Apple: a company that caves to demands of ATT like a little *****! (FaceTime over 3G)

[Big.Mac.Daddy]

Update: At first I was pissed at AT&T but the more I thought about it the more pissed I got at Apple since they are the ones caving to AT&Ts demand to bake in an alert to the iOS software






Can someone explain this to me? If you were a greedy SOB company like AT&T is wouldn't you WANT people to use FaceTime over 3G so you could charge them extra when they go over their 2 / 3 GB data limits?

Seems penny wise and pound foolish.

http://www.cultofmac.com/179430/att-ceo-responds-to-rumors-of-charging-customers-for-facetime-over-3g/

 

[kalex]

of course they would want u to use it but at the same time it would work out great for them if millions of iphone users had to pay $5-$10 a month extra for facetime. Mindless money grab which is going to bite them back.

 

[Big.Mac.Daddy]

of course they would want u to use it but at the same time it would work out great for them if millions of iphone users had to pay $5-$10 a month extra for facetime. Mindless money grab which is going to bite them back.

Can't believe Apple would actually cave into the desperate cries for more $ from AT&T and actually bake this into iOS 6 software to screw over its customers

What's next Apple? Baking a software glitch into iOS 6 so that we have to pay AT&T to use iMessage from now on?

 

[Mac.World]

Simple. Don't Facetime on 3G or 4G. Problem solved.

I use Tango. Works with just about any phone and is about as clear as Facetime over 3G. Which isn't saying much.

 

[Big.Mac.Daddy]

Simple. Don't Facetime on 3G or 4G. Problem solved.

I use Tango. Works with just about any phone and is about as clear as Facetime over 3G. Which isn't saying much.

That's a shortsighted way of saying "ignore the problem until it becomes an even bigger one."

What about if Apple bakes in a glitch to get us to pay for using iMessage? Or Siri? Or turn by turn navigation? The list goes on and on...

FaceTime over 3G? Not a big deal.

Apple purposely coming up with iOS software glitches to screw over customers because AT&T demands it? HUGE DEAL.

 

[nuckinfutz]

We could always move to Verizon.

 

[Mac.World]

That's a shortsighted way of saying "ignore the problem until it becomes an even bigger one."

What about if Apple bakes in a glitch to get us to pay for using iMessage? Or Siri? Or turn by turn navigation? The list goes on and on...

FaceTime over 3G? Not a big deal.

Apple purposely coming up with iOS software glitches to screw over customers because AT&T demands it? HUGE DEAL.

I don't see the big deal in this case, because all iPhone users, except those that jailbroke, have been used to not having Facetime over 3G. Not like Facetime has been a huge success anyway.

 

[ugahairydawgs]

We could always move to Verizon.

Until Verizon does the same thing....which won't take long. They'll let AT&T take the heat for this for a little while and then announce similar restrictions themselves.

 

[brendu]

I am trying to figure out where to file a complaint with AT&T about this. If enough customers flip they might cave.

 

[Mac.World]

I am trying to figure out where to file a complaint with AT&T about this. If enough customers flip they might cave.

People need to calm down:

AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson on Tuesday responded to rumors claiming the telecom would charge a data fee for customers using Apple's upcoming over-the-air FaceTime feature on its network.

Speaking at the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference in Aspen, Colo., Stephenson admitted that he had heard the rumor which began circulating earlier in the day after an iOS 6 beta error message sparked speculation that AT&T will indeed charge data fees for "FaceTime over cellular," reports TechCrunch.

“I’ve heard the same rumor,” Stephenson said, claiming his company was working with Apple to get the technology stabilized. “It’s too early to talk about pricing.”

 

[ZZ Bottom]

As a grandfathered unlimited user (that never exceeds 2GB incidentally), I sure hope this is only targeted at unlimited plan owners. I can accept this. However if AT&T truly intends on double dipping limited data users (ragardless of whether they separate the data) is outright disgusting.

As someone who has been using FaceTime over 3G for over a year, I can say that the performance is fine as is. With the current jailbreak method, I highly doubt that FaceTime data is being given lower latency over normal web searches. The argument that AT&T will need to support different data rates for FaceTime is rubbish (has been mentioned by others in other threads).

Furthermore, with so many iPhone 4 early buyers current in contract free limbo, this is a PR nightmare waiting for them.

 

[Technarchy]

Apple purposely coming up with iOS software glitches to screw over customers because AT&T demands it? HUGE DEAL.

Do you understand what a glitch is?

 

[Big.Mac.Daddy]

People need to calm down

A CEO who says

“It’s too early to talk about pricing.”

clearly is in bed with Apple to the point of forcing Apple to cave to demands for more ways to charge its customers imaginary fees. This is complete ************ and needs to stop!

Doesn't this go against net neutrality?

Do you understand what a glitch is?

Cut the vocabulary BS... not in the mood

 

[Mac.World]

A CEO who says clearly is in bed with Apple to the point of forcing Apple to cave to demands for more ways to charge its customers imaginary fees. This is complete ************ and needs to stop!

Doesn't this go against net neutrality?

Apple cave in to a carrier? Doubtful. Apple tells carriers what to do. Cause if Apple pulls their phone from that carrier, the carrier knows their profits will plummet.

