I'd love to see the pricing model turned on its head. Instead of having carriers subsidize the price of mobile devices, I'd much rather pay an inflated up-front price that would essentially pre-pay connectivity. Rather than having it nickel-and-dimed back out of me over the next two years. There's a time-value to money. Perhaps if you paid it in advance a discount could be offered due to 1) they'd have the revenue now and 2) no chance of cancellation over the life of the contract.

As it is now, our devices are subsidized heavily, which we pay back over the contract term. But it's not like AT&T reduces your wireless bill once you've repaid the subsidy. They continue to charge the same amount, ad infinitum.

Sure. But I bet if you really tried, you could call up say- AT&T- and get a longer-term advance prepaid plan with a discount. I don't see why a 3G provider would be against collecting the majority of the total money up front, so they would probably be willing. Sometimes, I prepay my utilities several months ahead. When next month's bill comes it is negative, meaning they owe me service and I don't need to send them a check. You can prepay subscriptions to things like satt/cable too. Just send them a big check and you'll get most of what you want (though getting a bit of a discount for doing so may take jumping through a few hoops).

And of course, when the prepayment term ends, so ends the "free" (because you prepaid it) 3G, requiring you to go again. But I'm confident you approximate this wish... if you wanted to do so.

Just to complete my thought - the Kindle has done this already. Yes, most of what you get over 3G is purchased books. But there is a web browser. That you could, in theory, use 24/7 to look at "free" content on the web. In theory.

Maybe so, but Amazon is paying for that 3G for you. If in theory, people stopped buying books for Kindle and just used the 3G for web browsing 24/7, it would only be a matter of (short) time before new fees were announced for "heavy data" users, waived in exchange for buying a certain minimum amount of books each month.

Apple could do the same thing, but you still "pay" for the 3G, just within other purchases. More simply, there is no such thing as free 3G. It is not Apples- or Amazons- call to give us free 3G. That call belongs to the companies that serve up the 3G service. And their business involves making money in exchange for serving 3G. Giving it away doesn’t work for them.

But all that said, I do share the wish, even broader than yours... wouldn't we be a much more productive society if the fundamental basics of life such as communications were free- or much nearer to free- than they are now. Do we have to have a system forever and ever that tries to charge the maximum it can get for the most basic needs in life? Wouldn't it be great if we worked as a society toward minimizing the basic costs of life for the benefit of all people, making our money in support of capitalism on the non-essentials. Or do we keep marching toward the day where we'll have an oxygen subscription fee, and similar?

[cmaier]

Though they seem to like adding them lately - adding SD card slots to the iMac and their laptops.

If they add a slot like the iPhone SIM slot, paperclip sales will rocket. :D

they take away expresscard and add sd. Hardly a slot improvement ;)

[Yvan256]

they take away expresscard and add sd. Hardly a slot improvement ;)

It's a smaller one that more people use.

[dguisinger]

It's a smaller one that more people use.

You know what I would be interested in from them? I have the 17" with express slot just in case I ever need it.

But.. what I'd rather have is an External PCIe connector (you usually don't find these on anything but high-end servers) and a docking setup that allows me to have whatever it is my heart desires sitting on a on a desk. After all, if its something specialized I want to plug in to, I most likely wouldn't need it while mobile. And External PCIe *is* a standard connector.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Where do you put this phone in you "car" to make calls when driving. I could see the idea at a desk but in a car, on a boat at the airport? Too big to drive with one hand and dial with the other, do you replace your pocket sized cell phone with a tablet or do you pay two monthly fees?

You can lay it in the seat next to you after you've dialed, then use the bluetooth headset, iphone earbuds + microphone, or even the JupiterJack-type stuff to communicate EXACTLY like you do with a cell phone. No one should be dialing cell phones while they are driving. But communicating while you are driving should work pretty much the same.

Even if the thing is 10" and the seat next to you is filled, you could lay it in the floor under your legs, tuck it under or next to the seat, etc. 10" is not that big. It should be very easy to use this as a phone assuming it comes with the technology to do so. Just think beyond needing to hold the phone in your hands to use it as a phone, and it can work very well. Pull it out of the bag or open the portfolio to touch the screen for dialing, then once you're connected it can be in the bag over your shoulder, or in the back seat, etc. Easy.

Definitely NOT 2 monthly fees. For me, it would be my first "iPhone", and thus my ONE monthly 3G fee. For those who already have an iPhone, if you want a Tablet, either you're buying an unsubsidized one at full (Apple) price, or yes, you're paying 2 monthly fees to get the subsidized price. I would think for those that want both, it will be the former most of the time. But I really think that if you have an iPhone, you'll really have to be wowed to add a Tablet too.

[TraceyS/FL]

Sure. But I bet if you really tried, you could call up say- AT&T- and get a longer-term advance prepaid plan with a discount. I don't see why a 3G provider would be against collecting the majority of the total money up front, so they would probably be willing. Sometimes, I prepay my utilities several months ahead. When next month's bill comes it is negative, meaning they owe me service and I don't need to send them a check. You can prepay subscriptions to things like satt/cable too. Just send them a big check and you'll get most of what you want (though getting a bit of a discount for doing so may take jumping through a few hoops).

HA. You have to be a LONG TIME customer to get those types of discounts. Unless the net is Sprint - and you get into "retentions". But hey, maybe that has changed recently...

AND, we did the prepaid thing (not intentional though) with Comcast, set up on an autopayment. Had a negative balance.... they raised the monthly rate. They sent letters out telling you that it was going up on such and such day so you could adjust autopayments and the like. Only, apparently, by their own admission, because we had a negative balance - THEY DIDN"T SEND US ONE.

SOOO, one Sunday we had a contractor banging on the door to disconnect the cable. Yup, because of 2 months of "shorting" them like $3. It was seriously shut off on a Sunday over $7 and change....

Sure, we should have been able to make the adjustment just by looking at the first bill. But gee, out of sight-autopayment, out of mind. The Customer Service manager also said in no way should it have been scheduled for a full disconnect over the amount - it was 2 months of shorting that kicked it. AND admitted they were at fault for NOT sending the letter to all customers.

My point being - i'm pretty sure AT&T could muck up a prepayment like Comcast did! LOL!!

[aegisdesign]

they take away expresscard and add sd. Hardly a slot improvement ;)

The last time I had a use for a PC Card or expresscard type slot other than for an SD card adaptor was 1997 adding SCSI, ethernet or wifi to a toshiba laptop.

So removing an unused slot WAS a slot improvement for some.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Oh yes, because all the text messages I get when a tower upgrade in my area is completed isn't tangible network upgrades..... nor is todays announcement that their towers are all upgraded to 7.2Mbps and that the backhaul upgrades are in progress. Pull your head out of your ass unless you like the extra warmth it gives you. Just because someone advertises doesn't mean they aren't working on things you don't physically see.

