[besson3c]

Do Apple customers have unrealistic expectations as to how Apple should conduct themselves?


I hear people griping about the iPhone locking stuff, about DRM (pre DRM free iTunes songs), about the video cards Apple puts in their Macs, most recently about the hardware requirements for Leopard, etc. Do you think that some people have fantasies about Apple being some sort of altruistic company that always caters to the satisfaction of their customers and is about consistently doing their business in a fair and reasonable way? I guess this is a rather leading question, but...

One could argue that Apple is, but I really don't think that they do because they care about you, but because to some extent they need customer satisfaction in order to survive. Macs are boutique products that are seen by most of the world as a sort of luxury, fancy Microsoft alternative for people willing to pay a premium for their products. Like a BMW or Ferrari owner, they rely upon the fanaticism of their customers as a means to both sustain and potentially grow their market share. In other words, to a certain extent they are somewhat obliged to care about the customer, but only to protect their own self-interests, not yours. A company like Microsoft or AT&T can get away with a lot more, because you are an extremely minuscule part of their profits (unless you work for the mass media or are the type to make a lot of noise).

As the popularity of Macs continues to grow, it will be interesting to see how Apple's relationships with their customers change. My point is this: there seems to exist a certain attitude of "Apple should cater to me and unlock the iPhone because I want it *now* *now* *now*" that is a little bit irritating to me. Apple doesn't owe you anything. I think that some people need to wake up and realize that Apple is a company, just like Microsoft, that exists on the basic DNA of making shareholders money, like any other business does. They are not really out to make the computer industry a happy place, but to make money. They will try to get away with what they can if it will potentially make them more money.

If you are really looking for an entity that is trying to be altruistic and do stuff for the sake of technology, you should hope that open source technology grows to the point where you would be satisfied using it, because you can bet that Apple will continue to be a company, just like any other. I don't mean for this thread to get sidetracked in discussing open source stuff, just saying...

[zro]

Oh, the irony. It is killing me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zro 

Oh, the irony. It is killing me.

What, because I complain about Apple and think they ought to do some things differently? The things i bitch about are things that I feel ought to make Apple money at the same time they satisfy me

[mitchell_pgh]

I guess I'm just a little upset that there seems to be one solid "gotcha" for all of their products. The MacBook is the only piece of hardware that I don't feel is compromised. The MBP is a great system, but it's expensive. The towers are really expensive (granted, they are on par with other companies part for part [but I miss the old days where you could get a $1499 tower])

Bla bla bla...

[JonoMarshall]

Do Apple customers have unrealistic expectations as to how Apple should conduct themselves?

No, Apple position themselves as an intuitive, simple, wholesome, friendly, easy, etc... company and they should conduct themselves accordingly (to keep the money coming in) - their brand is everything IMO.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by zro 

Oh, the irony. It is killing me.

You too?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What, because I complain about Apple and think they ought to do some things differently? The things i bitch about are things that I feel ought to make Apple money at the same time they satisfy me

You mean to get Apple to work like your fav *Nix distrubition
'
Come on bessy, if anyone has distorted expectation for Apple in this thread...

[ghporter]

Let's watch the name calling here...

I think Apple is less altruistic than it used to be, but I also think that it's realistic to expect this sort of behavior from a publicly owned (traded) company. We'd like to think that Steve and Woz are just so passionate about their products that profit isn't a consideration, but that's just a fantasy. That they produce innovative, interesting, and extremely useful products AND make a profit is something that really seems cool to me. As for "compromise," that's something that goes along with living-compromise is how we get from day to day (along with rationalization). I don't think any designs have been compromised, even though I'd love for my iMac to have a more "kick-ass" video system, I'd love to be able to upgrade the innards of my MacBook Pro, and so on.

mitchell_pgh, when you could buy a tower for $1499, how much did gas cost? How much did bread cost? What else could you buy for $1500? In buying power (dollars adjusted to some fixed standard), I'll bet the Mac Pro isn't really that much more expensive than a Power Mac of a few years ago. It just seems that way because "dollar" feels like it should be a fixed value. Heck, the first house I bought cost all of $24k-for a three-bedroom, 1100 square-foot, nicely built house. That was only 25 years ago; how much would that house cost today-$150k? $250k? I REALLY wish I had prices from then with my current income, but that's not how it is...

