deannnnn
macrumors 68020
They block Swirly because they can't make any money off of it. With this proposed solution, they can charge as much as they want.
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.
'Official' MMS May Arrive for iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They block Swirly because they can't make any money off of it. With this proposed solution, they can charge as much as they want.
For all the people who complain about the lack of MMS, the BlackBerry Storm doesn't have WiFi. Which would you rather do without?
gceo
macrumors 6502a
If it's carrier supported it's considered official, in other words, no 3rd party or web workaround. SMS is an App, so is Mail, etc... even if it does have to come from the AppStore.
With the provisioning of the iPhone 3G there is an MMS OPT OUT bolt on that goes on automatically.
If there was an official MMS app out, it could easily be blanket removed from all accounts.
MMS is included in any text package. As well as IM (on regular phones) that don't use it as data.
If there was an official MMS app out, it could easily be blanket removed from all accounts.
MMS is included in any text package. As well as IM (on regular phones) that don't use it as data.
kobefan234
macrumors 6502
Good lord. Could you imagine that my iPhone that can home in on itself and show me a birds-eye picture of my house taken from space could also receive an MMS just like my Sony Ericsson T68i that I had in 2001 SEVEN YEARS AGO?! I think Apple is really on a roll here, next we'll be talking about sending contacts via SMS, sending files via Bluetooth and maybe even having the ability to play a half-decent game of minigolf. Only the future will tell.
Rybold
macrumors 6502a
NO THANK YOU !
I like using email because it's free, and AT&T does not deduct it from my text messages or bill me for it.
Apple did us a favor by not allowing MMS. They are trying to create a future where we don't have to pay for every message that we send ! And now these MMS people are trying to reverse that. NO WONDER OUR CELL PHONE BILLS ARE $70 TO $100 A MONTH !!!!
Land-line telephone service was $10 just ten years ago! My first cell phone, in 1999, only cost me $29.99 per month! And now because you guys don't see what Apple is trying to do for you, you will soon be paying even MORE per month !!!!!!!!!!!!! Complete stupidity!!!
Here's AT&T's corporate office, just in case you weren't sure where your money is going...
I like using email because it's free, and AT&T does not deduct it from my text messages or bill me for it.
Apple did us a favor by not allowing MMS. They are trying to create a future where we don't have to pay for every message that we send ! And now these MMS people are trying to reverse that. NO WONDER OUR CELL PHONE BILLS ARE $70 TO $100 A MONTH !!!!
Land-line telephone service was $10 just ten years ago! My first cell phone, in 1999, only cost me $29.99 per month! And now because you guys don't see what Apple is trying to do for you, you will soon be paying even MORE per month !!!!!!!!!!!!! Complete stupidity!!!
Here's AT&T's corporate office, just in case you weren't sure where your money is going...
Is Verizon GSM? If it isn't forget it. It's not going to happen. No, it really isn't.
Rybold
macrumors 6502a
I WOULD NEVER SIGN UP FOR VERIZON !!! Your data would not be secure! The Verizon network is not secure and their employees are currupt! Read this...
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081121/tc_nm/us_verizon_obama_4
That's a tall building....
All the complainers sound like those who mourned the demise of the floppy drive. Instead of giving in to your friends saying "Your expensive phone doesn't do MMS!" why not counter with "Your crappy phone doesn't do email?" The guy above has a point, about unifying data usage, instead of allowing the carrier to partition what amounts to the exact same type of digital signal based on its intent. What if accessing .com sites pulled from a different data pool than .org sites? All these things should cost the same, because they are all merely digital data, but if you want to pay more, go for it.
All the complainers sound like those who mourned the demise of the floppy drive. Instead of giving in to your friends saying "Your expensive phone doesn't do MMS!" why not counter with "Your crappy phone doesn't do email?" The guy above has a point, about unifying data usage, instead of allowing the carrier to partition what amounts to the exact same type of digital signal based on its intent. What if accessing .com sites pulled from a different data pool than .org sites? All these things should cost the same, because they are all merely digital data, but if you want to pay more, go for it.
The argument that you can email photos is flawed - you can't email to someone's phone that doesn't support email, and what happens when someone MMS's a photo to you?
It's like saying, we don't need text messaging because we can simply send emails.
MMS is a useful facility to have and should be included on the iPhone. Those of you who don't want it can simply ignore it, like I ignore the non-deletable Stocks app on my iPhone 🙂
It's like saying, we don't need text messaging because we can simply send emails.
MMS is a useful facility to have and should be included on the iPhone. Those of you who don't want it can simply ignore it, like I ignore the non-deletable Stocks app on my iPhone 🙂
NightFox
macrumors 68040
Personally, I couldn't care about MMS, through I do appreciate that others want it.
HOWEVER, it worries me that this might be the first step down the slippery slope of service providers being able to customise their iphones out of the box with "useful added-value" applications and branding, like the total crap that they always stick on Smartphones
HOWEVER, it worries me that this might be the first step down the slippery slope of service providers being able to customise their iphones out of the box with "useful added-value" applications and branding, like the total crap that they always stick on Smartphones
xUKHCx
Administrator emeritus
Thats funny because I would've though Unlimited Mobile data would jack up the price far more than the odd MMS 🙄.