Well I've removed my head long enough to tell you that I'm sure AT&T appreciates your support. The simple facts are that Verizons 3G message is TRUE. And AT&T could aggressively spend to out-Verizon Verizon's coverage if they simply chose to do so. But instead, they choose to try to maximize value for shareholders by doing the least amount of infrastructure building they can get away with while trying to collect as much revenue as they can. If lots of people in- say- NYC can't get consistently good coverage... or even connect... well that's just too bad for them. The shareholders like profits... even if the profits come at the expense of customer satisfaction.

It's great that AT&T does spend some money on their infrastructure and upgrades. Maybe that will someday help them rank higher than LAST in customer satisfaction of U.S. carriers. I find no fault with AT&T for trying to make the most from doing the least they possibly can. That is... unfortunately... the system we choose to live within. But defending them as you are doing implies you work for/with them, or otherwise don't experience some of the miseries that others using their network do. Either way, congratulations.

[ct2k7]

Whoever said the concept of a tablet (pc) is for internet use is wrong, but is more rather the main concept and reason for netbooks.

[dguisinger]

Well I've removed my head long enough to tell you that I'm sure AT&T appreciates your support. The simple facts are that Verizons 3G message is TRUE. And AT&T could aggressively spend to out Verizon, Verizon's coverage if they chose to do so. But instead, they choose to try to maximize value of shareholders by doing the least amount of infrastructure building while trying to collect as much revenue as they can. If lots of people in- say- NYC can't get consistently good coverage... or even connect... well that's just too bad for them. The shareholders like profits... even if the profits come at the expense of customer satisfaction.

It's great that AT&T does spend some money on their infrastructure and upgrades. Maybe that will someday help them rank higher than LAST in customer satisfaction of U.S. carriers. I find no fault with AT&T for trying to make the most from doing the least they possibly can. That is... unfortunately... the system we choose to live within. But defending them as you are doing implies you work for/with them, or otherwise don't experience some of the miseries that others using their network do. Either way, congratulations.

You obviously don't understand cell phone technology enough to realize congested networks in congested areas are tough to fix without more available spectrum from the FCC. I'll stick with reality, you can stick with kissing a Verizon executives ass and keep your pompous attitudes.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

My point being - i'm pretty sure AT&T could muck up a prepayment like Comcast did! LOL!!

I can completely appreciate your pain. When dealing with the devils (these near-monopoly Goliaths) why should individuals like us expect anything less? Perhaps some day a bunch of David's will rise up and slay these Goliaths?

[dguisinger]

I can completely appreciate your pain. When dealing with the devils (these near-monopoly Goliaths) why should individuals like us expect anything less? Perhaps some day a bunch of David's will rise up and slay these Goliaths?

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

[rnizlek]

I can completely appreciate your pain. When dealing with the devils (these near-monopoly Goliaths) why should individuals like us expect anything less? Perhaps some day a bunch of David's will rise up and slay these Goliaths?

Well, it's not easy. We did it where I lived - the city started it's own telecom provider and ran fiber to 95% of all the premises in the city (Burlington Telecom (http://www.burlingtontelecom.net)). Of course, now it's under attack from local politicians who are trying to kill it for their political gain after the present administration gave it a loan out of the city's general fund without asking anyone. Who knows if it's going to survive the political firestorm, but it would really be a shame if it didn't. BT really gives every other provider in the area a run for it's money.

A few other places are trying this sort of thing, also. But most people in this country would cry foul if one's local government tried to start providing telecom services. That's why I live where I do.

[can.rules]

Link to story:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143107/Apple_s_tablet_will_use_Verizon_s_3G_network_sources_say



This is just ridiculous. Why would you want 3g connectivity on a tablet when you can tether it via Bluetooth through the iPhone you already have? Don't have an iPhone you say, apple will gladly sell you one.

Verizon is not going to happen. Maybe eventually you'll be able to tether through an android or bb, but I wouldn't hold my breath as you cannot tether and talk at the same time.

[rnizlek]

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

I don't think that was his point at all. I could be wrong. AT&T has done well by me and I'm actually very satisfied with the level of service they've provided by me.

But I think in other areas (maybe not wireless providers, but certainly providers like Comcast) there are alternatives if people want to pursue them. Giant public corporations that are only out there to make a buck for shareholders aren't the only way to provide connectivity to this country. See my post above.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

Hmmm... an AT&T fanboy. As far as I know you are the first.

No, I think of Verizon exactly the same as I think of AT&T... both are Devils, ripping off the public with a service that should be much less costly than it is. You don't have retail kiosks every block stocked by employees, and multiple outlets in every mall (sometimes 2 or three from either of these guys in the same mall) if the profits on these services is not sky high (which is also more tangibly evidenced in their financial reports).

My point is that BOTH could deliver substantially better service... for substantially lower prices if their focus was more Apple-like in trying to delight their customers. You've chosen to take a response I posted personally (do you work for/with AT&T?), when you can roll through hundreds of threads on this and other sites praising the iPhone and uniformly finding fault with the iPhone service provider. Put any 10 iPhone users in a room and ask them what is the #1 thing they would change, and I bet YOU would then be calling the majority of them "trolls".

Had Apple gone with Verizon instead of AT&T, would things have been any much better? Probably not.

I'm with neither carrier, and dread the day I have to go with one or the other for service, as I know it is a relative ripoff either way. But based on what I've read from iPhone users, it sure seems like an awful lot of them dream about the day that they can have a choice of carrier beyond AT&T.

[TraceyS/FL]

See now I get it Darryl, you just are anti-AT&T no matter what the problem is. Notice the guy said it got fixed and they apologized and said it was their fault - so AT&T fixed it and you still say they have to rise up against them. I'm sure Verizon and Verizon Wireless are just so much less evil and monopolistic and so much less dedicated to their shareholders. Hypocrite. (Or Troll)

1. woman. not a guy :D

2. it was Comcast - not AT&T.

I haven't dealt with AT&T since they tried to convince us to switch to them.... telling us that the rate Verizon (GTE Mobilnet) was giving us was a lie - despite seeing it in print on the bill, AND, it didn't matter if they didn't have coverage off the highway in 1/2 of our working area. Because - you normally find farm fields right along the highway ;)

That AT&T Salesperson left a pretty bad impression.... rude and obnoxious. And while a couple of people doesn't represent everyone in a company - it wasn't the way to go about attempting to get a $15k+/mo plus account either (which would have been $25k at the rates they offered). It has carried forward for years - and was echoed in other attempts at dealing with them.... nope, no AT&T for me.

ANYWAY, just wanted to clear that up :cool:

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Well, it's not easy. We did it where I lived - the city started it's own telecom provider and ran fiber to 95% of all the premises in the city (Burlington Telecom (http://www.burlingtontelecom.net)). Of course, now it's under attack from local politicians who are trying to kill it for their political gain after the present administration gave it a loan out of the city's general fund without asking anyone. Who knows if it's going to survive the political firestorm, but it would really be a shame if it didn't. BT really gives every other provider in the area a run for it's money.