[Mastrap]

Every business gets people with unrealistic demands.

We had an author approach us last week, complaining to us about his current publisher, how disappointed he was with the services he's been receiving and if we'd publish his books instead. I spent about an hour with him on the phone, had a look at his manuscript and sent him back a comment on his manuscript formatting, which needed adjustment.

He came back with all sorts of demands, how he wanted a different book size, how we needed to personalize our services for him, how this didn't make sense and that was not to his liking.

I sent a mail back to him, returning his manuscript and sending him on his merry way. Life's too short to deal with intentionally difficult people. The second you do, you're losing money on the job, in my experience.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

No, Apple position themselves as an intuitive, simple, wholesome, friendly, easy, etc... company and they should conduct themselves accordingly (to keep the money coming in) - their brand is everything IMO.

So where should the line be drawn? Should they allow iPhone unlocks, DRM circumvention, and cater to all other common wishes to help satisfy their customers (or, at least the ones in here) and maintain their brand?

[JonoMarshall]

So where should the line be drawn? Should they allow iPhone unlocks, DRM circumvention, and cater to all other common wishes to help satisfy their customers (or, at least the ones in here) and maintain their brand?

When I think of the Apple brand, I don't think of music piracy, hacking, etc. So no.

The line is drawn with the mass perception of Apple and how that can be improved. To show loyalty and a commitment to its customers Apple must deliver on the promises it makes. These promises can exist within the real world (Price, quality, service, etc) or within our perceived "Hyper real" realm (intuitive, easy, high-end, fashionable, etc).

[OAW]

Well I for one think it was a bad decision to lock the iPhone in the first place. There simply was no technical reason to do so. Sure it was great for Apple because this decision allowed them to get monthly revenue from AT&T in exchange for giving them exclusive access to the phone. But it was a bad decision for consumers. Apple has a pretty good history when it comes to being consumer-friendly. It was unfortunate that they chose to forgo that for the sake of recurring monthly revenue.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

When I think of the Apple brand, I don't think of music piracy, hacking, etc. So no.

The line is drawn with the mass perception of Apple and how that can be improved. To show loyalty and a commitment to its customers Apple must deliver on the promises it makes. These promises can exist within the real world (Price, quality, service, etc) or within our perceived "Hyper real" realm (intuitive, easy, high-end, fashionable, etc).

Well, I feel that many feel a sense of personal entitlement to be able to unlock the iPhone they have paid for without arbitrary Apple inflicted reprecussions, for instance... Do you not sense the same sort of sentiment?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well I for one think it was a bad decision to lock the iPhone in the first place. There simply was no technical reason to do so. Sure it was great for Apple because this decision allowed them to get monthly revenue from AT&T in exchange for giving them exclusive access to the phone. But it was a bad decision for consumers. Apple has a pretty good history when it comes to being consumer-friendly. It was unfortunate that they chose to forgo that for the sake of recurring monthly revenue.

I agree with you completely, but I guess what I'm trying to get across (and probably not doing so successfully) is that this sort of thing shouldn't come as a surprise to us.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well I for one think it was a bad decision to lock the iPhone in the first place. There simply was no technical reason to do so. Sure it was great for Apple because this decision allowed them to get monthly revenue from AT&T in exchange for giving them exclusive access to the phone.

I believe that this was quite the other way around. Apple needed AT&T to make a substantial investment into changing the way their software works. AT&T wanted the exclusive deal to be able to recoup that investment.

[JonoMarshall]

Well, I feel that many feel a sense of personal entitlement to be able to unlock the iPhone they have paid for without arbitrary Apple inflicted reprecussions, for instance... Do you not sense the same sort of sentiment?