MMS on my contract is part of my free SMS usage so I don't actually pay any more for it. Also when I send it to someone they don't have to pay data charges to view the message and it is essentially PUSHed straight to their phone.
The reason MMS wasn't included is because the American market didn't use it much. The story is a little different over here in Europe.
For those that don't use it, then don't download the application. For those that do use it is good news.
The debate about the need for MMS has long gone around in circles but the answer is simple. If it is implemented and doesn't affect you, why do you care?
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
You can find bad information about all cell companies.
Like this search and this search here.
I have some AT&T stories that are pretty typical, as well as some from Sprint. For me, the bill is the bottom line.
Good luck with that.. That thing is a POS. Have you read any extensive reviews?? The awkward "click" touchscreen slows down typing significantly, the interface is not designed from the ground up for touch -- they simply hacked the existing trackball-based interface to use a touchscreen which makes for a poor user experience, it doesn't have WiFi, it doesn't have any hardware accelerated graphics, the browser is poor, etc etc etc.. I could go on for days...
bigfatdummy
macrumors newbie
Nuggets!
MMS - great for most users. I absolutely hate the email only function. I get pictures from friends and family all the time. Usually simple things like, "I got a new puppy", or "look at this funny sign". Typically I am texting my friends and they send a pic and want to ask what I think. I don't want to go to blahblahmessages.com and check it. I don't want to enter some freaky userid and password. I want to see it, right then. Yes, emailing is better. Yes, friends and family can be taught to email pics. But they won't and they don't! Rate plans aren't going to skyrocket. The world isn't going to come to an end.
MMS - great for most users. I absolutely hate the email only function. I get pictures from friends and family all the time. Usually simple things like, "I got a new puppy", or "look at this funny sign". Typically I am texting my friends and they send a pic and want to ask what I think. I don't want to go to blahblahmessages.com and check it. I don't want to enter some freaky userid and password. I want to see it, right then. Yes, emailing is better. Yes, friends and family can be taught to email pics. But they won't and they don't! Rate plans aren't going to skyrocket. The world isn't going to come to an end.
diamond.g
macrumors G5
Maybe not
I find it to be more likely that the reason Apple did NOT include MMS is because Safari does not support the protocols (Yet).
I'm not an engineer, and I have only read a little into the standards, but my speculation is as follows:
There is a whole list of protocols that are required for a device to be "MMS Complient" by 3GPP group. Many of these standards are implemented in the Acid3 test, through SMIL, and thus, when a mobile browser passes Acid3, it will also support MMS. From there, it would be simple for Apple to impliment MMS themselves, probably from within the current SMS client.
Safari 4 beta is already passing Acid3. I am not much for rumors, and people can feel free to call me wrong, but I would not be surprised if Safari 4, AND iPhone firmware 3.0 WITH MMS all came out at macworld. Officially. From Apple.
Further, I suspect that once the iphone supports MMS, the carriers simply need to change a binary bit in their servers, and suddenly we all have MMS support from them too.
Remember, I'm not an engineer, I'm not a software designer, and my knoledge is thin and these are merely my suspisions and speculations. Further, it makes sense to me that if Apple didn't have the technology at the time, and they don't have the ability to impliment it, they wouldn't admit it, because that would tarnish their image. I think it also makes sence that they would only be investing as much time and money as they are into passing acid3 if it surved them a greater good. MMS support would be a greater good.
Just my $.02
I find it to be more likely that the reason Apple did NOT include MMS is because Safari does not support the protocols (Yet).
I'm not an engineer, and I have only read a little into the standards, but my speculation is as follows:
There is a whole list of protocols that are required for a device to be "MMS Complient" by 3GPP group. Many of these standards are implemented in the Acid3 test, through SMIL, and thus, when a mobile browser passes Acid3, it will also support MMS. From there, it would be simple for Apple to impliment MMS themselves, probably from within the current SMS client.
Safari 4 beta is already passing Acid3. I am not much for rumors, and people can feel free to call me wrong, but I would not be surprised if Safari 4, AND iPhone firmware 3.0 WITH MMS all came out at macworld. Officially. From Apple.
Further, I suspect that once the iphone supports MMS, the carriers simply need to change a binary bit in their servers, and suddenly we all have MMS support from them too.
Remember, I'm not an engineer, I'm not a software designer, and my knoledge is thin and these are merely my suspisions and speculations. Further, it makes sense to me that if Apple didn't have the technology at the time, and they don't have the ability to impliment it, they wouldn't admit it, because that would tarnish their image. I think it also makes sence that they would only be investing as much time and money as they are into passing acid3 if it surved them a greater good. MMS support would be a greater good.
Just my $.02
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
Same here. My phone doesn't have WiFi and I can't tell the difference with Sprint. The iPhone..... very noticeable speed decrease.
Right, the usual Euro babble about their cell networks and usage. 🙄