A few other places are trying this sort of thing, also. But most people in this country would cry foul if one's local government tried to start providing telecom services. That's why I live where I do.

Yes, you generally don't want bigger government to be the alternative. What is desperately needed is more competition. However the Goliaths (who pull the strings of those politicians by the way) don't want more competition. Few competitors keep prices higher through direct or indirect price collusion.

Notice that when any small competitor pops up and gains some ground on similar good service at lower prices, they get gobbled up in an acquisition. What was the last fairly big one? Alcatel or something like that?

Recently, the digital TV transition freed up a bunch of very valuable spectrum perfect for cell phone use. We, the people, own that spectrum, and it was auctioned off to the highest bidders on our behalf. Guess who got the vast majority of it? Yes, these same Goliaths. I was a bit excited ahead of the auction to hear rumors that both Apple and Google were interested in bidding on it. But in the end the same players gobble it up. No new competition, and thus no new pressure to deliver great service at lower prices.

[dguisinger]

Hmmm... an AT&T fanboy. As far as I know you are the first.

No, I think of Verizon exactly the same as I think of AT&T... both are Devils, ripping off the public with a service that should be much less costly than it is. You don't have retail kiosks every block stocked by employees, and multiple outlets in every mall (sometimes 2 or three from either of these guys in the same mall) if the profits on these services is not sky high (which is also more tangibly evidenced in their financial reports).

My point is that BOTH could deliver substantially better service... for substantially lower prices if their focus was more Apple-like in trying to delight their customers. You've chosen to take a response I posted personally (do you work for/with AT&T?), when you can roll through hundreds of threads on this and other sites praising the iPhone and uniformly finding fault with the iPhone service provider. Put any 10 iPhone users in a room and ask them what is the #1 thing they would change, and I bet YOU would then be calling the majority of them "trolls".

Had Apple gone with Verizon instead of AT&T, would things have been any much better? Probably not.

I'm with neither carrier, and dread the day I have to go with one or the other for service, as I know it is a relative ripoff either way. But based on what I've read from iPhone users, it sure seems like an awful lot of them dream about the day that they can have a choice of carrier beyond AT&T.

I agree things would not be better if Apple had gone with Verizon. No, I don't work for cell carriers thank god.

I do get tired however of all the pissing and moaning by people who don't administer cell phone networks claiming the networks are doing nothing. It takes years to get extra spectrum space (which then means, sorry to say it, you need new cell phones to support the extra bands). It takes a long time to verify and upgrade tens of thousands of towers. I would think it costs a lot more than you think, marketing expenses are minor compared to the sudden increase in network expenses AT&T is likely facing after the iPhone. They would market no matter what because all companies do.

It just appears to me you are unfairly being the opposite of what you are accusing me of. You accuse me of carrying water for AT&T, whereas I accuse you of the exact opposite from all your posts in this thread.

Am I happy with my service with AT&T? Sure, in Minneapolis the service is great. Everyone knows service varies around the country. I've used T-Mobile and Sprint PCS as well. I have to say of the 3, I will *never* do business with Sprint again... but everyone's milage will vary depending on the reps they deal with and what their local coverage is like.

Which is why I go back to my original point - just because you don't physically see their upgrade process with your own eyes don't mean they aren't working around the clock to fix it, and doesn't mean they are worse than anyone else.

Which you seem to have confirmed part of that point in your last response with what we apparently do agree on - that none of the carriers probably would have handled a massive explosion of data traffic well.

[TraceyS/FL]

I don't think that was his point at all. I could be wrong. AT&T has done well by me and I'm actually very satisfied with the level of service they've provided by me.

But I think in other areas (maybe not wireless providers, but certainly providers like Comcast) there are alternatives if people want to pursue them. Giant public corporations that are only out there to make a buck for shareholders aren't the only way to provide connectivity to this country. See my post above.

In our area - it's Comcast for internet or Embarq/CenturyLink?/Sprint for DSL.

The DSL offerings have improved recently speedwise, but we needed more than the DSL was bringing us. It's a rural area - i get my cable on a wire on a pole still..... probably NOT high on the list for fiber.

But, there needs to be the option for competition from other companies. The Cities/Towns get paid big money for keeping things as exclusive providers..... UGH. i just don't have time to take on the political side of things right now, or i would try!

[dguisinger]

1. woman. not a guy :D

2. it was Comcast - not AT&T.

I haven't dealt with AT&T since they tried to convince us to switch to them.... telling us that the rate Verizon (GTE Mobilnet) was giving us was a lie - despite seeing it in print on the bill, AND, it didn't matter if they didn't have coverage off the highway in 1/2 of our working area. Because - you normally find farm fields right along the highway ;)

That AT&T Salesperson left a pretty bad impression.... rude and obnoxious. And while a couple of people doesn't represent everyone in a company - it wasn't the way to go about attempting to get a $15k+/mo plus account either (which would have been $25k at the rates they offered). It has carried forward for years - and was echoed in other attempts at dealing with them.... nope, no AT&T for me.

ANYWAY, just wanted to clear that up :cool:

haha, oops and oops
Actually... in our area Comcast came from MediaOne. Wasn't MediaOne part of a AT&T joint venture at one point? ;)

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This is just ridiculous. Why would you want 3g connectivity on a tablet when you can tether it via Bluetooth through the iPhone you already have? Don't have an iPhone you say, apple will gladly sell you one.

Or get 3G functionality in this Tablet and then you can use it as a phone, so you don't have to carry both with you. Oh, and 3G is the ONLY way to be able to have always-on internet access as you are traveling about. So if this thing is a "mobility" solution so we can buy a new e-Magazine, or download iTunes media whenever we want it, we'll need something more dependable than wifi only as an (optional) source of internet service.

I appreciate those with iPhones not wanting to pay the bit extra for this thing to have 3G hardware inside. But again, I don't believe Apple is building this to sell to just iPhone users. I think they are chasing the netbook market, and probably the e-book (and mobile media) market too. It seems having an always-available internet connection as a built-in option makes the Tablet a maximum appeal product. Requiring an iPhone purchase to achieve this makes it even more expensive vs. the netbooks/ebook readers/etc against which it is perceived to be competing.

What do you think? If they build in optional 3G service hardware that it adds hundreds to the cost? Far from it. And another way to look at it is this: if they DON'T build 3G hardware into the Tablet such that there is no option for AT&T, Verizon or similar to chip in (via a contract subsidy) toward the TOTAL price Apple will want for it, are you ready to pay up for the full Tablet price (even if you don't already have an iPhone)? It just makes good business and marketing sense to build it in as an option, so they can actually deliver on the "shocking low price" rumors also attached to this device.

[dguisinger]

In our area - it's Comcast for internet or Embarq/CenturyLink?/Sprint for DSL.