Not really, in an ideal world perhaps, I don't expect Apple to make a bad business decision and I doubt they did. They've kind of nailed the whole image thing (for the time being at least). In an ideal world Apple would exist to enrich and empower consumers lives in every way, but it doesn't... it exists to make money.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well I for one think it was a bad decision to lock the iPhone in the first place. There simply was no technical reason to do so. Sure it was great for Apple because this decision allowed them to get monthly revenue from AT&T in exchange for giving them exclusive access to the phone. But it was a bad decision for consumers. Apple has a pretty good history when it comes to being consumer-friendly. It was unfortunate that they chose to forgo that for the sake of recurring monthly revenue.

OAW

Hindsight is 20/20. Apple had never manufactured or sold a cell phone. They didn't have as much bargaining power with ATT as we now think they did. Both companies were taking a very big risk and a clause that required apple to enforce the exclusivity was undoubtedly in the contract.

Apple never made any claims the phone could be used with tmobile. How do tmobile users that buy the phone think they are entitled to unlocking the phone. Do you think this way about every other phone on the market?
The only justified gripe I see is the ability to unlock the phone for oversea visits where it doesn't impact ATT or apple's revenue. (yes technically it impacts ATT since they don't get the roaming charge, but most people I know wouldn't consider that an alternative.)

[besson3c]

SSharon: I think the sense of entitlement some people might feel with the iPhone specifically is the sense of: I paid for the hardware, I should be able to use it as I want to. After you buy hardware, does it become your property, or is it only sort of rented for you to do certain things as long as you stick within a set of restrictions?

Of course, using your computer to peddle child porn would be a little different since this is against the law and people can get hurt by such an act, but are people getting hurt if you decide to unlock your iPhone?

Just a hypothetical question.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

SSharon: I think the sense of entitlement some people might feel with the iPhone specifically is the sense of: I paid for the hardware, I should be able to use it as I want to. After you buy hardware, does it become your property, or is it only sort of rented for you to do certain things as long as you stick within a set of restrictions?

Of course, using your computer to peddle child porn would be a little different since this is against the law and people can get hurt by such an act, but are people getting hurt if you decide to unlock your iPhone?

Just a hypothetical question.

Well both apple and ATT get hurt by unlocked phones. User agreements suck and nobody reads them, but that doesn't mean they don't apply. Why is this different than any drm scheme? I imagine you agree not to crack the itunes drm when you buy music, but do non ipod users download the music and then complain they can't play it on their zune? "but I bought it so I can do what I want with it," right? yes, some of them complain, some circumvent the drm, but for the most part they don't buy the songs because they know they won't play!

to be fair, and to really analogize, apple would have to somehow make the drm circumvented tracks non playable, but I think the point still stands.

[besson3c]

SSharon: I'm just playing devil's advocate, but how far should user agreements stretch? People are very sheep like about this kind of stuff and I place the blame on them for supporting companies that do stuff like this, but on the other hand it is annoying to people that do read agreements and care about this stuff that our options are limited to a choice of which company we don't mind controlling us, simply because these companies are allowed to get away with stuff.

I mean, paying a fee to cancel a service contract with a cellphone provider? Isn't that rather silly when you think about it? Is this typical with other companies that provide you some sort of service?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

How do tmobile users that buy the phone think they are entitled to unlocking the phone. Do you think this way about every other phone on the market?

I realise that this might come as a shock to Americans, but the answer to that question is most definitely YES.

[besson3c]

Guys, the bottom line, in my opinion, is this...

Those who have worked in IT are particularly affected by this issue. Companies want to own your data. They want to control what you use and how you use it, and they do all of this to make money. Many Americans I feel are way too passive and happy to accept whatever technology companies decide with minimal fuss. It is really getting out of hand, and all of this would stop if customers started caring and started demanding that the company started to behave differently in big enough numbers to create bad PR for the company.

