Article said:
If that is fact, that is really quite sad.
It has internet access, it has itunes, why not let users buy songs via their iPhone ?
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.
Cingular Ties, Several More iPhone Models? And More Details...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If that is fact, that is really quite sad.
It has internet access, it has itunes, why not let users buy songs via their iPhone ?
I don't know if this is mentioned elsewhere here, but I found this pretty funny . . . .
I just received this in an e-mail newsletter:
Cingular rebrands as AT&T
San AntonioFollowing its acquisition of Cingular, AT&T is rebranding the wireless service as AT&T, beginning today.
Apple partners with a brand that no longer exists. Someone is manufacturing is rushing to wipe out those Cingular logos and quickly switching to AT&T.
I just received this in an e-mail newsletter:
Cingular rebrands as AT&T
San AntonioFollowing its acquisition of Cingular, AT&T is rebranding the wireless service as AT&T, beginning today.
Apple partners with a brand that no longer exists. Someone is manufacturing is rushing to wipe out those Cingular logos and quickly switching to AT&T.
There are no Cingular logo on the iPhone, so nobody needs to do any changes in manufacturing. The logo is only in the upper left corner of the iPhone's screen, so someone will just have to change the text in the iPhone software.
It doesn't have iTunes.
The iTunes store portion is a massive executable that's not really smartphone-friendly. They would have to shave it down immensely to fit into the size limits they're working with (iTunes is 57MB; Safari on the other hand can be squeezed down to ~2MB if it's anything like Firefox). The iTunes Store also doesn't have a useful low-resolution interface that would make buying easy, and they'd need some sort of system for copying mobile purchases back to the main computer, and for authenticating the phone securely, and for lots of other little functions.
Some of these problems are fairly easy to solve, but if you can't fix the big ones, then there's no point in starting. Maybe in the future, there will be a low-resolution iTMS interface and a small enough binary to run it, and we'll be able to buy music from the phone (maybe there will even be enough bandwidth one day to get videos, too). But today is not that day.
Seconded.
This is crazy. We just need one phone company called "cell phone"
...or something.
Just so people realize, though, "The new at&t" is not the same as the old "AT&T Wireless".
AT&T Wireless was created by the old "AT&T", then spun off as a 100% independent company. It just retained the AT&T name.
Cingular was formed as a joint venture by SBC and BellSouth. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, then essentially just closed it, transitioning all former AT&T Wireless customers over to Cingular, rather than actually merging the two companies. Years later, SBC bought AT&T, (no, it was not a merger, SBC is definitely the 'parent' company in the deal,) and then renamed itself at&t, bringing 50% of Cingular's ownership under the "at&t" name, even though it really is a different company. This new at&t then bought BellSouth, bringing Cingular 100% under "at&t" ownership.
(Of course, if you want to get *REALLY* complicated, SBC and BellSouth were both formed by the 1984 breakup of AT&T in the first place... So it's all the same 'family' all along.)
And as for the 'Cingular' on the display of the iPhone, most cell phones get their network name from the network itself. So, for example, when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, cell phones started saying "Cingular" instead of "AT&T Wireless" on their displays, with no software update needed. Likewise, if you have an unlocked GSM phone, you see either "Cingular" or "T-Mobile", whichever you happen to be connected to. (I have an unlocked T-Mobile phone, yet when I roam into an area with a strong Cingular signal, and no T-Mobile signal, my phone's display changes to read "Cingular".)
AT&T Wireless was created by the old "AT&T", then spun off as a 100% independent company. It just retained the AT&T name.
Cingular was formed as a joint venture by SBC and BellSouth. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, then essentially just closed it, transitioning all former AT&T Wireless customers over to Cingular, rather than actually merging the two companies. Years later, SBC bought AT&T, (no, it was not a merger, SBC is definitely the 'parent' company in the deal,) and then renamed itself at&t, bringing 50% of Cingular's ownership under the "at&t" name, even though it really is a different company. This new at&t then bought BellSouth, bringing Cingular 100% under "at&t" ownership.
(Of course, if you want to get *REALLY* complicated, SBC and BellSouth were both formed by the 1984 breakup of AT&T in the first place... So it's all the same 'family' all along.)
And as for the 'Cingular' on the display of the iPhone, most cell phones get their network name from the network itself. So, for example, when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, cell phones started saying "Cingular" instead of "AT&T Wireless" on their displays, with no software update needed. Likewise, if you have an unlocked GSM phone, you see either "Cingular" or "T-Mobile", whichever you happen to be connected to. (I have an unlocked T-Mobile phone, yet when I roam into an area with a strong Cingular signal, and no T-Mobile signal, my phone's display changes to read "Cingular".)
So, lets summarize your post:
The truth:
Cingular was formed as a joint venture by Southwestern Bell Company and BellSouth. Years later, Southwestern Bell (now renamed "SBC") bought AT&T, and then renamed itself at&t, bringing 50% of Cingular's ownership under the "at&t" name. Then a year later, bought BellSouth, bringing Cingular 100% under "at&t" ownership. SBC and BellSouth were both formed by the 1984 breakup of AT&T in the first place, so it was all the same 'family' all along.
The corporate shell game crap needs to be stopped. AT&T was broken up over anticompetitive practices and poor customer service, now we have a company called "at&t" (note the new non-threatening lower case letters) that has a stranglehold on the iPhone for a ridiculously long time and requires an equally rediculous contract period while the hardware itself only has a warranty half the time.
But this isn't the same "AT&T" there are other baby bells still out there. After all, there's still Pacific Bell...
Oh, wait. They were bought by BellSouth, which was bought by: at&t.
Okay, there's Ameritech...
Oh... no. they were bought by Verizon.
And judging by the way Verizon "enhances" the bluetooth features on phones we know they're on the consumer's side.
The only reason the new at&t isn't the same as the old AT&T is because Verizon has gotten too big through its own setup of mergers and aquisitions to be bought by them.
The truth:
Cingular was formed as a joint venture by Southwestern Bell Company and BellSouth. Years later, Southwestern Bell (now renamed "SBC") bought AT&T, and then renamed itself at&t, bringing 50% of Cingular's ownership under the "at&t" name. Then a year later, bought BellSouth, bringing Cingular 100% under "at&t" ownership. SBC and BellSouth were both formed by the 1984 breakup of AT&T in the first place, so it was all the same 'family' all along.
The corporate shell game crap needs to be stopped. AT&T was broken up over anticompetitive practices and poor customer service, now we have a company called "at&t" (note the new non-threatening lower case letters) that has a stranglehold on the iPhone for a ridiculously long time and requires an equally rediculous contract period while the hardware itself only has a warranty half the time.
But this isn't the same "AT&T" there are other baby bells still out there. After all, there's still Pacific Bell...
Oh, wait. They were bought by BellSouth, which was bought by: at&t.
Okay, there's Ameritech...
Oh... no. they were bought by Verizon.
And judging by the way Verizon "enhances" the bluetooth features on phones we know they're on the consumer's side.
The only reason the new at&t isn't the same as the old AT&T is because Verizon has gotten too big through its own setup of mergers and aquisitions to be bought by them.