[DigitalEl]

Originally Posted by sanford

I discovered that current AT&T customers who *pay full price* for a new iPhone, even if they are no longer in a contract or only have a fraction of their contract to go, they get slammed with another two years of contract for *nothing*. Absolutely no reason.

Face it, you're being taken for a ride.

Man, are you arrogant. You have decided -- for all of us -- that the iPhone is a ripoff? You!? Excuse me, but I don't even know you.

The iPhone is not bread, water or air. No-one has to have one. If it's too expensive for you... If it doesn't do what you want it to do... If you don't like the terms... Then by all means, don't get one. Don't be such a d!ck to declare that those who've decided otherwise are somehow beneath you.

For what it's worth, I don't "get" Coach purses or Big Bertha golf clubs... Or Hummer H2s. Does that mean I'm gonna go on a golf forum or a car forum and tell everyone who has bought into these products what idiots they are? No. I realize that just because a product isn't for me doesn't make it "not for you, either."

Originally Posted by sanford

And don't give me, The iPhone is just not for you if you don't accept these terms. The iPhone is not for you, either, because the more people who accept this kind of closed-market monopolization -- capitalists my eye -- the more those of us sharp enough to stay away from such foolishness are faced with attempts to entrap us for goods and services we do actually need.

So your arrogance comes from the fact that you're smarter than all the rest of us. You're sharp enough to avoid this iPhone foolishness? Wow. Good for you. Maybe someday, if we all study real hard, we can join you up there on that esteem cloud you're riding so proud.

Originally Posted by sanford

It's a cost/benefit trade-off. I almost bought one Saturday. Went so far as to make sure my Apple Store had them in stock and had my credit pre-authorized through AT&T. But then I said, What am I doing? I'm going to pay $500 or $600 for this. Plus at least $80 a month for 24 months. I already have a video iPod. I already have an outstanding Canon camera. I don't want a mobile phone -- the one I have is for limited convenience and emergency contact only; 20 minutes use is a big month for me. The last thing I want to do is get e-mail while I'm out, let alone try to answer it. I don't want slow Internet access on the go. If I have need of Internet access via Wi-Fi while out or away -- this happens perhaps twice a year -- I'm going to take my Mac.

Again, "I, I, I..." Were you an only child? Because YOU don't need those things means that none of us should? I guess if it were up to you, none of us would have TiVo, because YOUR VCR works fine.

I certainly hope you'll enjoy a steamy mug of STFU soon.

And why do all the iPhone haters seem to find their way into iPhone discussions... Here, on Engadget, Gizmodo, TUAW... Everywhere it's the same.

I think NASCAR and pro wrestling are retarded, yet millions love those things. Am I gonna go waste my time on racing or 'rasslin' forums? Of course not. I have a life.

[Eug]

^^^ Yeah, sanford's post is a bit harsh, even if AT&T is really milking it. However, I don't see the point of using expletives, DigitalEl.

And why do all the iPhone haters seem to find their way into iPhone discussions... Here, on Engadget, Gizmodo, TUAW... Everywhere it's the same.

I will note that this is actually an iPod thread. I don't want an iPhone either at this point (even if I could get one up here in Canada), because of the high price and because of the 2-year contract. Perhaps later once the feature set has been updated, esp. if unlocked iPhones become available.

What I want now is a cheaper widescreen iPod, hence the existence of this thread.

BTW, I still think $299 for a widescreen iPod is doable. FWIW, the tear-down guys think even the 8 GB iPhone costs less than that to build. So, $299 retail for an iPod with WiFi, widescreen, and hard drive, but without a GSM/EDGE transmitter, flash memory, camera, speaker, microphone, or Bluetooth is plausible.



FWIW, the Balda touchscreen in the iPhone is estimated to cost $27. That's $27 total for the screen (not $27 more). The current iPod costs $249. So, a touchscreen + WiFi iPod for $299 makes sense. And if not $299, then $349.

OTOH, perhaps they should do away with the hard drive altogether. That'd suit me fine. I'd be satisfied with a 16 GB flash-based video iPod (although NAND flash ain't cheap).

P.S. Apple refurbs are sometimes just awesome... I bought a 5G iPod refurb last year for CAD$209 (plus tax). I sold it this year for CAD$200. Now, we'll see how long I can hold out with just my iPod mini, without a video iPod.

[DigitalEl]

Eug, I don't consider people who "don't really want an iPhone" haters and people who don't were not the intended target of my frustration, but when a guy comes on here and basically tells us that everyone who sprung for an iPhone is "being taken for a ride" and is -- I suppose -- dumb for buying one, it makes me a little cranky.

