I don't understand why the carriers are getting upset now. Skype has had clients for other mobile operating systems for a long time. I've been using Skype on my Nokia mobile for over a year now, over 3G. Some carriers even sell separate Skype add-ons for their contracts.
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.
Skype for iPhone Sparks Battle Between Consumers and Carriers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Naaaah. Cell phone service will be a utility soon as will Internet.
As an iPhone used with goodles of neat smart phones coming, and Apple becoming more consumer than chi chi, we will have more options, not less.
I don't see a future for large cell phone carriers, especially ATTeho charges too much. One decent smart phone with flash, app store, video conferencing, and no cap and the iPhone becomes dead almost instantly.
If I were AT&T I would be very nervous about a new smart phone, the FCC taking on ATT the way they did with cable, DSL and telco, very very nervous.
Payback time.
Not for nothing, but if you all pitch in, the individual cost is pretty low. That's what Europe learnt nearly a century ago, and America would do well to adopt.
This is a bad move in another way. Apple fought hard with the original iPhone to get independence from the carriers. The carriers provided the network, Apple provided the software. Carriers now are trying to shovel their own rubbish on to the AppStore or take it over entirely (as in China). Now we see some carriers want to limit certain Apps still further. This is ridiculous. They should only provide the network, and as long as we use it within the terms of our agreement with them, they have no right to comment on the software.
Also, is anybody thinking about Skype here? They're being denied a legitimate business opportunity because the carriers can't live up to their 'unlimited data' promises.
If carriers object, they should increase the minutes (and hence price) of the minimum contract and get compensated. If people have more included minutes, they're not going to be using Skype, and if they don't use those minutes, they're paying more for the extra data. Unfortunately, this is not an option because the contract prices are already as high as the carriers dare put them (don't you feel sorry for these guys?).
The only thing carriers can do in response to Skype is stop advertising unlimited data and put a cap on it. Unfortunately, this will be taking the market back a few years, and some enterprising carrier will eventually reawaken the idea in an effort to get customers.
All this brings me to my point: isn't telecoms supposed to be this crazy ultra-competitive market? If one carrier has a problem with Skype, we can quite easily move to one that will once the exclusivity deals wear out. The only reason T-Mobile DE can do such an outrageous thing is because they're a virtual monopoly in Germany (being a former state-run company). If they were in a normal competitive market, they wouldn't dare do this. So don't expect it to spread.
There are a trail of those phones lying behind the iPhone, dead, beaten and bloodied, including (to name but a few): The Samsung Instinct, Samsung Omnia, HTC Touch, HTC Touch Pro, HTC Touch HD, XPERIA X1, T-Mobile G1, BlackBerry Storm, LG Vu, LG Dare, and now the Palm Pre. The iPhone isn't going anywhere.
hum. those bloody carriers only care about making $$$$$$$$$$. it's already bad enough that only now do you get skype on the iPhone while other smartphones already have it.
if you use skype over 3G you still pay for 3G data. stingy bastards. so what if I do international calls every now and then?
Consumer rights watchdogs should be all over this if skype is blocked -- even if it's only in Germany.
if you use skype over 3G you still pay for 3G data. stingy bastards. so what if I do international calls every now and then?
Consumer rights watchdogs should be all over this if skype is blocked -- even if it's only in Germany.
Before a dollar is spent to build out the networks, BILLIONS are spent on leasing Bandwidth from who? The FCC.
So if you think the FCC is going to side with this lobby group kids under 30 are delusional.
T-Mobile in Germany is no better than the worst type of mafia and organized crime you could imagine. They brake laws all the time, threaten legal actions even when they don't have rights, they cheat consumers and inflate their bills. They are even trying to copyright a color (ugly pink used in their logo) against all EU rules.
I would love to agree with you by the truth is, I work fir a high end tech firm, mostly mac and while some of us have iPhone's, we all have sprint htc or touch. What hasn't happened and is about to happen is smart phones with features that apple doesn't have and if they do with 3.0, it's due to all the newer smart phones coming out. Heck even apple stores use windows mobile for ez pay but the point is, mobile 6.5 looks a lot like iPhone and this is from msft. There are many news smart phones coming, everyone will have an app store with many developers that were shut out fromApple going to android.
Sure the iPhone is king but the smart phone, android, palm, msft os are in it's infancy and we know from apples business model, they fear flash, Voip, video conferencing and mlions hate AT&T. It will take I or two good smart phones and open source app development too damage apple and that's bad for apple, not to mention DRM and iTunes, plus songs going to $1.29, as apples bread and butter is consumer phones and iPods. Even I think msft new mobile os looks good and can only imagine what palm will be like. You have millions of iPhone users with 2 year contracts about to expire.
