Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
call blocking!!
- Thread starter canwe3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I found Call Bliss tonight. It looks like it should work. There's also DND Whitelist.
Of course it's not perfect. Both apps require the screen to be locked to work.
My old WinMo phone had an app to do this. Unfortunately it wasn't perfect either. I could block by individual, specific phone number, but the phone always rang once before going to voice mail.
This is an option I was surprised to find Apple did not offer. It's something I think they should. I like my iPhone though and I won't be going back to my old phone so until Apple offers it it's either workarounds such as theser or jailbreak.
Of course it's not perfect. Both apps require the screen to be locked to work.
My old WinMo phone had an app to do this. Unfortunately it wasn't perfect either. I could block by individual, specific phone number, but the phone always rang once before going to voice mail.
This is an option I was surprised to find Apple did not offer. It's something I think they should. I like my iPhone though and I won't be going back to my old phone so until Apple offers it it's either workarounds such as theser or jailbreak.
The reason there is no feature in blocked calls is because carriers are the ones that control this technology. Your old flip phone gave more power to the carriers to implement this feature where as Apple refuses to let the carriers to control the software.
Depending on your service provider it may be an additional fee to get this feature. On AT&T it is called SmartLimits ($5 per line). The feature is also available on Verizon & Sprint but I am not sure what it is called or the pricing.
EDIT: No app has this feature. Please do not trust them. The Truecaller listed above even says it in the description. They just warn you if it is spam based on their database of "spam" numbers.
Depending on your service provider it may be an additional fee to get this feature. On AT&T it is called SmartLimits ($5 per line). The feature is also available on Verizon & Sprint but I am not sure what it is called or the pricing.
EDIT: No app has this feature. Please do not trust them. The Truecaller listed above even says it in the description. They just warn you if it is spam based on their database of "spam" numbers.
And the numbers you add to the list also. But it's at least a help, even though it can't block the numbers and do a "live look-up" yet as Apple won't allow the apps to do what it does on Android phones. Hopefully (but I doubt it) Apple will allow this in the future.
I don't know if I agree with that. Allowing devs to develop software to block calls isn't necessarily handing control of the software over. True, a carrier could create it's own app to do this but personally I believe it's a monetary issue. Apple is actually helping the carriers because each call allowed to go through is revenue (minutes) and the carriers can charge for call blocking.
True blocking is done at the carrier level (as I keep hearing on this issue). But that's immaterial when you have an app that can hang up on the caller or send the caller to VM all without ringing the phone. Unfortunately, Apple isn't allowing that yet for the reasons (I believe) above.
Sprint does not charge for this. But they also know that most people don't know that and that it's a PITA to login to the website, find the right area and make the changes. The way Sprint does it too, it also makes it so you can no longer call the number you block. In any case, Sprint had this before it had the iPhone so it's a dead monetary issue when it comes to Apple.
No they don't. The best we can do at the moment is manipulate DND. There is a similar app like TrueCaller created by the same dev who made Call Bliss. I didn't get that one because it requires subscribing to a list while offering questionable functionality.
I hear what you both are saying above. I believe that when AT&T and Apple struck a deal, they decided to leave this feature out allowing AT&T to make more money. (Again, aligns with your theory.) The reason behind this is if you look when Apple started to first open up the iPhone for development, no app could do any of the core services of the phone (ie, infringe upon Apple's & AT&T's core marketing of what makes them important to you). So it makes sense to extrapolate that the carrier didn't want Apple to replicate many of the core services AT&T provides through their services. Though Apple did get to do more than other manufactures as they've proven that they were better.
What you don't agree with? Is it because I said the old flip phone gave more power to the carrier to be able to have that feature? I promise you that is the reason. Carriers back in the day controlled every aspect of the phone and still have much of the control when dealing with not flagship product / manufactures. Yes, it always comes down to money. Carriers want to control the services they provide. They don't want to lose relationships with their customer. Think about it now, carries are getting push around more and more as competition increases and important products are made to keep loyal customers paying fees on a time table.