Is AT&T milking it? Sure. Is Apple? Sure. Are luxury carmakers milking it when their repairs cost more? Of course. Are nice eyeglass frames ridiculously overpriced compared to the ones at America's Best? Well, yeah.

I don't mind someone saying "that's not for me."

I do have a problem with someone declaring "that's not for you."

[sanford]

Originally Posted by DigitalEl 

Eug, I don't consider people who "don't really want an iPhone" haters and people who don't were not the intended target of my frustration, but when a guy comes on here and basically tells us that everyone who sprung for an iPhone is "being taken for a ride" and is -- I suppose -- dumb for buying one, it makes me a little cranky.

Is AT&T milking it? Sure. Is Apple? Sure. Are luxury carmakers milking it when their repairs cost more? Of course. Are nice eyeglass frames ridiculously overpriced compared to the ones at America's Best? Well, yeah.

I don't mind someone saying "that's not for me."

I do have a problem with someone declaring "that's not for you."

DigitalEl,

I'll just accept your ad hominem polemics are the best you can do. I will however note that icruise and I in several threads on this subject have managed to frustrate the hell out of each other in various ways but have yet to stoop to calling each other "dicks". I'd suggest the gentleman doth protest too much.

Now to the point, I don't hate the iPhone. I rather like the iPhone. If mobile phones and Internet access were significant to my work or lifestyle, it would be my first choice by far. What I don't like is the arrangement with AT&T. That you can't use the non-phone features -- the majority of the features -- on the iPhone without signing up for AT&T service, even though you pay full retail for the device. That non-contract Go Phone plans are available for the iPhone, but I'd have to fake bad credit -- essentially, commit a federal felony -- to have offered these plans; I can't as, with every other AT&T offering, just opt out of the credit check and purchase a Go Phone plan without a contract. That contracts without consideration are not valid, and despite whatever machinations AT&T can go through to give these contracts the appearance of validity, they hold no consideration for the buyer, the second party, and are therefore not valid.

What you interpret as arrogance is concern for our economic system. Traditional American capitalism survives on competition and free markets. That you can select a product from one company and a service for it from another and change that as you wish, unless one or the other company provides consideration that earns them a contractual obligation. Does your Tivo work only with ABC? And does ABC require you pay a monthly fee for a contract period of two years in order to record their programming? How would you feel if it did? But in signing contracts without consideration, that's where we're headed, because these contracts are advantageous to the vendor, and the corporation by design has no soul and no ethics and exists only to make money for their shareholders. That's why I say it's not for you, either. Not that it's not for you to make a decision about what you will or will not put up with in order to own an iPhone. On an individual scale that's a personal decision. But enough people give away their rights as a consumer because their desire to own the latest marketing dynamo is so strong, eventually we all have to sign multi-year contracts just to receive necessary services meted out on a monthly basis -- i.e., services that do not merit contractual obligations. (For example, as was the case and may still be with some satellite TV providers, you pay for installation, you pay every month to lease all the equipment, you pay a monthly fee for programming, yet still they expect you to sign a 12-month contract for initial service. Why? You've already paid full price for everything or you're leasing it and they can have it back. What do they need 12 months of revenue to make up? Nothing, that's what.)

So today you have no problem with the contract arrangement required to own an iPhone. Will you have no problem when it's your power company? Your landline telephone provider? Your Internet service? Your auto insurance provider? Your physician? Your grocery market? Will it bother you then? Will it bother you that you have to select and commit to a provider of goods or services for years without the option to switch to the competition unless you paying cancellations fees that are essentially bribes to let you out of your contract? We're not talking about paying through the nose for luxury automobiles. We're talking about communications services that are close to becoming as much a necessity, or perceived necessity, in our society as electricity was in 1952.

For the record, I never complained about the price of the iPhone, or the device itself. For what it is, the quality of design and manufacture, I think it's sold at a reasonable retail price. And it seems to technically excel at what it is intended to do.

In the 1970s the federal government deemed AT&T a monopoly and spent a lot of taxpayers' money to break them up and open the communications industry to competition. For almost thirty years consumers have benefitted from that competition. In general, we get much more for much less from communications providers, all without contracts; and should we become dissatisfied, the vendors are aware of the threat we can just turn to the next competing provider. Over this three decades, AT&T has been slowly, intentionally rebuilding their communications monopoly by buying up all the parts that were made independent, and also new companies to cover new market segments, and they now are poised to resume their position of monopoly domination over communications. The federal government hasn't bothered to really watch them and the American people either don't care or are too young to remember Ma Bell and what that moniker really meant. And they've done all this not by winning over customers with excellent service, but with their long-maintained war chest and by treachery in their business dealings.

