Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone "3G" what a joke (+video)

9

9822679

Cancelled
Original poster
Aug 25, 2008
1,119
0
I think I've had about enough with AT&T and their crippling of the iPhone "3G"

The recent Slingplayer ban over 3G was the final straw ( http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/12/atandt-issues-official-statement-on-slingplayers-3g-blackout-for/)

The 3G network is a joke, what's the point of having a mobile data plan when it's a watered down, restricted version of a regular Wi-Fi signal

* Certain apps cannot be downloaded over 3G
* Slingplayer is not allowed over 3G
* Skype is not allowed over 3G


Even Apple is guilty of Bait and Switch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwgvI_SLD0&fmt=18

(you need to have HQ selected, and watch the video on a computer )

First part of the video is taken from Apple's "3G Youtube feature" for the iPhone 3G on my laptop
taken from http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/youtube.html

Second part of the video is what that video actually looks like on the 3G network on my iPhone 3G

I find that videos over 3G are horribly pixelated, making them unwatchable.

I think its time to fight for an equal iPhone usage under 3G or WiFi !

update 1: My main complaint is against AT&T but Apple is not completely innocent either
Update 2: Youtube HQ video link
 
Take your bitching to at&t, not Apple. at&t has crippled their own network, not Apple demanding it be crippled.

And in 3.0 you won't need to worry about the YouTube issue because I just checked it in 3.0b5 and it's the same quality as on YouTube...which it was already a horrible, pixellated mess.
 
Actually, I think the OP has a point. I don't even live in the USA and we have to accept some apps being crippled because of what AT&T is or isn't able to deliver.

I don't know if the kind of attitude the OP is taking can change anything but it sure has more chances to obtain good results than just justifying things by saying that it is normal to advertise one thing and deliver another.
 
smurfjammer said:
That's the advertising game for you... You don't believe that the burgers that McDonalds advertise are going to look like what you are going actually get.
Click to expand...

To a degree it is. Pay a $1.99 for lunch and your not really pissed if the burger sucks.

My last bill was $140.00, and i cant even get call quality. Thats a premium price that deserves service.

I am shuddering to think what will happen to this network when they sell a few more million phones in june.
 
Warbrain said:
Take your bitching to at&t, not Apple. at&t has crippled their own network, not Apple demanding it be crippled.

And in 3.0 you won't need to worry about the YouTube issue because I just checked it in 3.0b5 and it's the same quality as on YouTube...which it was already a horrible, pixellated mess.
Click to expand...

yea and apple is totally innocent right? just taking orders from the big bad telephone company. its easy to shift all blame to at&t, they are just so easy to hate.

apple put themselves in this position when they got into bed in the first place with at&t. the iphone could have been sold unlocked and unbranded from the beginning for a higher price but apple wanted to sell more units so they had to make a deal with the devil for some good ole fashion carrier subsidizing.
 
ruinfx said:
yea and apple is totally innocent right? just taking orders from the big bad telephone company. its easy to shift all blame to at&t, they are just so easy to hate.

apple put themselves in this position when they got into bed in the first place with at&t. the iphone could have been sold unlocked and unbranded from the beginning for a higher price but apple wanted to sell more units so they had to make a deal with the devil for some good ole fashion carrier subsidizing.
Click to expand...


Ummmm... The original iPhone wasn't subsidized.
 
ruinfx said:
yea and apple is totally innocent right? just taking orders from the big bad telephone company. its easy to shift all blame to at&t, they are just so easy to hate.

apple put themselves in this position when they got into bed in the first place with at&t. the iphone could have been sold unlocked and unbranded from the beginning for a higher price but apple wanted to sell more units so they had to make a deal with the devil for some good ole fashion carrier subsidizing.
Click to expand...

You also realize that AT&T was at least the 2nd cell company that Apple pitched the iPhone to. If you're going to be pissed, be pissed at Verizon for turning them down. Being a slight devil's advocate here, Apple didn't have a lot of choice; they had a cell phone that they wanted to sell, but don't have a cell network. ANY carrier the phone was on people would bitch about something.
 
Apple makes the device.
AT&T controls the network.

If you have a problem with the network, then it's AT&T's problem.
If you have a problem with the device, then it's Apple's problem.