The DSL offerings have improved recently speedwise, but we needed more than the DSL was bringing us. It's a rural area - i get my cable on a wire on a pole still..... probably NOT high on the list for fiber.

But, there needs to be the option for competition from other companies. The Cities/Towns get paid big money for keeping things as exclusive providers..... UGH. i just don't have time to take on the political side of things right now, or i would try!

Now thats a crappy situation to be in - the cost of running cable in a remote area isn't cheap when you think of the per-capita ratio.

[MacFly123]

IF this ends up being true, then we will see a Verizon iPhone this year some time. If they have already tested the chips in the Tablet for Verizon's network and baked it into iPhone OS 4.0, then there will be little to do to implement the same thing on the iPhone itself!

I just hope it is NOT required to have a data plan because I don't want another expensive bill like my iPhone every month. I would just wanna use the iSlate with WIFI mostly at home! Also, I hope that without a data plan and subsidizing that it will still be a reasonable price around $600 or so!

[TraceyS/FL]

Now thats a crappy situation to be in - the cost of running cable in a remote area isn't cheap when you think of the per-capita ratio.

It's actually really strange... because we are rural, but "in town". But ya, that Tornado a few years ago? Wiped all my neighbors out.... it was a fight for a few days to get Comcast (and heck, even Progress Energy) to run our wire. We were going to be the ONLY customer on the drop for a long time.

So given the logistics of it all - i'm pretty sure short of moving, i'll NEVER have fiber run back here (because, who is paying for the 600 foot run to the house from the street? to ONE house?)

Sigh.....

[HobeSoundDarryl]

IF this ends up being true, then we will see a Verizon iPhone this year some time. If they have already tested the chips in the Tablet for Verizon's network and baked it into iPhone OS 4.0, then there will be little to do to implement the same thing on the iPhone itself!

I just hope it is NOT required to have a data plan because I don't want another expensive bill like my iPhone every month. I would just wanna use the iSlate with WIFI mostly at home! Also, I hope that without a data plan and subsidizing that it will still be a reasonable price around $600 or so!

I strongly believe the data plan will be optional. That way those with an existing data plan device can buy a Tablet and not feel they are getting it 2 ways from a wireless carrier. However, I also believe that the unsubsidized price will be much higher than $600, partially because this thing is supposed to be an iPhone+, bigger screen, more functionality, etc and you can look up the unsubsidized pricing of the iPhone to understand the point. My guess is $799 unsubsidized on the low end, and $999 is pretty easy to imagine too.

[aegisdesign]

This is just ridiculous. Why would you want 3g connectivity on a tablet when you can tether it via Bluetooth through the iPhone you already have?

Because it's faster.

3G connectivity gives you theoretical speeds of 3.6Mbps or sometimes 7.2Mbps in some areas of the USA or up to 14.4Mbps in much of Europe. Subtract some overhead and I can usually count on 4-5Mbps in the UK.

Bluetooth 2.x +EDR give you 3Mbps theoretically.

In theory and usually in practice, a direct 3G connection will usually be quicker than a tethered Bluetooth connection. I've not got an iPhone so I don't know if the iPhone has a fast Bluetooth connection.

Secondly, if you've got WiFi in your device, even 802.11b is quicker than Bluetooth.

My direct experience of using both on a Nokia E71 which supports tethering via Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, 802.11b/g wifi and even USB is that Bluetooth is a third of the speed of wifi or USB generally. Both wifi and USB are faster than the 3G connection so it makes no difference which I choose other than obviously with the E71 running as an ad-hoc hotspot I can run multiple wifi connected devices rather than just one on the USB cable. More practically, it's dead easy to use existing wifi networking than installing USB drivers and pairing bluetooth devices.

Apple needs to add WiFi tethering to the iPhone.

[MikeDTyke]

I have to believe that if this tablet is supposed to work with wireless carriers, that someone at some carrier would have leaked something by now. Apple is very tight-lipped about their products but the same security measures aren't in place at any wireless provider. Just look back at gadget sites over the past few years. Something is always leaked.


As long as the other rumours of a Jan Launch and March shipping, there's time to validate the hardware on their partners networks.

At the moment, the only people at the cell companies that need to know are upper mgmt and sales who'll be looking at the pricing and perhaps marketing looking at how it should be positioned.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So given the logistics of it all - i'm pretty sure short of moving, i'll NEVER have fiber run back here (because, who is paying for the 600 foot run to the house from the street? to ONE house?) Sigh.....

Here's the thing though, very few have more than 2 competitors for services like broadband and phone. I live in one of the richest counties in the U.S. and have a total choice of just 2 carriers for broadband & phone. That's the trick. Buy out- or crush- any little upstarts that starts gaining some "lower price" traction and you can hold pricing for broadband at $24-49+ per month. Those wires are already run. The infrastructure to deliver broadband or phone to any given house already connected is not a massive cost to these companies. There's a lot of room for margin trimming to benefit users.

However, when you have only 2 competitors, it's pretty easy for both to settle in on certain minimum prices and not feel the need to battle each other on permanent price reductions (effectively lowering their own price over time as well). That's how we get conditioned that something like broadband internet should cost about $24-49+ per month, or cell phone contracts should generally cost what they cost.

Competition yields drives for volume plays, which is how prices for the same kinds of service can come down. AT&T learned the hardest possible way that a monopoly will not be tolerated, resulting in their breakup back in the 80's. Over time though, they've merged their way back to a near-monopoly, avoiding going all the way for risk of being broken up again, yet getting it close enough that there is generally only 1 other competitor for key services like broadband.

And of course, they've learned to better play the political game so that the government- whether dems or republicans- do not block acquisitions of smaller players delivering better prices to individual users. That maintains the status quo of higher prices, with little pressure to deliver better service or lower prices to end users.

Even very densely populated cities where you would think there would be dozens of choices for these kinds of services, generally have just a few real options.

[TraceyS/FL]

Even very densely populated cities where you would think there would be dozens of choices for these kinds of services, generally have just a few real options.

Oh i know - i'm from CA, haven't lived here in the sticks but for 6 years now! We had Comcast and Verizon out there for phone & cable.

Doesn't make it any righter - just that here, with my small town government, the odds of ever getting more choice is about.... nil. The town to the south of us has their own power company. I'm thankful that i don't live there because their bills are almost twice what ours our apparently. I'll keep progress energy thank you very much.

The most recent area i was shocked to see how much a company paid to allow them to provide service was Waste Management. Ye gads....

I wish i had time to tackle it, but i have a Special needs child that goes to therapy 3 times a week out of town - i just have too much on the plate right now.

The rebuilding of the Bell monopoly is scary to think about - so i tend to not think about it.... LOL!!

[derek1984]

From what we have gathered, Apple is making this a truly unique "mobile" experience. In order to access the App Store and iTunes, you need an internet connection and wifi is not always available. No way they don't make this without an option for 3G.

Only question is how much will it cost and will Verizon take part?