These are watershed years. We Americans have the opportunity to change the perilous course of a more restrictive economic system and revitalize the promise of competition and free markets. Or not. If realizing this and arguing that we should take up this fight for change makes me an "arrogant dick", then so be it.

[shabbasuraj]

widescreen ipod will be released in the fall, with all distribution channels fully loaded for the holiday rush.

[icruise]

Give it a rest, Sanford. Your concern for the future of Western civilization is touching, but that sort of slippery slope reasoning doesn't hold much water.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by shabbasuraj 

widescreen ipod will be released in the fall, with all distribution channels fully loaded for the holiday rush.

Before or after Leopard? Have to space out my expenses...

[icruise]

Originally Posted by sanford 

It's a moot point. Consider it rested. Changed my mind, no little amount due to all the convincing I received here. Went and looked at one again, gave it a more thorough check out. Bought one on the spot (8 GB, one of last couple they had), then came home and signed up for the two-year AT&T contract on the mid-priced plan since my credit qualification for a contract doesn't make me eligible for Go Phone plans. So, yes, I now have an iPhone. And I love it.

It's hard to believe that someone who argued so passionately (or at least voluminously) against AT&T and the iPhone could change their mind so easily.

EDIT: For some reason this is showing up before Sanford's post.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Give it a rest, Sanford. Your concern for the future of Western civilization is touching, but that sort of slippery slope reasoning doesn't hold much water.

It's a moot point. Consider it rested. Changed my mind, no little amount due to all the convincing I received here. Went and looked at one again, gave it a more thorough check out. Bought one on the spot (8 GB, one of last couple they had), then came home and signed up for the two-year AT&T contract on the mid-priced plan since my credit qualification for a contract doesn't make me eligible for Go Phone plans. So, yes, I now have an iPhone. And I love it.

[Eug]

Priceless™



So how does it feel to be taken for a ride, sanford?

[shabbasuraj]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

Before or after Leopard? Have to space out my expenses...

after

[Eug]

Piper Jaffray: Mac OS X-based iPods by January

Changes to the iPod may soon bring it in line with the iPhone, while avoiding cannibalized sales, according to a new outlook report. Analysts at the research firm Piper Jaffray suggest that as expected, the next generation of iPods will be based on the iPhone's touchscreen interface; while there will likely be no Internet or phone services, future iPods are expected to be based on Mac OS X, though whether or not users will be able to install software on them has not been raised as a question. Analysts do however propose that they will be announced in the fall or winter, at the latest by January's MacWorld event.

It sounds like they're just guessing though.

[icruise]

When it comes to Apple, at least, anything said by an "analyst" is a guess.

[Eug]

Electronista: Touchscreen iPod sourced, dated for August?

Apple has chosen Wintek to supply touchscreen panels for an upcoming video-capable iPod, say sources in the Taiwan supply chain.

Shipments of the screens has been scheduled for the second half of the year but has likely already begun, according to the claim. Apple is said to be asking for the panels in time for an August release, introducing a touch-driven iPod less than two months after the iPhone's late June appearance.

[sanford]

Originally Posted by icruise 

It's hard to believe that someone who argued so passionately (or at least voluminously) against AT&T and the iPhone could change their mind so easily.

EDIT: For some reason this is showing up before Sanford's post.

Yes, in fact it's not really believable. Long story to explain, but I was channeling Jack White, since a considered, dissenting perspective earned me sarcasm such as my "concern for Western Civilization is touching", and, from another respondent to this thread, the direct offense of calling me an "arrogant dick". So it seemed expedient to let everyone thrive on the illusion they had somehow convinced me I was wrong, and they in their iPhone revelry were oh so right.

But then, late, but not too much so, the US federal government swoops in to back me up:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...B1037F26545%7D

Seems that bunch of arrogant dicks on the House Subcommittee might be concerned for the future of Western civilization, too. Touching.

Seriously, the cell phone industry in the United States has muddled along with their egregiously restrictive service plans, contracts and equipment programs, but now the iPhone/AT&T deal has managed to get the attention of federal authorities. Marketing hype might be good for something after all. (My wife's phone and my emergency phone are both on T-Mobile plans -- their representatives have told us straight out that we are welcome to use any phone we can get our hands on that will work on their network, which is almost any GSM phone that is not itself locked to another network; they don't restrict or block out non-T-Mobile GSM phones on their network. Seems like they operate here more or less as they do in the EU. They sell service-specific phones on subsidy, but you're not at all bound to those phones.)