Again, when Verizon finally came aboard they wanted the same (as they charge for the service I believe). Again, I believe that Sprint didn't care cause they just wanted the iPhone as it will save their dying business.
Yes Apple has a lot of pull on the software on the phone. Just not the services that are provided by the carrier level, while they are making slow progress there. The phone providers are trying harder and harder not to become an ISP where we (consumers) don't give a crap about them and only care about low cost data as technology has pushed most of their services as obsolete methods.
Though, that's another debate about how carriers could change their business models and their relationship should evolve with their customer.
No. You're saying in your first post that Apple didn't allow call blocking because that would give more power to the carrier. But the opposite is true. NOT allowing call blocking is giving more power to the carrier. Because it's allowing them to charge and them to control access.
The Nokia mentioned by the OP supposedly can block calls (I don't know, I never had one). My four year old Touch Pro can use an app called Call Firewall, developed by the gurus over at the XDA forums to block calls. That takes power away from the carriers. If Apple wants to be taking that away from them them it should allow development. But it doesn't, so it comes down to money or making a deal to sell phones through a carrier.
Verizon, I don't know about. I can only speak for Sprint because believe it or not I have only been a customer of one carrier for the entire time I have owned a cell phone (13 years). Sprint has not charged anything for call blocking for at least the last three years I have paid attention to it. It's just been there as a feature of their website. That was well before Sprint got the iPhone. So, if Apple were to offer this it wouldn't in any way affect Sprint. In fact, I see it as an added benefit. A double lock you might say. Calls blocked both at the phone and carrier levels.
I can see a conflict on this between at least AT&T and Verizon. Not allowing call blocking gives the carrier the edge over Apple, or rather Apple bows to the carriers demands that Apple NOT allow call blocking.
I agree.
Core services. Apple has a product to protect. I just think that you can spend more time protecting your product then you do serving your customers. Case in point, Orville and Wilbur Wright.
Those gentlemen were the first to fly (in America at least). But after their very first flight they spent the entirety of their career protecting their patents and making sure no one else was infringing. Consequently, the Wright Brothers first flight is the ONLY thing they are known for. There was no innovation, no expansion. They made very little.
Now, Apple is not like that, they innovate and put out a bunch of products of course. But there is a danger in focusing on protecting what you have versus allowing others to innovate with it and therefore profiting both yourself as well as others.
I think you are reading what I said wrong in my first post. I am agreeing with you. That this gives the power to the carrier.
kage207 said:
I said that THEY (Apple) leaves this feature out of phones for AT&T to capitalize and make money on. Apple did not want AT&T to implement this feature on their phone (carrier software) because they want to develop it and AT&T did not let Apple develop it because that's how they create value in their service.
I also agree with you a second time in this quote below.
kage207 said:
When I say they in this quote I mean both parties so Apple could get a carrier who would be willing to to agree to many of their terms but allowing the carrier still to maintain their core services to customers (create value in their services to their customers).
Honestly if you just say the Wright Brothers I do not think of first controlled flight. I think wind tunnel.
Allright. Sounds like we are basically on the same page. A misunderstanding on my part and now the it's been clarified I see your points and agree.
As to the Wright Brothers, yeah, I forgot about wind tunnels. But then, most people only think flight so I took that reference.
As to the Wright Brothers, yeah, I forgot about wind tunnels. But then, most people only think flight so I took that reference.
Silly us. Communication is a hard thing. We should both learn to simplify our arguments.
Of course! Silly people uneducated people think that (just kidding!) Wind tunnel > flight anyways.
Though I do wish people would understand how important that invention was.
LOL! I agree.Silly us. Communication is a hard thing. We should both learn to simplify our arguments.
Of course! Silly people uneducated people think that (just kidding!) Wind tunnel > flight anyways.
Though I do wish people would understand how important that invention was.
Im currently using Call Bliss. its pretty good but Ive noticed it is constantly using location services. Does anyone know if it will still work if I deactivate location services?
I tried contacting the developer but haven't heard back from them yet.
I tried contacting the developer but haven't heard back from them yet.