[MikeDTyke]

The kindle provides limited 3G networking for the purpose of downloading books/journals. It also allows limited browsing of wikipedia and some blogs. EDIT TO MAKE IT CLEARER (Kindle embeds the cost of 3G into the price of the download, browsing of the amazon store, wikipedia and the limited blogs it allows access to appear on the face of it to be included in the up front cost)

What if Apple partially adopted this. So when you buy the iSlate, there's no cellular contract, but it's connected to 1 or other cellular network, ideally your preferred one that has the best coverage. When you buy something from iTunes, the cost to download it is embedded in the charge made to you. ie. instead of £0.79 for a song, you get it for £0.89. To rent a movie would be say £3.49 rather than £2.99.

The same with the rumoured periodicals, the cost to deliver is embedded in the subscription.

Now lets say you wanted to look up a website, rather than impose a monthly fee, though that could be an option. What if you could make a small micropayment say £0.50 for 24hrs, or you payed a reasonable amount per megabyte you were downloading. After all the majority of iSlate customers already have an iTunes account and are accustomed to making small payments for instant gratification. If it's all handled through iTunes, you have a slick already setup payment stream.

Now we all expect and like the idea of pulling out our iPhone and going to any website we feel like, but we pay a premium for that privilege. Would Apple be able to convince us that micropayments are the way to go for the tablet?

Some example pricing, just to get people thinking, note i may be over estimating the charges and underestimating Apple's ability to negotiate a good deal.

Al a carte
Purchase price = £599
Download of tune = £0.89 (10p more)
Download of rental movie = £3.49 (50p more, yes i know it's not proportional)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £23.99 (embedded cost of delivery)
24 Hrs browsing = £0.50 (250MB cap probably) or
1 Megabyte = £0.05

Subsidized model
Purchase price = £399
Monthly data charge 24mth contract = £15.99
Download of tune = £0.79 (perhaps with some free tunes/month)
Download of rental movie = £2.99 (perhaps with a free couple of rentals)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £21.59 (delivery not charged + free samples)
Browsing = included in the deal

When you are on a wifi network the prices in iTunes automatically change to reflect the standard rates we see on a PC or Mac. Perhaps they'll have some neat way of making it obvious that there's a delivery charge on 3G.

Anyway, food for thought.

M. :D

[MacFly123]

I strongly believe the data plan will be optional. That way those with an existing data plan device can buy a Tablet and not feel they are getting it 2 ways from a wireless carrier. However, I also believe that the unsubsidized price will be much higher than $600, partially because this thing is supposed to be an iPhone+, bigger screen, more functionality, etc and you can look up the unsubsidized pricing of the iPhone to understand the point. My guess is $799 unsubsidized on the low end, and $999 is pretty easy to imagine too.

I see your point, but I really hope you are wrong! There was that one rumor from Digg saying we will be shocked how low the price will be. Again, just more waiting to find out. :(

[TraceyS/FL]

Now lets say you wanted to look up a website, rather than impose a monthly fee, though that could be an option. What if you could make a small micropayment say £0.50 for 24hrs, or you payed a reasonable amount per megabyte you were downloading. After all the majority of iSlate customers already have an iTunes account and are accustomed to making small payments for instant gratification. If it's all handled through iTunes, you have a slick already setup payment stream.

I'm there.

And here in the US i think it would take a company such as Apple to do this - and break away from the carrier based "crap".

Right now if i want to buy a mifi and have daily usege.... it's like $15 for a day. Yuck.

I'd like to see Apple do this.... in some shape or form anyway. Perhaps even a, here is our device. It contains a radio for connection over GSM/CMDA/_____ . Who you go to provide that service is up to you, however we here at Apple have neogiated with XYZ to bring you data service for the low price of $__.

Then the companies that you use already - can try to get THOSE dollars from you.

Competition and shake up in the wireless world....

Oh gee, am i awake? I must stop daydreaming huh? LOL!

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Now lets say you wanted to look up a website, rather than impose a monthly fee, though that could be an option. What if you could make a small micropayment say £0.50 for 24hrs, or you payed a reasonable amount per megabyte you were downloading. After all the majority of iSlate customers already have an iTunes account and are accustomed to making small payments for instant gratification. If it's all handled through iTunes, you have a slick already setup payment stream.

Those are great ideas. I'm sure many people would love a pay-as-you-use-it structure. For example, I really need wide open 3G when I travel for business. But when I'm at home, I don't need it at all. So I would love to be able to own a 3G tablet or iPhone with a pay-when-I-need-it 3G service.

However, while that would work great for me... and you... and pretty much everyone else... who wouldn't want it to be that way? The big companies in charge of 3G, who very much like us paying a monthly rate whether we use it enough to get full value out of each month or not.

It's so tough to watch the collision of what would be best for the customers vs. what is best for the shareholders, when those two are not in sync (which is increasingly common in a system where companies can be "to be too big to fail"... but then not broken up after they are saved). Prices of 3G could be much lower... and would be much lower if capitalism was properly fueled with the fading piece that makes it work: there needs to be a good number of competitors for any given product or service. As soon as we allow there to be just one or two providers of anything, capitalism fails in what it should deliver for the customer end (though it is claimed a capitalism victory for those on the shareholder end as pseudo-monopolies find it easy to maintain and/or raise prices when there is little to no choice for the market but pay up).

For something as basic as communications, the one choice we still fully have that doesn't give into the game being played upon us by the pseudo-monopoly Goliaths (to not buy) shouldn't be the best choice. To stick it to AT&T by switching to Verizon (or vice versa) accomplishes almost nothing in terms of a noticably better customer experience.

And neither of them would be interested in a plan that would keep a lot of money in end-user pockets (such as these pay-as-you-use-it concepts) at the expense of the locked in monthly subscription contract model so lucrative "as is" now.

[derek1984]

I see your point, but I really hope you are wrong! There was that one rumor from Digg saying we will be shocked how low the price will be. Again, just more waiting to find out. :(


I'd guess $799 for wifi only and $1099 for a 2 year 3G contract with AT&T.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I see your point, but I really hope you are wrong! There was that one rumor from Digg saying we will be shocked how low the price will be. Again, just more waiting to find out. :(

I believe that rumor. But, unfortunately, the shocking low price is the subsidized price. Apple still gets paid the same... just with AT&T, Verizon, etc chipping in on the amount above the "shockingly low" price*

*with 24-month contract.

I'd call a device as impressive as the iPhone a shockingly low priced device too (until you factor in the TOTAL price with the contract if you buy it at the shockingly low price, instead of paying up for the unsubsidized version).

[MikeDTyke]

Those are great ideas. I'm sure many people would love a pay-as-you-use-it structure. For example, I really need wide open 3G when I travel for business. But when I'm at home, I don't need it at all. So I would love to be able to own a 3G tablet or iPhone with a pay-when-I-need-it 3G service.