Search the net, everyone is developing app stores, phones are geting better, the browsing, more refined, you can't use old last years models and apple will only open up so much wheras other providers will go for video conference, streaming TV ( apple won't do , apple tv), flash=hulu, voip, non AT&T, this ISA really big year for non iPhone developers
there're several smartphones selling as well as iphone, some even better. eg, research in motion sold twice as many smartphones during holiday season as apple. outside the us (and to certain extend the uk), iphone hasn't really been all that successful. lots of talk yes, but mediocre or slow sales. apple really needs to deliver something special with the next model, otherwise they are going to loose momentum. tweaking looks a bit, adding 3.2mpix cam and increasing memory won't be sufficient.
this is proving to be a myth. apple didn't have to fight hard because the phone didn't really have anything that would upset the carriers too much. now that iphone is starting to get where the other smartphones have been for years, they're are facing the carrier resistance.
the us carriers have thus far chosen to not to offer those phones that have been capable for skype and have other advance features. so the us public have largely been unaware of the existence of these services, and are only now starting to catch up with the rest of the world. the us carriers haven't really offered decent deals on advanced nokia phones until very recently (e71x from att).
the most advanced nokia phones such as n97 are probably not going to be available from the us carriers.
Skype need to make their own handset with a data network and all but kill the cellular monopoly for good. Would have been incredible if Apple went for this from the start - making the iPhone a Skype phone used over a data network. That would have been revolutionary in it's effect..
The Three network in the uk have Skype on all of their handsets and it is free to use on pay as you go and contract. this has been the case for over a year. you can als make skype out calls as well. The simple solution for three to keep their profit margin is to disable skype out calls to the uk so you have to use them.... simple.
Slogging through and finally getting to some posts that make sense. There is no free lunch. All carriers have to make $ to keep going, improving networks, etc.. The price plans are just marketing approaches--like making people think they really can get a free phone when they sign up for 2 years. Look at a hospital bill sometime and that $20 charge for a $.01 aspirin. If they only charged $1, $19 would pop up as a charge in other areas. The end result of skype over cell networks, if/when allowed, probably will be a more efficient, more transparent pricing structure, but not everyone will benefit. That $19 aspirin revenue will have to be recovered somewhere.
Are you sure that's not what's going on, in a slow rollout? Aapl couldn't have done that from Day 1. iPhone has been out less than 2 years. Aapl couldn't have successfully introduced the iPhone without partnering with a major carrier. Aapl is sitting on $30B in cash.
FCC should regulate cell phone network providers especially when consumers are charged $20-$30 / per month for an internet access good only for updating myspace account, mapping and email. I pay $28 / month for a 7 mb dsl line and I can use it for whatever I please, shouldn't I be allowed to do the same on a cell internet network. If at&t and other providers are fighting voip because their network cannot accommodate for the extra traffic from voip communications then they should simply upgrade or get out of the business.
True enough, but I think you've discounted the effect an evolved, efficient, aggressive, AND transparent pricing model will have on market share. People (like me) are tired of the carriers' small print and excuses and want service at a MORE reasonable price.
The US cell carriers need to offer one price to include voice, data, AND SMS. Competition and aggressive marketing should have kept these schmagoolies honest and the prices fair. In a free market, this usually works. However, once upon a time, the carriers all colluded to gouge on SMS pricing and unfortunately only one carrier now officially hosts the iPhone. iPhone customers get few choices and little recourse on service and a la carte pricing. The result means if the customer wants an iPhone, he should expect to pay a premium for one. Is this about right?
To a degree, yes - this is fair. Apple deserves to be paid for their product. Yes, AT&T needs to be compensated for service and infrastructure. These businesses have expenses, sure - and they deserve to make a profit. On the other hand, however, as technology evolves and profit margins have obviously increased, I think "investment in 4G" and "product development" have become buzz-word excuses to justify unreasonable prices on voice, data, and texting. SMS pricing is flat-out unconscionable and clear evidence to this end, IMO. Bandwidth is not as expensive as they make it sound. Finally, I think the exclusive contract made between Apple and AT&T is nothing more than a modern day monopoly and should never have been allowed.
For AT&T or others to whine about Skype and their infrastructure and operational costs is disingenuous at best.
Yeah I remember when my internet and cable bill were far cheaper than they are now. Thanks FCC....
I don't disagree that more transparency is needed, or that prices couldn't drop. But I think many want something for nothing, and don't understand that simply because people are being gouged in SMS pricing, doesn't mean that that revenue could be eliminated w/o it resurfacing elsewhere.
As far as the T and Aapl exclusive contract being nothing more than a modern day monopoly, I think that's silly, at best. Yes, it has that effect. Yes, full carrier choice and full portability would be nice for consumers. But if anyone actually believes that aapl could have come charging into the telecom space trying to dictate terms to carriers, and throwing hard elbows at Nokia, Mot, et al, without that entire group coming down on aapl like a ton of ***** and crushing the iPhone, then contact me. I've got a bridge that might interest you.
That is very understandable. I can also see why the carrier would prefer that you pay 70 dollars for minutes youI rarely use and 30 dollars for internet instead of 50 for unlimited 3G + Skype.
Agreed!
but I think a change is coming soon, because as it stands right now the providers are blocking progress, and that can't go on forever
(I hope)
Another problem with US cellular carriers are the two different cell technologies in use. If we had only one (GSM arguably seems to be the better and more advanced of the two), there might not have been such gerrymandering between Apple and AT&T.
If the effect of Apple and AT&T's marriage is monopolistic, it's hardly "silly", friend. It's a serious problem I hope is rectified once their 5 year contract expires. I think full carrier choice and full portability is a goal consumers and regulation should demand from the carriers and cell manufacturers. The absence of it restricts choice, exploits the end user, and is a missed opportunity by analog-thinking executives in charge of digital technology.