Whether it's a cellphone company that wants you to pay to cancel a contract, a cellphone company that restricts what phones you can use, email providers that make it difficult to export mail from their system, digital rights management, monopolies that force their proprietary formats upon the world while thumbing their noses at accepted standards (e.g. IE 6), companies that bait you and then jack up their prices once you are locked into their service, overreaching user agreements, products that force Spyware on Windows users, etc. it is all getting to be too much, and, IMHO, we shouldn't collectively be pussies about this.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I mean, paying a fee to cancel a service contract with a cellphone provider? Isn't that rather silly when you think about it? Is this typical with other companies that provide you some sort of service?

I believe the fee to cancel is because most phones are subsidized and this is their way to not lose money on them. Of course non subsidized phones like the iphone shouldn't have any cost to cancel and that is where I think the companies screw you.

erik, I agree with you 100%, americans don't see this the same way everyone else does. I wish there was no such thing as a locked phone. In the long term I hope apple shakes up the other cell phone makers into ditching the idea.

[Faust]

Interesting points.

The thing for me is that I really do not have any expectations whatsoever. I am not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing. Or perhaps I'm not enough of a fan of Apple or any other company to form ideas on what a company should or should not be to me as a customer. I pretty much go by what I like. Apple computers are currently what fits my bill in terms of technology right now and that is why I am here, so to speak. If Apple no longer produces hardware that fit my needs, I will simply move on to a different company that does suit my needs. I just don't much care what a company does in general so I could not care less which route they decide to take on as long as it is in touch with what I want and, so far it has been the case for me. I guess this is a pretty apolitical view. I just go with what I like the best and what's there, readily available to me.

[- - e r i k - -]

Cell Phone makers would happily ditch the idea in a moment. It's the network providers who have strong-armed them into this in the first place.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Cell Phone makers would happily ditch the idea in a moment. It's the network providers who have strong-armed them into this in the first place.

looking back a few years it seems more likely for a large and already established company like motorola to call the shots rather than some new cell phone company with only a few thousand subscribers.

[- - e r i k - -]

You forget that without a network a cell-phone company, no matter how big is ultimately useless.

Besides, the infrastructure wasn't built by a "tiny cell phone company with only a few thousand subscribers"

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You forget that without a network a cell-phone company, no matter how big is ultimately useless.

Besides, the infrastructure wasn't built by a "tiny cell phone company with only a few thousand subscribers"

Out of genuine curiosity, how did it all start then? There must have been a time when there were only 100 cell phones, and a time when there were only 1,000, etc. I have no idea who the first and second cell carriers were or how things worked.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

Out of genuine curiosity, how did it all start then? There must have been a time when there were only 100 cell phones, and a time when there were only 1,000, etc. I have no idea who the first and second cell carriers were or how things worked.

You got me thinking so I took a quick look at wikipedia..... its interesting - makes me want to learn a little more in depth about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_phone

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So where should the line be drawn? Should they allow iPhone unlocks, DRM circumvention, and cater to all other common wishes to help satisfy their customers (or, at least the ones in here) and maintain their brand?

You will find the people you are referring to are few and far in-between.

I've heard you go after the apologist zealots, and now those that question Apple's moves... I guess you can't be a Apple user without someone complaining.

However having said that, I think if Linux users would expect MORE it might actually go somewhere. I've been told since 99 that Linux was "just about ready" for average joe usage.

Almost a decade later....

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Many Americans I feel are way too passive and happy to accept whatever technology companies decide with minimal fuss.

So it has went from Apple customers thing, to now just Americans.. Interesting. I wonder if that was done on purpose, or if it was just a slip...

[besson3c]

Jesus Christ Kevin, do you need directions as to how to ignore me? You'd think that for somebody who has been on this board as long as you have, you'd know how to use vBulletin to do this.

I don't care to read your posts, I don't respect you, and obviously you don't respect me, so what are you trying to accomplish? Ignore me please (and save us with your "I'm saving MacNN from bullies" rubbish, it is fatally flawed and you know it).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Jesus Christ Kevin

I like the fact that you knowingly used Jesus's name in a way my religion considers disrespectful. Why even mention his name at all? I find it humorous that those that don't believe, say his name more than those that do in this forum. And I doubt those that do it, even realize it. Or why.