However, while that would work great for me... and you... and pretty much everyone else... who wouldn't want it to be that way? The big companies in charge of 3G, who very much like us paying a monthly rate whether we use it enough to get full value out of each month or not.

It's so tough to watch the collision of what would be best for the customers vs. what is best for the shareholders, when those two are not in sync (which is increasingly common as companies area allowed to be too big to fail... but then not broken up after they are saved. Prices of 3G could be much lower... and would be much lower if capitalism was fueled by the idea that there needs to be a good number of competitors for any given product or service. As soon as we allow there to be just one or two providers of anything, capitalism fails in what it should deliver for the customer end (though it is claimed a capitalism victory for those on the shareholder end as pseudo-monopolies find it easy to maintain and/or raise prices when there is little to no choice for the market but pay up).

For something as basic as communications, the one choice we still fully have that doesn't give into the game being played by the pseudo-monopoly Goliaths (to not buy) shouldn't be the best choice. To show AT&T by switching to Verizon (or vice versa) accomplishes almost nothing in terms of a noticably better customer experience.

And neither of them would be interested in a plan that would keep a lot of money in end-user pockets (such as these pay-as-you-use-it concepts) at the expense of the locked in monthly subscription contract model so lucrative "as is" now.

Your argument is pretty sound, however sprint have already conceded edit - a per download deal for Amazon's kindle, and AT&T for the nook. (Am i right, some website claimed AT&T was the provider for the nook?)

I think it's getting to that point were a large customer like Apple can beat the cell companies into some middle ground of common sense.

M. :)

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Your argument is pretty sound, however sprint have already conceded this for Amazon, and AT&T for the nook. (Am i right, some website claimed AT&T was the provider for the nook?)

I think it's getting to that point were a large customer like Apple can beat the cell companies into some middle ground of common sense.

M. :)

As mentioned elsewhere (several times) in this thread, the Kindle "free 3G" is not free... you are paying for it with each book purchase. The free 3G experience beyond book buying & downloading is extremely limited on the Kindle.

The assumption for this Tablet is wide open internet access, services, etc- just like the iPhone, but maybe somewhat more than the iPhone. You can't do that on the "free 3G" in the Kindle or Nook. And even if you tried, it wouldn't be long until "free" would be replaced by "heavy user" fees and/or higher media fees.

There is no free 3G. Apple & Amazon are not tapping into a free source of 3G communications by their own choosing. Amazon made a deal for that kind of access and pays it for Kindle users by charging extra for the books those user's buy.

The concept of this Tablet is that you won't have to buy ANYTHING from iTunes to still use it in many desirable ways. If you can assume that is true, then SOMEBODY has to pay for the 3G (if it has it). Else, even $1000 price is probably not high enough if Apple is going to pay it for us (unless, maybe, they make each Tablet self-destruct in approx. month 16 or so)

[MikeDTyke]

As mentioned elsewhere (several times) in this thread, the Kindle "free 3G" is not free... you are paying for it with each book purchase. The free 3G experience beyond book buying & downloading is extremely limited on the Kindle.

There is no free 3G. Apple & Amazon are not tapping into a free source of 3G communications by their own choosing. Amazon made a deal for that kind of access and pays it for Kindle users by charging extra for the books those user's buy.

Did you read my post? Its whole premise is on Apple charging you extra on a download for the 3G cost. My additional point was in response to you assertion that cellular companies wouldn't take such a deal as they prefer the monthly upfront charge. I was just saying they took that deal from Amazon and B&N, why wouldn't they take a similar deal from Apple?

Fixed my post so there's less chance of confusion

[iphones4evry1]

I want a Wi-Fi only tablet. I already pay a monthly bill for my iPhone. I don't need another monthly bill. I want a Tablet with Wi-Fi only. (maybe I can figure out a way to connect it to my iPhone's data connection)

[psingh01]

How do you answer your phone when the sim is in the slate.

The thing a lot of people need to remember on here is, that a vast majority of mobile phone users don't have data service on their contract. They use their phones for calling people and txting.

Maybe their happy enough to leave the phone to do something simple really well and then have a slate or a laptop for email/browsing etc.

I think we'll see the slate with the cellular modem built in (dongles currently cost about £20 on payg), so integrating the chip without the flash memory/case and other gubbins should be pretty damn cheap.

Then the option is buy the tablet at full price and use it with wifi only, with the option to add a sim later. Add tethering to an existing mobile contract or buy the tablet discounted from a mobile company subsidized by a data contract.

M.

may not be a solution for everyone, but i'm quite happy ignoring the phone while i surf on the tablet.

if the tablet has phone hardware built in then all the better. i can make calls with a headset+tablet :D

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Did you read my post? Its whole premise is on Apple charging you extra on a download for the 3G cost. My additional point was in response to you assertion that cellular companies wouldn't take such a deal as they prefer the monthly upfront charge. I was just saying they took that deal from Amazon and B&N, why wouldn't they take a similar deal from Apple?

Fixed my post so there's less chance of confusion

OK, sorry about the confusion. To the latter piece, I wouldn't say the cell phone companies were pushed into the deal with Amazon & B&N... it's not really that great of a deal for Amazon and B&N- they have to pay for an unknown variable... just how much 3G will each e-Book owner use for the life of this device. The structure of it is that 3G is barely used- almost entirely in a transactional event resulting in a digital download.

Can Apple make this same deal? Sure. Should they? Sure. But my assumptions run that many interested in buying this Tablet want to heavily use the internet connection for purposes beyond buying iTunes media. If there is no iTunes transactions for many Tablet users, then Apple just eats the cost of paying for their 3G access. I just don't see that happening.

So, unless this Tablet is far more limited in what it can do (very much like a Kindle, and not very much like an iPhone/Touch), somebody pays for the internet connection. And if it is a 3G connection, it seems it would have to be more like a classic 3G contract, Mifi-type deal, or similar. Whether we pay a monthly fee to Apple (who then pays it to 3G partners) or we pay it directly to an AT&T, Verizon, etc. simply shouldn't make that much of a difference.

For anyone who will do their general internet access via wifi, but want to occasionally buy some iTunes media via 3G, this Amazon system would be great, and I hope it is included in the Tablet too.

[AidenShaw]

I want a Wi-Fi only tablet. I already pay a monthly bill for my iPhone. I don't need another monthly bill. I want a Tablet with Wi-Fi only. (maybe I can figure out a way to connect it to my iPhone's data connection)

Or, you want a tablet without a forced 3G dataplan.

Most laptops with 3G radios come without a plan. If you don't want 3G, there's no monthly payment. If you do, you sign up with a carrier.

Verizon even has "pay as you go" plan to buy 3G by the day/week/month if you occasionally want 3G. (http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=products_prepaidmb)

[dguisinger]

OK, sorry about the confusion. To the latter piece, I wouldn't say the cell phone companies were pushed into the deal with Amazon & B&N... it's not really that great of a deal for Amazon and B&N- they have to pay for an unknown variable... just how much 3G will each e-Book owner use for the life of this device. The structure of it is that 3G is barely used- almost entirely in a transactional event resulting in a digital download.