 

[BiigBiscuit]

Simple. AT&T is the one with a cellular network, not Apple. If AT&T want to charge for FaceTime over cellular it really is their choice. Whether it's a good choice is a different question.

 

[ZZ Bottom]

Simple. AT&T is the one with a cellular network, not Apple. If AT&T want to charge for FaceTime over cellular it really is their choice. Whether it's a good choice is a different question.

As someone else pointed out, short of limiting data and throttling, charging separately for specific data usage should conflict with net neutrality.

 

[aziatiklover]

I don't see the big deal in this case, because all iPhone users, except those that jailbroke, have been used to not having Facetime over 3G. Not like Facetime has been a huge success anyway.

Maybe not a success to you! But I k ow ppl overseas use it a lot same as imessage!

I keep in touch with my family like I was in states side.

 

[cynics]

Apple cave in to a carrier? Doubtful. Apple tells carriers what to do. Cause if Apple pulls their phone from that carrier, the carrier knows their profits will plummet.

And what will that do for Apples profits? Lose lose for everyone.

 

[cynics]

Maybe not a success to you! But I k ow ppl overseas use it a lot same as imessage!

I keep in touch with my family like I was in states side.

There are alternatives you can currently use over 3G. I use FaceTime quite often since its integrated into the phone. But if it was an additional expense I'd use something else for video calling.

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

Cut the vocabulary BS... not in the mood

Then get off of Macrumors.

----------

@Topic at hand

Randall Stephenson did say earlier this year that as new ways of communication come about AT&T would need to adapt in order to protect revenue. AT&T isn't the 'evil greedy' company that a lot of [presumed] adolescent posters claim as they're quite simply protecting themselves by innovating.

 

[Mac.World]

Maybe not a success to you! But I k ow ppl overseas use it a lot same as imessage!

I keep in touch with my family like I was in states side.

And they use it via wi-fi. Imagine doing Facetime over 3G and you have 1 or 2 bars. What do you think is going to happen?

And I have lived and been stationed in more countries overseas than I care to count. I did all of my video calls via a stable wi-fi? Why? Because it was stable and had the bandwidth to handle a video call.

----------

And what will that do for Apples profits? Lose lose for everyone.

Yes, I agree. I was simply stating Apple doesn't cave to carrier demands.

 

[nastebu]

Cut the vocabulary BS... not in the mood

You're not in the mood to take the time to communicate your point clearly? Then why should we take you seriously? "Glitch" is absolutely the wrong word. Just brushing off Technarcy's valid point makes it seem like you're either trying to twist the facts at hand around, or you're refusing to think what you're saying through. Neither one does much for your credibility.

Can't believe Apple would actually cave into the desperate cries for more $ from AT&T and actually bake this into iOS 6 software to screw over its customers

What's next Apple? Baking a software glitch into iOS 6 so that we have to pay AT&T to use iMessage from now on?

It's worth pointing out that AT&T is Apple's customer too, and in this case the one putting most of the money on the table since the phone is heavily subsidized. In the same way that consumers on this site get very upset at the perception that Apple is telling them what they can or cannot do with the phone they bought, AT&T could make a similar case that, as a paying customer, Apple should be responsive to their needs.

The truth is Apple has done a stunning job of bringing the carriers to their knees on issues like this. I don't know if you remember what phones were like before the iPhone, but it was common for the carriers to slather them with junky software and cripple features. The phone manufacturers were quite helpless. When the iPhone appeared--without even the carrier's logo stenciled on it!--it was revolutionary in that it forced the carriers nearly completely out of the software end.

 

[dccorona]

Can't believe Apple would actually cave into the desperate cries for more $ from AT&T and actually bake this into iOS 6 software to screw over its customers

What's next Apple? Baking a software glitch into iOS 6 so that we have to pay AT&T to use iMessage from now on?

if apple "bakes it in", its not a glitch, its intentional.

And, plain and simple, ATT's network CAN NOT HANDLE the load it's under currently, much less with facetime added. It's not a money grab, they need to keep the usage down as they try to catch up with building out their network. Of course, this problem is their fault because they refused to do what needed to be done for the iPhone early on, shortsightedly thinking it wouldn't be an issue...taking a gamble to save money in the short term, and losing.

Unfortunately for people who love a good conspiracy theory, this isn't the result of ATT being evil, it's just the result of ATT being stupid

 

[Leewalker19]

To be honest I don't understand why their making FaceTime such a big deal. Like other ppl have said we have been using Skype, Tango, yahoo messenger an many other video clients for a while now over 3g so why FaceTime is so different. I guess you can say it has a more install base then tango or something, but not sure about Skype and that works with almost any device out there. It seems like they would've blocked that if anything.

Also, google video on androids can be used over cellular networks and they haven't said anything about that.

 

[brendu]

People need to calm down:

This is not the only reason I am mad at AT&T. Their service sucks where I live so I have to pay for a microcell, their customer service is horrible, they continue to change their plans to gouge money out of their customers (why get rid of 2GB data and force a 3GB data option, I never use more than 1.5GB and I use my phone a lot; why get rid of 1000 texts and force unlimited all at higher costs). AT&T is not doing what is in the best interest of the consumer and its sad.

I wish they would just give an easy way for their customers to provide feedback and they don't. That is the clearest way they can say they DO NOT care about customer feedback.