Rarely do I see you using such expression. So I can only take it as it being on purpose.
How sad.

do you need directions as to how to ignore me?

Why would I need directions to a place I don't want to go? I don't feel the need to put anyone on ignore. No matter how obnoxious they are. I'd rather that person instead change his or her ways that would cause them to be put on ignore by someone like me. Like say if a person had a habit of being hostile towards people, or pretentiously smug when replying to people they deem "under" them. Wouldn't it be nicer if we didn't have to put these people on ignore? That these people just grew up and stopped the silliness?

You'd think that for somebody who has been on this board as long as you have, you'd know how to use vBulletin to do this.

Why you are acting like I have said desire to do such a thing, but don't know how is beyond me. I think besson owes me an apology.. because not only do I not hold a desire to put him on ignore, I surely know the steps in doing so.

I don't care to read your posts,

Then don't read them. No one is making you. I thought you already told me you had me on ignore. About a hundred times. I've never used the ignore feature. Does it take people off ignore suddenly without your knowledge? That seems to be the case from those that claim they have me on ignore.

I don't respect me

Well you should. Self worth is important.

and obviously you don't respect me

Oh I respect you besson. I may not however respect some of the things you do/say to people. If you don't like the reaction you get when you do and say these things, you'd think you'd simply stop doing them. But that doesn't seem to be the case with you. Because you don't think you are doing anything wrong. And it's just me "pestering" you. Much like the Bully that blames those that "tattle" on him for doing wrong for getting into trouble, instead of blaming himself for doing the wrong.

so what are you trying to accomplish. Ignore me.

I've already answered your question. And told you how you could get me to ignore you. Many many times. So why you still ask this question just baffles me.

Was this a small little besson blow-up we just witnessed?

BTW one last thing. You know how me replying to posts of yours makes you feel?

Now think for a minute.

What if, just what if, (Ok forget what if, it happens all the time..) your threads or posts replying to people creates the SAME annoyance to them because of your pretentiously condescending banter?

Should everyone just put you on ignore? Or should maybe besson change the way he addresses and treats people? Like I told you before, I'd be willing to ignore you completely and not reply to any of your posts if you'd stop doing this. So far you being condescending and rude to people seems to be more important than me ignoring you.

And until that changes, my ignore list will be empty. The ball is in your court besson. You can easily get me to stop replying to you. You just choose not to.

You want to be able to make fun of people, make xenophobic comments, and talk down to others as if "you know better" while at the same time, no one is to do the same to you. You can't dish it out unless you are able to take it too.

[brassplayersrock²]

how many books could you have written by now Kevin? the first book could be about your man crush on besson3c

Alex

[besson3c]

I can't believe I'm taking the time to point this out, yet again, but here we go:

1) By attacking and baiting me for no particular reason, you are being a MacNN bully. It's all fine and dandy to obsess over who is a hypocrite, a character assassin, and whatever other terms you are stuck on lately, but does this not apply to you?

2) You are not a mod

3) Most importantly and my reason for writing this: you are disrespecting and insulting the rest of MacNN by implying that they are incapable of handling me on their own. Is that your intention?


Really Kevin, if this was just you stalking me and taking issue with my existence, that would be one thing, but I'm now acutely aware that this little thing between us is annoying other members, so we ought to cut it out. Just ignore me and I'll do the same, okay?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I believe the fee to cancel is because most phones are subsidized and this is their way to not lose money on them. Of course non subsidized phones like the iphone shouldn't have any cost to cancel and that is where I think the companies screw you.

In many cases this is the case ... and I don't have a problem with a cancellation fee for situations like this. But increasingly, there are cell phone contracts just because the cell phone companies want to lock you in. Case in point .... the iPhone. The phone itself is not subsidized so why do you have to sign a 2 year contract? The phone is already locked so you can't use it outside of AT&T anyway without hacking .... so why require a contract? If you want to use the MyFaves feature on T-Mobile why do you have to sign a 2 year contract? Even if you are using an unlocked phone?