Anything else is speculation and somewhere between "fanboyism" and "anti-fanboyism". Why AT&T? Because they probably offered the best price to Apple to carry the phone. Why not unlocked version? Because it's scary to put so much R&D into a product that might fail, particularly in a market you know nothing about. It's not perfect, it has it's faults. There's plenty of room for improvement for both network and device.

However, it's basically new tech, and if you're on the bleeding edge, you shouldn't cry when you get cut.
 
ruinfx said:
yea and apple is totally innocent right? just taking orders from the big bad telephone company. its easy to shift all blame to at&t, they are just so easy to hate.

apple put themselves in this position when they got into bed in the first place with at&t. the iphone could have been sold unlocked and unbranded from the beginning for a higher price but apple wanted to sell more units so they had to make a deal with the devil for some good ole fashion carrier subsidizing.
Click to expand...

And they would have been in the same predicament if they went with Verizon because their network wouldn't have been able to handle the crippling wave of iPhone data usage.

And if you understand how the cellular game works than you know the only way to establish yourself as a new player in the game then you have to provide subsidies and deal with a carrier or two.
 
kdarling said:
The monthly subsidy allotment went into Apple's pockets instead of the customer's.

They called it "revenue sharing" to hide it from the fanboys.
Click to expand...


But the poster I was replying to was insinuating that Apple was looking for more of a "quantity over quality" system by getting the iPhone subsidized. That doesn't make sense if the subsidy was going to Apple instead of the customer.
 
I find it a joke that although I live miles away from the US and my provider is not AT&T that they still have so much control on what my iphone can and should do over 3G.

Apple should keep in mind that they sold more iphones overseas than in the US alone.
 
I agree that youtube sucks over 3G. The quality is terrible.

Also, as for Slingplayer and Skype over 3G... I couldn't care less about that. Why would AT&T want you to be using Skype anywhere you want and having people lower their monthly minute plans? Also, as for Slingplayer... if it was over 3G, they'd probably have to make it the same quality as youtube 3G and we all know that we don't need even more bandwidth being taken up by everyone who feels the need to watch TV everywhere they are.
 
Meh, I have no problem with AT&T (still on an iphone 2G tho). 3G data usage is exploding in the US right now, especially on AT&T thanks to the iphone (and the bb bold, to a lesser extent), and it's not easy to grow the infrastructure as fast as the demand.

Maybe Verizon would do a better job, but then again, put an extra 15 million (is that right? something like that.) iphone 3G users on their network and maybe they wouldn't. Can you imagine the kind of strain that kind of rapid adoption puts on a network? Especially because iphone users have got to be using more data than even other 3G smartphone users due to the iphone's focus on multimedia.

Yeah, it would be nice if the iphone were available on all major networks, but it's not and won't be for a couple of years at least. Personally, I've found EDGE service and coverage to be very good, so I really have no complaints, but if you're unhappy, I guess you've got to decide whether the phone is good enough to put up with AT&T's less-than-optimal 3G deployment. There are always tradeoffs, no?
 
Surely, when you are in the market for a mobile, the first thing you decide upon is the network - i.e. one that has the best coverage in the area/s where you're going to use the 'phone. Regrettably, there's not a single network whose coverage is 100% perfect.

Next, you see which devices your chosen network supports. If you want a specific 'phone and the network does not sell it - you then either choose another 'phone or use another network - accepting the fact that you may not get the best service.

If you have an iPhone and you live in an area where AT&T's coverage is below par, don't blame Apple - or even AT&T - blame yourself! You made the choice! ;)
 
John T said:
Surely, when you are in the market for a mobile, the first thing you decide upon is the network - i.e. one that has the best coverage in the area/s where you're going to use the 'phone. Regrettably, there's not a single network whose coverage is 100% perfect.

Next, you see which devices your chosen network supports. If you want a specific 'phone and the network does not sell it - you then either choose another 'phone or use another network - accepting the fact that you may not get the best service.