Can Apple make this same deal? Sure. Should they? Sure. But my assumptions run that many interested in buying this Tablet want to heavily use the internet connection for purposes beyond buying iTunes media. If there is no iTunes transactions for many Tablet users, then Apple just eats the cost of paying for their 3G access. I just don't see that happening.

So, unless this Tablet is far more limited in what it can do (very much like a Kindle, and not very much like an iPhone/Touch), somebody pays for the internet connection. And if it is a 3G connection, it seems it would have to be more like a classic 3G contract, Mifi-type deal, or similar. Whether we pay a monthly fee to Apple (who then pays it to 3G partners) or we pay it directly to an AT&T, Verizon or simply shouldn't make that much of a difference.

For someone who will do their general internet access via wifi, but want to occasionally buy some iTunes media via 3G, this Amazon system would be great, and I hope it is included in the Tablet too.

I'd have to agree with that statement... as a Amazon Kindle owner, I would never try using it for the web. eInk is way too slow at this time to make it useful, I even cringe when reading books sometimes. If the tablet has a real display, which is likely, then a traditional 3G contract is more likely.

[MikeDTyke]

Can Apple make this same deal? Sure. Should they? Sure. But my assumptions run that many interested in buying this Tablet want to heavily use the internet connection for purposes beyond buying iTunes media. If there is no iTunes transactions for many Tablet users, then Apple just eats the cost of paying for their 3G access. I just don't see that happening.

So, unless this Tablet is far more limited in what it can do (very much like a Kindle, and not very much like an iPhone/Touch), somebody pays for the internet connection. And if it is a 3G connection, it seems it would have to be more like a classic 3G contract, Mifi-type deal, or similar. Whether we pay a monthly fee to Apple (who then pays it to 3G partners) or we pay it directly to an AT&T, Verizon or simply shouldn't make that much of a difference.

For someone who will do their general internet access via wifi, but want to occasionally buy some iTunes media via 3G, this Amazon system would be great, and I hope it is included in the Tablet too.

That's why i believe there's the dual option of 3G payg for the iSlates that predominantly stay at home and a subsidized model with unlimited 3G (God, that's a joke right there, false advertising i calls it).

The difference between failure and success is the cost Apple negotiates with the carriers for payg daily or per megabyte. Currently in the UK i can get 24hrs on T-Mobile for about £2 a day payg. If Apple can get that or better then i think we have a winner.

No one expects to get 3G for FREE, but perhaps Apple will take it on the chin for email downloads of a reasonable size and browsing the iTunes store. Everthing else is either payg or a monthly contract.

M. :D

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That's why i believe there's the dual option of 3G payg for the iSlates that predominantly stay at home and a subsidized model with unlimited 3G (God, that's a joke right there, false advertising i calls it).

The difference between failure and success is the cost Apple negotiates with the carriers for payg daily or per megabyte. Currently in the UK i can get 24hrs on T-Mobile for about £2 a day payg. If Apple can get that or better then i think we have a winner.

No one expects to get 3G for FREE, but perhaps Apple will take it on the chin for email downloads of a reasonable size and browsing the iTunes store. Everthing else is either payg or a monthly contract.

M. :D

Generally, I'm with you on this. But (maybe I'm confused again), this reads like you are envisioning a cheaper "open" 3G option. By open, I mean not doing Kindle-like 3G stuff like buying something from iTunes, but using Safari, or making VOIP calls, etc. If so, I just don't see that at all. The 3G controllers don't win by giving us 3G when we need it at a lot cheaper rates than it costs us to have it even when we don't need it. Do that and EVERYONE should switch to the "as you need it" plan, even dump their 3G phone contract for data only, and enjoy 3G everywhere mobile VOIP instead. Huge savings for consumers!

I'd love to see that happen... it would be great for end users like you & me. But there's NO incentive at all of the 3G providers to give Apple a better 3G option than those they sell themselves.

I can easily picture a wifi only Tablet capable of 3G connections for iTunes content transactions (with no contract, nor monthly fee). That would be very Kindle like. As soon as the 3G becomes a bit more- like your Tmobile daily rate probably offers- then it is a better deal to have your 3G experience through this device rather than paying AT&T or Verizon, etc in a monthly contract. I just can't see why AT&T, Verizon, etc would want to do that.

If Apple had the power to motivate a lower price for (beyond transactional) 3G service, it would already exist in the iPhone offers.

I speculate there will be 2 options for this Tablet:
1. Subsidized (with contract) for a "shockingly low" price
2. Unsubsidized (no contract) for a higher price (my guess $799). I can easily imagine the Kindle-like transaction 3G as a part of this (applying only to purchases via iTunes though).

Apple could roll out some kind of iTunes subscription package where a monthly fee would be flowing to Apple. That could use 3G to gain access to your subscriptions. And if so, some of the monthly fee being paid to Apple would pay the 3G companies for that transactional access. This is still very much a Kindle-like limited 3G model, only one that has you ordering a group of "books" (various iTunes media in this case) each month as part of your package subscription.

[TraceyS/FL]

That's why i believe there's the dual option of 3G payg for the iSlates that predominantly stay at home and a subsidized model with unlimited 3G (God, that's a joke right there, false advertising i calls it).

The difference between failure and success is the cost Apple negotiates with the carriers for payg daily or per megabyte. Currently in the UK i can get 24hrs on T-Mobile for about £2 a day payg. If Apple can get that or better then i think we have a winner.

No one expects to get 3G for FREE, but perhaps Apple will take it on the chin for email downloads of a reasonable size and browsing the iTunes store. Everthing else is either payg or a monthly contract.

M. :D

I'm not sure what AT&T might offer in the way of payg daily, but Verizon here in the states is $15 for 75mb.

I'm not sure that they could get them to do something under $5/day (yours is what - about $3-3.50/day US? i'm being totally lazy and not looking that up right now). That is a HUGE reduction in "profit" for Verizon. But heck, if i could get a month for say $30 for a decent amount - i'd be buying a mifi.

So basically, the ability to have a payg on a daily basis for under $5 would rock - especially if i could fund it with iTunes cards. I can find them everywhere. Would have been nice if i had been able to do that last month while driving across the state.

It's going to be interesting. I can't see them being able to totally tie this type of a device (based on the rumors) to a traditional Data plan contract & cost. YOu want people to CONSUME, you need it "cheap" to consume. $30-50 is a lot of consumption money - who will have $$ left to buy content?

[MacFly123]

I believe that rumor. But, unfortunately, the shocking low price is the subsidized price. Apple still gets paid the same... just with AT&T, Verizon, etc chipping in on the amount above the "shockingly low" price*

*with 24-month contract.