IMO, this is the cell phone response to the Number Portability legislation that was enacted in recent years. Prior to that, people were "soft-locked" to a cell phone company because they didn't want to give up their phone number. Now that you can take your number with you ... along with the fact that most cell phone companies are practically giving away phones ... what is there to keep you when a cell phone company's service (network and customer) sucked? Well now there are contracts with high cancellation fees. It's sad when companies resort to such tactics to maintain customers when they ought to be focused on providing good and reliable service to do it. Imagine that.

OAW

[MindFad]

It's not Apple's responsibility to make the iPhone magically work with every network/company, nor support those who would modify the phone's software. It's in their best interest to team with with an industry provider (in this case largest provider in the US, no?) to make their product successful for their business. It's business, it's a hot product. And there are technologies at work that AT&T and Apple implemented that is a key part of the device's functionality (visual voicemail, boosting the network speed—my point being, there is a partnership here). And despite all the techno doom and gloom, no one is forced to buy an iPhone. Life goes on without an iPhone (barely, it seems, for some).

Maybe if there's enough demand for it, it will happen. But iPhone is looking pretty successful so far, no, despite all of those victimized early adopters stuck on AT&T. Woe is them.

[Eug]

Well, the iPod touch is crippled for no good technical reason, and so I'm not buying. It's as simple as that.

I really don't see how removing iCal event entry in the iPod touch helps Apple in any way, shape, or form. ie. Yes they're a business, but some of their business decisions seem very strange to me.

I think having iCal event entry is a realistic expectation, on an iPod touch which has a touch screen and virtual keyboard, Address Book contact entry, and a frickin' web browser and WiFi. Don't you?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

It's not Apple's responsibility to make the iPhone magically work with every network/company, nor support those who would modify the phone's software. It's in their best interest to team with with an industry provider (in this case largest provider in the US, no?) to make their product successful for their business. It's business, it's a hot product. And there are technologies at work that AT&T and Apple implemented that is a key part of the device's functionality (visual voicemail, boosting the network speed—my point being, there is a partnership here). And despite all the techno doom and gloom, no one is forced to buy an iPhone. Life goes on without an iPhone (barely, it seems, for some).

Maybe if there's enough demand for it, it will happen. But iPhone is looking pretty successful so far, no, despite all of those victimized early adopters stuck on AT&T. Woe is them.

It would be one thing to say "if you jerryrig your iPhone to work with other providers, you are on your own, we will not support this" and another thing to threaten to intentionally break iPhones that have been unlocked, isn't it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, the iPod touch is crippled for no good technical reason, and so I'm not buying. It's as simple as that.

I really don't see how removing iCal event entry in the iPod touch helps Apple in any way, shape, or form. ie. Yes they're a business, but some of their business decisions seem very strange to me.

I think having iCal event entry is a realistic expectation, on an iPod touch which has a touch screen and virtual keyboard, Address Book contact entry, and a frickin' web browser and WiFi. Don't you?

One has to be conscious of not cannibalizing sales of other products sold by a given company, but it seems like it would be in Apple's interest to do this in a less transparent way. A little teasing and enticement to upgrade is one thing, but something like this is sort of like selling OS X and surprising the customer by saying "sorry, only OS X deluxe users can empty the trash"

Maybe the analogy is a little flawed, but...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

One has to be conscious of not cannibalizing sales of other products sold by a given company

Yes perhaps they're afraid of cannibalizing iPhone sales.

However, they should also be worried about people just ignoring both product lines altogether... like me, and several others I know of. There are no iPhones for sale here at all, so I buy neither the iPhone nor the iPod touch. (I would not likely have bought an iPhone anyway even if it were available here, due to the carrier restrictions, lack of 3G support, and its limited storage.)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

It's not Apple's responsibility to make the iPhone magically work with every network/company, nor support those who would modify the phone's software. It's in their best interest to team with with an industry provider (in this case largest provider in the US, no?) to make their product successful for their business. It's business, it's a hot product. And there are technologies at work that AT&T and Apple implemented that is a key part of the device's functionality (visual voicemail, boosting the network speed—my point being, there is a partnership here). And despite all the techno doom and gloom, no one is forced to buy an iPhone. Life goes on without an iPhone (barely, it seems, for some).