If you have an iPhone and you live in an area where AT&T's coverage is below par, don't blame Apple - or even AT&T - blame yourself! You made the choice! ;)
Click to expand...


yes but it's also a matter of bait and switch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwgvI_SLD0&fmt=18

and also as engadget and others have pointed out, these restrictions seem to be only on the iphone ( the Nokia 6650 which is also a 3g at&t phone can run slingplayer just fine )

This isn't just a complaint about the AT&T 3G network, its a worldwide concern

Why should people in the UK have to have a crippled iPhone 3G because of AT&T here in the US ?
 
While it is lame that you can't use Sling over a 3G connection, is anyone surprised that you can't use Skype? Of course AT&T isn't going to allow you to make free calls from anywhere. What would be their incentive to do that? None you say?
 
xbuddycorex said:
[/b]

Ummmm... The original iPhone wasn't subsidized.
Click to expand...

doesnt matter, apple was still looking for an additional revenue stream besides simply selling hardware. money motivated them to give up control of the iphone to a carrier. now the customer is paying the price for that earlier decision in the form of crippling apps to satisfy the carrier.

Interstella5555 said:
You also realize that AT&T was at least the 2nd cell company that Apple pitched the iPhone to. If you're going to be pissed, be pissed at Verizon for turning them down. Being a slight devil's advocate here, Apple didn't have a lot of choice; they had a cell phone that they wanted to sell, but don't have a cell network. ANY carrier the phone was on people would bitch about something.
Click to expand...

the point isnt that they went with at&t specifically, but rather that apple was looking to make a deal with a carrier in the first place. i agree, verizon would have been just as controlling but my belief is that apple should have not even involved the carriers and instead simply sold the hardware. that way you buy the iphone from apple and you take it to your GSM carrier of choice and pick any plan you want.

Warbrain said:
And they would have been in the same predicament if they went with Verizon because their network wouldn't have been able to handle the crippling wave of iPhone data usage.

And if you understand how the cellular game works than you know the only way to establish yourself as a new player in the game then you have to provide subsidies and deal with a carrier or two.
Click to expand...

selling the iphone for $599 was successful because of the apple brand and marketing, not because of anything at&t did. if apple had sold the iphone unlocked and unbranded and never involved at&t in the equation, buying an iphone for $599 and using any voice plan with a $15/month unlimited data is close to the same price or cheaper than it costs now over a 2 year contract probably. customers just need to understand the idea of paying more upfront and less monthly vs less upfront and more monthly.
 
Interstella5555 said:
Guess what - You're not going to get your cars peak MPG consumption most of the time either.
Click to expand...

To go with your metaphor

Let's say a 2009 Honda civic had an estimated 30/40 MPG but in reality only got 27/37

Based on those numbers, if they came out with a revised 2009 Honda civic "apple model" you would expect it to also get 27/37.

You wouldn't be pissed if that "apple model" car only got 15/20 ?


That is exactly what is going on. Every AT&T 3G phone uses the same AT&T 3G network , but there are American AT&T 3G phones that have far less restrictions on how to use that same network.
 
bmacir said:
I don't see any difference between the two from that video...:confused:
Click to expand...

Neither do I. It looks the same over 3G on my iPhone and watching it on YouTube.

ruinfx said:
selling the iphone for $599 was successful because of the apple brand and marketing, not because of anything at&t did. if apple had sold the iphone unlocked and unbranded and never involved at&t in the equation, buying an iphone for $599 and using any voice plan with a $15/month unlimited data is close to the same price or cheaper than it costs now over a 2 year contract probably. customers just need to understand the idea of paying more upfront and less monthly vs less upfront and more monthly.
Click to expand...

But that's not going to happen. Customers are not going to change when they see that phones are free, regardless of the actual cost. There was no way that Apple could become an established player without playing the carrier game.
 
bmacir said:
I don't see any difference between the two from that video...:confused:
Click to expand...

How are you watching the video ( computer, iphone, wifi, 3G ? )

unfortunately I can't seem to get youtube to recognize the video as HD, so even in HQ format the video still suffers from some compression

If you want you can download the uncompressed 58mb video here

http://media-convert.com/convert/?xid=17-acfnfxev

you will be able to see that the the apple video shows no signs of pixelation, while the iPhone 3G has severe pixelation

If you have an iPhone 3G you can compare the video quality yourself (over 3G network)

compare this video http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/youtube.html on your computer
to the video on the youtube app on your iPhone 3G and search for "aquatic dog"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back