I'd call a device as impressive as the iPhone a shockingly low priced device too (until you factor in the TOTAL price with the contract if you buy it at the shockingly low price, instead of paying up for the unsubsidized version).

Ya, I totally agree!

[Shin3r]

in three years I never wanted to talk on the phone and surf the web at the same time. and with the iphone it's not possible anyway to use it as a phone and use an app in parallel. so this is not a necessary feature for me, maybe for others.

Sir, you are 100% mistaken there. You can use both at the same time. Also, even if you weren't using both at the same time. It's nice to know that you can be accessing data and still receive a phone call, because otherwise straight to voicemail you go, all for just checking any updates on MacRumors.

[cmaier]

Sir, you are 100% mistaken there. You can use both at the same time. Also, even if you weren't using both at the same time. It's nice to know that you can be accessing data and still receive a phone call, because otherwise straight to voicemail you go, all for just checking any updates on MacRumors.

That's certainly the more common scenario. I had a sprint treo 650 for years, and i'd often miss calls because I happened to be dialed into the data network, for example when it was checking my mail in the background.

[decson]

The kindle provides limited 3G networking for the purpose of downloading books/journals. It also allows limited browsing of wikipedia and some blogs. EDIT TO MAKE IT CLEARER (Kindle embeds the cost of 3G into the price of the download, browsing of the amazon store, wikipedia and the limited blogs it allows access to appear on the face of it to be included in the up front cost)

What if Apple partially adopted this. So when you buy the iSlate, there's no cellular contract, but it's connected to 1 or other cellular network, ideally your preferred one that has the best coverage. When you buy something from iTunes, the cost to download it is embedded in the charge made to you. ie. instead of £0.79 for a song, you get it for £0.89. To rent a movie would be say £3.49 rather than £2.99.

The same with the rumoured periodicals, the cost to deliver is embedded in the subscription.

Now lets say you wanted to look up a website, rather than impose a monthly fee, though that could be an option. What if you could make a small micropayment say £0.50 for 24hrs, or you payed a reasonable amount per megabyte you were downloading. After all the majority of iSlate customers already have an iTunes account and are accustomed to making small payments for instant gratification. If it's all handled through iTunes, you have a slick already setup payment stream.

Now we all expect and like the idea of pulling out our iPhone and going to any website we feel like, but we pay a premium for that privilege. Would Apple be able to convince us that micropayments are the way to go for the tablet?

Some example pricing, just to get people thinking, note i may be over estimating the charges and underestimating Apple's ability to negotiate a good deal.

Al a carte
Purchase price = £599
Download of tune = £0.89 (10p more)
Download of rental movie = £3.49 (50p more, yes i know it's not proportional)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £23.99 (embedded cost of delivery)
24 Hrs browsing = £0.50 (250MB cap probably) or
1 Megabyte = £0.05

Subsidized model
Purchase price = £399
Monthly data charge 24mth contract = £15.99
Download of tune = £0.79 (perhaps with some free tunes/month)
Download of rental movie = £2.99 (perhaps with a free couple of rentals)
subscription to 12 monthly periodicals = £21.59 (delivery not charged + free samples)
Browsing = included in the deal

When you are on a wifi network the prices in iTunes automatically change to reflect the standard rates we see on a PC or Mac. Perhaps they'll have some neat way of making it obvious that there's a delivery charge on 3G.

Anyway, food for thought.

M. :D

Well we can hope! but this makes much more sense to me, already paying for broadband, iPhone, I really do not want another data package. Also, as with iPhone (well here in UK) you can get free wifi spots perhaps that type of package I would pay for if it was reasonable. Majority of where I would use it has wifi, so would work for me!

G:)

[andiwm2003]

Sir, you are 100% mistaken there. You can use both at the same time. Also, even if you weren't using both at the same time. It's nice to know that you can be accessing data and still receive a phone call, because otherwise straight to voicemail you go, all for just checking any updates on MacRumors.

well, of course you can browse the web and recieve a call. but as soon as you are talking you hold the phone to your ear and it's over with surfing. and when you take it off your ear and check the calendar your partner thinks the call failed and hangs up. websurfing and talking at the same time is simply not convenient enough on the iphone to bother. and no i usually don't have headphones around. as i said in my post it's not a useful feature for me, maybe for others.

[Robert M.]

I plan on using the iSlate(?) at home (in my living room) or when I'm on Campus. Both of those places have Wi-Fi. So I don't need 3G! I already have an iPhone 3GS, so I don't need 3G on this thing. Really I don't see anyone besides "the hardcore crowd" getting 3G on this thing! Maybe if they don't have an iPhone...but if they do then what's the point? :confused:

Are they going to need it to buy subscriptions and books in their car? Or in the middle of nowhere? Maybe people want to just surf the web anywhere? But Safari on the iPhone is good enough for that... If not then they should already have a 3G card for their MB/MBP.

I think they should just make the Appstore open for everyone all the time. Like you can always connect to buy something. Sadly, I know that probably won't happen. And they could leave the 3G for people that want to surf the internet on the go. I know some of you guys will get a 3G plan with this but to me it would be a waste.... :o (Unless you're a nomad that's always on the move lol)

[cmaier]

I plan on using the iSlate(?) at home (in my living room) or when I'm on Campus. Both of those places have Wi-Fi. So I don't need 3G! I already have an iPhone 3GS, so I don't need 3G on this thing. Really I don't see anyone besides "the hardcore crowd" getting 3G on this thing! Maybe if they don't have an iPhone...but if they do then what's the point? :confused:



Business travelers (like me) who would carry this thing instead of a MB or MBP because they mostly just need to read, not edit, documents, will want 3G, for the same reason they buy aircards.

[Robert M.]

Business travelers (like me) who would carry this thing instead of a MB or MBP because they mostly just need to read, not edit, documents, will want 3G, for the same reason they buy aircards.

That's true! That's what I meant by "nomads" at the end :cool:

So I understand needing one for that reason. :)

[chstr]

Will the 1st gen be overpriced like the 1st gen iPhone?

is a clear sky blue?

[psxp]

No purpose. But for the people who don't own iPhones, having 3G capability built into this device is tremendously appealing. We shouldn't assume the market for the Tablet is iPhone owners. I wouldn't think Apple is trying to compete with itself, nor trying to penetrate a market as small (large) as the iPhone-owner market as their primary objective.

other phones support tethering.. (if enabled.. )

[kdarling]

Sir, you are 100% mistaken there. You can use both at the same time. Also, even if you weren't using both at the same time. It's nice to know that you can be accessing data and still receive a phone call, because otherwise straight to voicemail you go, all for just checking any updates on MacRumors.

Automatically going to voicemail while using data is only true on GSM EDGE.

Under CDMA EVDO, incoming calls take priority (unless you set your phone otherwise). The data stream is paused and the user allowed to answer the call or not. When you hang up, the data continues again.

Nowhere near as nice as simultaneous voice+data, but not as bad as EDGE.