The thing is, a GSM phone is a GSM phone. It is a worldwide standard. This is why the phone "just works" with just about any GSM provider. The only thing specific that AT&T brought to the table was visual voicemail. And let's be honest here .... AT&T didn't bet the farm to implement such a basic feature set. Besides, the iPhone functions just fine with "regular voicemail" as those who are using it T-Mobile can attest. Locking a phone to a particular carrier is not done for technical reasons. It is a business arrangement only. Apple & AT&T could have easily implemented a joint marketing "preferred provider" deal to promote the iPhone and the AT&T service ... but still left the phone unlocked to gain customers who wished to use other carriers. But of course, the only way to get the monthly revenue cut from the carrier was to give them an exclusive deal. Great for Apple. Not so great for many customers and potential customers.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The thing is, a GSM phone is a GSM phone. It is a worldwide standard. This is why the phone "just works" with just about any GSM provider. The only thing specific that AT&T brought to the table was visual voicemail. And let's be honest here .... AT&T didn't bet the farm to implement such a basic feature set. Besides, the iPhone functions just fine with "regular voicemail" as those who are using it T-Mobile can attest. Locking a phone to a particular carrier is not done for technical reasons. It is a business arrangement only. Apple & AT&T could have easily implemented a joint marketing "preferred provider" deal to promote the iPhone and the AT&T service ... but still left the phone unlocked to gain customers who wished to use other carriers. But of course, the only way to get the monthly revenue cut from the carrier was to give them an exclusive deal. Great for Apple. Not so great for many customers and potential customers.

OAW

Good post!

I hope we don't have to wait for Apple's contract with AT&T to expire to make the iPhone available on other GSM networks... Like you said, Apple could continue to push the AT&T/Apple partnership, but they only stand to gain by making the hardware also work on other networks.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It would be one thing to say "if you jerryrig your iPhone to work with other providers, you are on your own, we will not support this" and another thing to threaten to intentionally break iPhones that have been unlocked, isn't it?

Yes. Apple's done the former.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes. Apple's done the former.

Did you not read that press release that somebody posted the other day about an Apple update rendering iPhones permanently useless that read as more of a threat/scare tactic? Was this an official release?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did you not read that press release that somebody posted the other day about an Apple update rendering iPhones permanently useless that read as more of a threat/scare tactic? Was this an official release?

Yes, it said that unlocking the iPhone can permanently alter its firmware in a way that might render it incompatible with future software updates. People can say it "read" any way they want, but Apple did not say they have any intention of breaking phones. They just warned that they don't support unlocked phones and future updates might interact badly with them.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can't believe I'm taking the time to point this out, yet again, but here we go:

1) By attacking and baiting me for no particular reason, you are being a MacNN bully.

Fuzzy Wombat • View topic - MacNN prank

Fuzzy Wombat :: View topic - Besson declares war

All I have to say on the matter. Those speak for themselves.

BTW besson, I just asked you when did Apple users started = Americans. Cause your rant changed from just Apple users, who are world wide, to just an rant on Americans. I just found that odd. And finding such a thing is odd is normal.

Many Americans I feel are way too passive and happy to accept whatever technology companies decide with minimal fuss.

Your rant went from Apple users, to just Americans. It was a valid question. Instead of answering it, you got upset at me JUST FOR REPLYING to your post.

And as far as people not being able to handle you on their own... yes there is. And they have admitted it to me.

But thats ok. I am trying to make a deal with a mod as we speak about this situation. To get it rectified once and for all. Since me and you can't come to an agreement. (Well I can, but I can't seem to get you to...)

Or we could skip over them entirely, and just both agree that we will leave each other, and other people alone as far as the condescending banter goes. Both of us. Not just me, or not just you. What do you say besson? Are you up for it? I am.