It's important to note that the congressman's "paper weight" upon contract cancellation statement refers to using the iPhone as a phone, not the other features. It remains to be seen whether or not the other features will re-lock after a period of time without the iPhone contacting the AT&T network with a valid, active SIM card installed. It wouldn't make sense to lock the features the moment the phone goes off network or the SIM card is pulled, as there are situations in which this might naturally need to occur. But after a couple weeks? A month? Who knows. And I'm sure, since there is now at least one technical solution to unlocking the iPhone and a couple of contract manipulation methods to do so, the ability to use the iPhones other features without an ongoing, active AT&T contract or service plan will be "fixed" in an upcoming firmware update.

Man, it's unfortunate that we've reached the point that Apple of all companies is getting federal heat normally reserved for various competitors. Indeed, it is sad. Of course, no, I did not buy an iPhone. I wouldn't own one. Further, I haven't decided if I will continue to buy Apple products at all. Yet I can't imagine *not* using a Mac, since it's all I've ever used. Fortunately I wouldn't replace my Mac laptop for almost another couple years under any cirumstances. OS X and/or iLife upgrade in October? I don't know. My iPod will be a couple years old in October, and certainly doesn't need replacement, but I was planning on replacing it with the new generational model, which I expect by this autumn or January at the latest. Now I just don't know. I do know that I'd finally given in to the convenience and economy, over CDs and often DVDs, of buying most of my music and a limited amount of video from the iTunes Store. But as a direct result of this ridiculous iPhone arrangement -- this is just a flat-out bad deal for the customer -- I'm back to CDs and DVDs until I further consider whether or not I wish to continue to support this company.

Really is rather dismal. Apple had in me a permanent customer, as they seemed to balance corporate greed with customer value. Until now. I don't even know what my options other are other than an iPod, as the other devices seem quite bad in comparison. Perhaps a good portable CD player. And as for replacing my Mac... Wwhat? A typewriter? I certainly don't have interest in building m own PC and using a free operating system like Linux -- plus I use laptops. And the other available commercial option, besides being a burden to use, doesn't fair any better in the ethics category.

Hey, but those iPhones sure are *snazzy*. Too bad both designer and carrier for the product decided they had the right to use people's desire for the product to bilk them beyond all reason. Hopefully, doubtfully, the federal government will immediately slam a hammer down on them.

[Dakarʒ]

Some lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, also expressed reluctance to tamper with what most acknowledged was a healthy and fast-growing industry.

Translation: People aren't going to not buy cellphones, so why should we eliminate profit making tactics?

[sanford]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Translation: People aren't going to not buy cellphones, so why should we eliminate profit making tactics?

You're actually using an argument in favor that some lawmakers of both parties are continuing to support the concept of corporate-run totalitarian Communism -- that's its closest analog, folks, cause it ain't free market capitalism -- to defend the iPhone? You know, the same argument that some lawmakers of both parties use to support a healthcare system for which we should feel great national shame. (Maximum profit is the end goal of American corporations, not of free market capitalism. Don't confuse the two.) You're using that argument in *favor* of the iPhone deal? Okay.

I'm not getting into another interminable debate with iPhone-huggers in which I'm called an "arrogant dick" by a respondent all while a forum *moderator* actively participates in the same discussion, on the side of the argument opposite mine, without sanctioning that respondent clearly in violation of forum policy. (In fact, it makes a joke out of having moderators here in the first place, and if he can't readily see that enforcing universal forum policy only in cases in which he is aligned with the offended party -- or at least is not making an oppositional argument to that party -- flies in the face of any concept of equitable moderation, I can't help him. But "moderator" is not a role he should be taking on; yet I suppose you get what you pay for.)

There are several stories in valid news outlets that don't mention those members of the House Subcommittee who were against "tampering" with the current system. I picked that one because it was best representative of the totality of the debate underway, so as not to bias my point. This point was: the iPhone/AT&T deal has already attracted the attention of the federal government for its outlandishly restrictive, free market oppositional and customer-unfriendly approach. And that is quite enough, or should be, to give anyone pause and cause them to consider the whole arrangement rather salute it with knee-jerk support born of, in no small part, gadget infatuation.

[Dakarʒ]

I'm not making an argument at all, slick.