Balls in your court.

(ps. my long winded post above was posted to maybe show you how you make others feel when you post similarly to them. But alas nothing clicked)

I actually like you besson. And I'd love to be your friend. You have musical knowledge I can use and pick your brain with.

And I am sure a lot of other people in here could also. This person you are trying to paint as hating you, just simply doesn't exist. At least not within me.

I guess your response to this will pretty much be the deciding factor as to what the next step is. And maybe a glimpse into the motivation behind it.

So what do you say? Bury the hatched once and for all? No talking about each other behind one another backs? No being condescending to other people? No passive aggressiveness?

Again, this goes for both of us. I am all for it. Again, ball is in your court.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

It's not Apple's responsibility to make the iPhone magically work with every network/company, nor support those who would modify the phone's software. It's in their best interest to team with with an industry provider (in this case largest provider in the US, no?) to make their product successful for their business. It's business, it's a hot product. And there are technologies at work that AT&T and Apple implemented that is a key part of the device's functionality (visual voicemail, boosting the network speed—my point being, there is a partnership here). And despite all the techno doom and gloom, no one is forced to buy an iPhone. Life goes on without an iPhone (barely, it seems, for some).

Maybe if there's enough demand for it, it will happen. But iPhone is looking pretty successful so far, no, despite all of those victimized early adopters stuck on AT&T. Woe is them.

This is pretty much my feelings of it all. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Speak with your wallet.

I have no need for such a device. I am not that important.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, it said that unlocking the iPhone can permanently alter its firmware in a way that might render it incompatible with future software updates. People can say it "read" any way they want, but Apple did not say they have any intention of breaking phones. They just warned that they don't support unlocked phones and future updates might interact badly with them.

I see, perhaps I misinterpreted the matter.

It will be interesting to see whether the updates do break the iPhone, and whether it is evident that Apple went out of their way to break unlocked iPhones. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if they did in the same sort of way that Apple seemed to play cat and mouse with those who attempted to circumvent its DRM, and possibly those who attempted to install OS X on a generic PC.

[besson3c]

Kevin, I'm not interested in talking with you. Please ignore me.

[Kevin]

I have no problem with you as a person. I like besson. I may not like some of your actions. But you can't make everyone happy.

I don't like ignore lists. I like humans working things out like adults.

So how about the same agreement. But you don't have to talk to me? I would surely never try to make someone talk to me that didn't want to. So it's a win win situation.

BTW I thought I was already on your ignore list? As you've announced to the forum many times. If I am, how are you seeing my posts?

I would suggest if you don't like me, or dislike me that much, you continue to put me on your ignore list, as you've claimed you already have.

That is if you aren't for the agreement above minus the talking bits.

By putting me on your ignore list, you will no longer have to see my posts. Or know what I am saying. Problem solved.

You attempt to paint me as this awful person besson. Someone I am not. I am extending my hand of peace to you, and you just respond with "I don't want to talk to you"

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do Apple customers have unrealistic expectations as to how Apple should conduct themselves?


I hear people griping about the iPhone locking stuff, about DRM (pre DRM free iTunes songs), about the video cards Apple puts in their Macs, most recently about the hardware requirements for Leopard, etc. Do you think that some people have fantasies about Apple being some sort of altruistic company that always caters to the satisfaction of their customers and is about consistently doing their business in a fair and reasonable way? I guess this is a rather leading question, but.

I think only a small (but somewhat vocal) group of people are complaining. The vast majority of people who buy an iphone have no intentions to hack it.

What you see and read here is not indicative of the majority people who buy apple products.

Since I don't own an iphone I have not really followed the whole hacking/warranty thing too closely so I'm not going to comment on the rightness or wrongness of that, other then saying that it only effects a small percentage and it doesn't make sense for apple to bend over backwards to them.


btw I think the hissy fit you're having with Kevin is humorous because you seem to go out of your way to get his goat and or as you say "pranks" yet now when he states a valid point you get all pissey on him. You can't have it both ways.